Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm practically a hippy when it comes to this. I don't even like to wear sunblock.
First and above all rule, nutrition and exercise.
As for supplements, I believe in general they're useless but harmless. I do take chelated magnesium as I noticed I began cramping up everyday (I lift weights and do cardio everyday) without them. I also take protein supplements (vegan and whey) as I find my recovery time improves from a day in the gym.
As for drugs themselves, my rule is drugs are never good for you, but in certain isolated situations they can do more good than harm. The older the drug the better. About the only drug I take everyday is caffeine via coffee. I have taken antibiotics after injuries (but try and limit those) and I remember taking Ivermectin when I got scabies. Other than that, I cannot recall taking any drugs for most of my adult life. I guess if I were a type1 diabetic for example I'd take insulin, and some cases like this. But overall, I don't trust drugs.
If I get cancer, I won't take any drugs. Reading through cancer drug trials has been eye opening (I'm doing some market research as I'm vested in a company bringing certain checkpoint inhibitors to the market for cancer treatment).
I believe most conditions we use drugs to treat can be ameliorated more effectively through good nutrition and exercise.
As for vaccines, I believe that our traditional vaccines are overhyped and carry a small risk of developing autoimmune diseases. While I think if taken in isolation, they can be a net positive, the current recommendations to basically take a vaccine for every disease I think is not good, and is really increasing your risk of autoimmune issues. The vaccines I had as a child, I had, but I don't plan on getting anymore vaccines ever again (unless say I'm bitten by a rabid dog then I will take the rabies shot).
This has to be some kind of gag.
ETA - for anyone living and breathing in the reality-sphere cancer death rates are down 27% since 1999. That's overwhelmingly due to less smoking, better and better targeted screening and better treatments.
ETA II - I doubt very seriously our buddy AfricanSunset would take no drugs if he developed a serious cancer. I've never heard of anyone forgoing cancer pain meds. or chest drains etc. by choice.
I'm practically a hippy when it comes to this. I don't even like to wear sunblock.
First and above all rule, nutrition and exercise.
As for supplements, I believe in general they're useless but harmless. I do take chelated magnesium as I noticed I began cramping up everyday (I lift weights and do cardio everyday) without them. I also take protein supplements (vegan and whey) as I find my recovery time improves from a day in the gym.
As for drugs themselves, my rule is drugs are never good for you, but in certain isolated situations they can do more good than harm. The older the drug the better. About the only drug I take everyday is caffeine via coffee. I have taken antibiotics after injuries (but try and limit those) and I remember taking Ivermectin when I got scabies. Other than that, I cannot recall taking any drugs for most of my adult life. I guess if I were a type1 diabetic for example I'd take insulin, and some cases like this. But overall, I don't trust drugs.
If I get cancer, I won't take any drugs. Reading through cancer drug trials has been eye opening (I'm doing some market research as I'm vested in a company bringing certain checkpoint inhibitors to the market for cancer treatment).
I believe most conditions we use drugs to treat can be ameliorated more effectively through good nutrition and exercise.
As for vaccines, I believe that our traditional vaccines are overhyped and carry a small risk of developing autoimmune diseases. While I think if taken in isolation, they can be a net positive, the current recommendations to basically take a vaccine for every disease I think is not good, and is really increasing your risk of autoimmune issues. The vaccines I had as a child, I had, but I don't plan on getting anymore vaccines ever again (unless say I'm bitten by a rabid dog then I will take the rabies shot).
So, if you get a lymphoma that is very treatable by chemo, you won't take the drugs? Or a breast cancer that has a high HER2 score and is treatable with herceptin?
Personally, I will look at survival times. I am probably not going to take chemo to gain 3 months with a 5% chance for more time. I would take the herceptin and taxotere(if I were female), having seen my mother live 13 years after being diagnosed with breast cancer that used to be fatal. I was lucky that my sinus cancer was treatable with surgery and proton therapy, so I still have chemo as a backup.
ETA - for anyone living and breathing in the reality-sphere cancer death rates are down 27% since 1999. That's overwhelmingly due to less smoking, better and better targeted screening and better treatments.
ETA II - I doubt very seriously our buddy AfricanSunset would take no drugs if he developed a serious cancer. I've never heard of anyone forgoing cancer pain meds. or chest drains etc. by choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
So, if you get a lymphoma that is very treatable by chemo, you won't take the drugs? Or a breast cancer that has a high HER2 score and is treatable with herceptin?
Personally, I will look at survival times. I am probably not going to take chemo to gain 3 months with a 5% chance for more time. I would take the herceptin and taxotere(if I were female), having seen my mother live 13 years after being diagnosed with breast cancer that used to be fatal. I was lucky that my sinus cancer was treatable with surgery and proton therapy, so I still have chemo as a backup.
Of course, I write this as a caveat that I don't have cancer now, if I did, my stance may change.
After reviewing countless studies on various cancer drugs, for the SOC treatments for cancers considered very treatable (like rituximab + CHOP for non-hodgkins lymphoma) see's an OR for median 2 year survival somewhere between 25-35%. Or if you like, on average it gives you 7 months of life. For me that's just not worth it (from my eyes today) as that's a very crappy 7 months anyways.
People forget that cancers spontaneously go away on their own, remission. My grandfather's melanoma went into complete remission for about 15 years with just surgical removal, before re-appearing and killing him. However, these cases are not rare.
A lot of gains in cancer lifespans has just been detecting it earlier. Eg let's suppose a hypothetical cancer always has a 5 year survival duration from moment of first cell becomes cancerous. Then if in 2000, you detected it on average in the 3rd year phase and then in 2020 in the 1st year phase - you might think you gained 2 years, but in reality it was just detected earlier. I'm not saying that's the only effect, but it's the bulk of the effect. **
I posted a study where Americans were being diagnosed with cancers younger and younger. Of course, if you understand something that everyday some of your cells become cancerous but in general your body finds them and kills them - then as we develop better tools for detection, we will detect a lot of cancers that would go into remission on their own.
Anyways, cancer is a passion of mine. My father + all my grandparents died from cancer. It's something that I feel will catch up with me sooner or later, so I'm in this space now for better or worse. But being immunosuppressed, taking toxic DNA chain terminators for a few months of crappy life to me right now sounds horrible. I rather kill myself.
Do you know how for say cyclophosphamide works? It's first metabolized into phosphoramide, which is then incorporated into your cell's DNA, this prevents your DNA from being read, and the cell dies. And this is one of the less toxic ones.
** A lot of cancer drug trials have no control because BigPharma is aware of this. Even if the drug is not superior, people tend to live longer with said cancer when the trial is done today because they were likely diagnosed with said cancer earlier. I know just a few posts I ranted at surrogate endpoints (eg tumor size) as a primary endpoint, but they make great secondary endpoints because you can compare tumor sizes between studies to see if we're talking apples to apples or apples to oranges.
As for supplements, I believe in general they're useless but harmless. I do take chelated magnesium as I noticed I began cramping up everyday (I lift weights and do cardio everyday) without them. I also take protein supplements (vegan and whey) as I find my recovery time improves from a day in the gym.
.....
I believe most conditions we use drugs to treat can be ameliorated more effectively through good nutrition and exercise.
Well, doctors are now advocating supplements but in the past, they were against them saying that we get all we need from the food we eat. Yes, the food we eat does contain all the nutrients we need - until we cook it to death or refine it and process it.
But anyway, during the covid scare, I decided to 'fortify' myself by taking a raft of supplements (vitamins and mineral) just to make sure I wasn't deficient in anything. Well, after a few months I began to notice distinct changes. My lady has noticed too. For example, I am healing much quicker and getting infections in wounds far less often and even when I do get infections, those resolve much quicker than before. Also, my night cramps (well, any cramps) have gone. My energy is also up and my blood pressure has come down from around 150/90 to 11o/75.
Either there is one thing I am taking that is doing something or it is a combination of the whole bunch or some of the bunch. So, my observation is that supplements are or can be beneficial, at least to some people. Now considering how badly some people eat .... Well, they can only benefit. But don't overdose. And apparently there is such a thing as therapeutic supplementation. I've not seen any trials to support that claim though.
I should just add that in my parts, magnesium is known to be deficient in the soils and hence in out foods. So is iodine (which I have not been taking). Iodine is also carried away by steam during boiling.
I should just add that in my parts, magnesium is known to be deficient in the soils and hence in out foods. So is iodine (which I have not been taking). Iodine is also carried away by steam during boiling.
For iodine, I eat a lot of fish and seaweed. I have never tried supplements for it, but seaweed is a great source.
Of course, I write this as a caveat that I don't have cancer now, if I did, my stance may change.
After reviewing countless studies on various cancer drugs, for the SOC treatments for cancers considered very treatable (like rituximab + CHOP for non-hodgkins lymphoma) see's an OR for median 2 year survival somewhere between 25-35%. Or if you like, on average it gives you 7 months of life. For me that's just not worth it (from my eyes today) as that's a very crappy 7 months anyways.
People forget that cancers spontaneously go away on their own, remission. My grandfather's melanoma went into complete remission for about 15 years with just surgical removal, before re-appearing and killing him. However, these cases are not rare.
A lot of gains in cancer lifespans has just been detecting it earlier. Eg let's suppose a hypothetical cancer always has a 5 year survival duration from moment of first cell becomes cancerous. Then if in 2000, you detected it on average in the 3rd year phase and then in 2020 in the 1st year phase - you might think you gained 2 years, but in reality it was just detected earlier. I'm not saying that's the only effect, but it's the bulk of the effect. **
I posted a study where Americans were being diagnosed with cancers younger and younger. Of course, if you understand something that everyday some of your cells become cancerous but in general your body finds them and kills them - then as we develop better tools for detection, we will detect a lot of cancers that would go into remission on their own.
Anyways, cancer is a passion of mine. My father + all my grandparents died from cancer. It's something that I feel will catch up with me sooner or later, so I'm in this space now for better or worse. But being immunosuppressed, taking toxic DNA chain terminators for a few months of crappy life to me right now sounds horrible. I rather kill myself.
Do you know how for say cyclophosphamide works? It's first metabolized into phosphoramide, which is then incorporated into your cell's DNA, this prevents your DNA from being read, and the cell dies. And this is one of the less toxic ones.
** A lot of cancer drug trials have no control because BigPharma is aware of this. Even if the drug is not superior, people tend to live longer with said cancer when the trial is done today because they were likely diagnosed with said cancer earlier. I know just a few posts I ranted at surrogate endpoints (eg tumor size) as a primary endpoint, but they make great secondary endpoints because you can compare tumor sizes between studies to see if we're talking apples to apples or apples to oranges.
My son was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia when he was 13. He just had his 47th birthday. About 90$ of those under age 18 are alive ten years after treatment and considered cured. He was on chemo for three years. Was it horrible? Yes. Was it worth it? Yes.
Spontaneous remission of cancer may occur, but it is not common, and it would be unwise to forgo treatment with the expectation that it will happen.
Placebos are not used in "a lot" of cancer treatment trials. It would be unethical to use them if an established highly effective or potentially curative treatment exists. My son participated in such a trial, and the experimental drug he received was added to the standard treatment.
My son was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia when he was 13. He just had his 47th birthday. About 90$ of those under age 18 are alive ten years after treatment and considered cured. He was on chemo for three years. Was it horrible? Yes. Was it worth it? Yes.
Spontaneous remission of cancer may occur, but it is not common, and it would be unwise to forgo treatment with the expectation that it will happen.
Placebos are not used in "a lot" of cancer treatment trials. It would be unethical to use them if an established highly effective or potentially curative treatment exists. My son participated in such a trial, and the experimental drug he received was added to the standard treatment.
Placebos are not used in "a lot" of cancer treatment trials.
I think you're responding to this sentence: A lot of cancer drug trials have no control because BigPharma is aware of this
Note, control doesn't necessarily mean placebo, it could also be SOC. A lot of clinical trials in oncology are uncontrolled longitudinal studies.
I did post a study just a few posts up of a control group just getting a placebo even though SOC dictates chemotherapy. That would be an example of an unethical study.
I think you're responding to this sentence: A lot of cancer drug trials have no control because BigPharma is aware of this
Note, control doesn't necessarily mean placebo, it could also be SOC. A lot of clinical trials in oncology are uncontrolled longitudinal studies.
I did post a study just a few posts up of a control group just getting a placebo even though SOC dictates chemotherapy. That would be an example of an unethical study.
What I am responding to is your frequent use of "a lot".
Please cite an example of an "uncontrolled longitudinal study" in oncology.
You mentioned placebo when I said no such thing. Control group is not always on a placebo, it's just a control (can be placebo, another drug, or no drug at all).
You mentioned placebo when I said no such thing. Control group is not always on a placebo, it's just a control (can be placebo, another drug, or no drug at all).
That is a quality of life study, not one evaluating effectiveness.
You said "a lot" of studies have "no control". You still have not supported that claim.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
