Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #1
    phooph's Avatar
    phooph
     

    How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    How Effective is Chemotherapy?


    The following table was published in the journal Clinical Oncology in December 2004. The results of this study were astonishing, showing that chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2 percent for ALL cancers!

    In the U.S., chemo was most successful in treating testicular cancer and Hodgkin’s disease, where its success rate fell just below 38 percent and slightly over 40 percent respectively. Still well below the 50/50 mark.
    A review of chemo on 5-year survival rates in Australia garnered almost identical results, with a 2.3 percent success rate, compared to the U.S. 2.1 percent rate of success.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. TopTop #2
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    Quote phooph wrote: View Post
    How Effective is Chemotherapy?
    ...
    How about megadosing on vitamins while doing chemotherapy?

    https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20...rapy-bad-combo

    Oct. 1, 2008 -- Vitamin C supplements and chemotherapy aren't a good combination, says a team of New York researchers. Vitamin C reduced the effectiveness of many cancer drugs, they found in laboratory and animal studies.

    "What we found is that vitamin C blunted the effectiveness of all the chemotherapy drugs we studied," ... {end quote: follow the link for the rest of the article.}

    Maybe that's why. Nutcase "alternative practitioners" recommending vitamins. If anything, outrageously multiplying cells should probably be starved, not fed. Perhaps fasting would work better.

    If you're getting cancer treatment, stay away from vitamins. This is only one of many studies showing cancer problems with vitamin pill consumption. One thing for sure, vitamin pills don't prevent cancer.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  3. TopTop #3
    MsTerry
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    What are you recommending to treat cancer Jeff?

    Quote Braggi wrote: View Post
    How about megadosing on vitamins while doing chemotherapy?

    https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20...rapy-bad-combo

    Oct. 1, 2008 -- Vitamin C supplements and chemotherapy aren't a good combination, says a team of New York researchers. Vitamin C reduced the effectiveness of many cancer drugs, they found in laboratory and animal studies.

    "What we found is that vitamin C blunted the effectiveness of all the chemotherapy drugs we studied," ... {end quote: follow the link for the rest of the article.}

    Maybe that's why. Nutcase "alternative practitioners" recommending vitamins. If anything, outrageously multiplying cells should probably be starved, not fed. Perhaps fasting would work better.

    If you're getting cancer treatment, stay away from vitamins. This is only one of many studies showing cancer problems with vitamin pill consumption. One thing for sure, vitamin pills don't prevent cancer.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. TopTop #4
    shellebelle
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    I don't know what they looked at or why but here's the thing two of my friends are alive because of chemo one with breast cancer and one with stomach cancer. The breast has been in remission many years (12, I think) and the stomach has been 3 years but the chemo was on going with the final treatment just about three weeks ago. If I get 1 year, 1 month or 1 day extra because of a therapy I am blessed; 5 years and I am ecstatic!

    Since everyone I know with cancer in remission are still alive or died after a long life from age related issues I think I'll just be grateful!

    Quote phooph wrote: View Post
    The following table was published in the journal Clinical Oncology in December 2004. The results of this study were astonishing, showing that chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2 percent for ALL cancers!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  5. TopTop #5
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    Quote MsTerry wrote: View Post
    What are you recommending to treat cancer Jeff?
    That appears as a simple question, but there are hundreds if not thousands of answers for it. Cancer isn't an illness. It's many, many illnesses grouped together as a classification. Some are so different from others there are almost no similarities. Compare melanoma with leukemia. Prostate cancer with lung cancer.

    If I had melanoma I'd opt for surgery as soon as possible. Leukemia I'd go for chemo (there have been amazing breakthroughs in recent years amounting to near cures), lung cancer and I might opt for surgery, radiation and chemo. Prostate cancer and I might opt for no treatment at all.

    Any of these and I'd likely cut way back on calories and increase my exercise to become as lean as I could and still be healthy.

    I would avoid vitamin pills as much as I do now because they appear in nearly all the recent studies to only cause harm and do no good.

    So? How 'bout you MsTerry?

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. TopTop #6
    phooph's Avatar
    phooph
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    Jeff,

    Another in a long list of attacks on nutrition. If you read the article you saw they were using megadoses and that it doesn't neutralize chemotherapy, it blunts it - in mice, which, unlike humans, produce their own Vit. C. This was attributed to the fact that chemotherapy damages the mitochondria of cancer cells and Vit C protects it. Chemotherapy also damages the mitochondria of non-cancerous cells.

    Chemotherapys are poisons designed to kill fast growing cells. Other fast growing cells are hair follicles, blood cells, including immune system cells, and the lining of the digestive tract which replaces itself every three days. Chemotherapy patients often develop life threatening malnutrition and dehydration, anemia, and a compromised immune system as a result. That's why many cancer patients on chemo waste away rather rapidly. Vitamin C also helps to blunt the damaging side effects of chemotherapy on cells essential for maintining health and life.

    And here's a study done on humans that found that anti-oxidants enhanced the tumor killing effects of chemotherapy. There are others. It may depend upon the particular drug being used.

    As for cancer prevention, it depends upon both the vitamin and the cancer.

    https://findarticles.com/p/articles/...st/ai_78177222
    https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/s-s00/vitaminc.html
    https://www.doctoryourself.com/chemo.html

    Ruth

    Quote Braggi wrote: View Post
    How about megadosing on vitamins while doing chemotherapy?

    https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20...rapy-bad-combo

    Oct. 1, 2008 -- Vitamin C supplements and chemotherapy aren't a good combination, says a team of New York researchers. Vitamin C reduced the effectiveness of many cancer drugs, they found in laboratory and animal studies.

    "What we found is that vitamin C blunted the effectiveness of all the chemotherapy drugs we studied," ... {end quote: follow the link for the rest of the article.}

    Maybe that's why. Nutcase "alternative practitioners" recommending vitamins. If anything, outrageously multiplying cells should probably be starved, not fed. Perhaps fasting would work better.

    If you're getting cancer treatment, stay away from vitamins. This is only one of many studies showing cancer problems with vitamin pill consumption. One thing for sure, vitamin pills don't prevent cancer.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  7. TopTop #7
    Zeno Swijtink's Avatar
    Zeno Swijtink
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    Quote phooph wrote: View Post
    How Effective is Chemotherapy?


    The following table was published in the journal Clinical Oncology in December 2004. The results of this study were astonishing, showing that chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2 percent for ALL cancers!
    I think it's important also to quote the conclusion of this study (Morgan, G. et al. (2004). Clinical Oncology 16, 549e560):

    "Conclusion: As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required."

    It's not an attack on traditional medicine, but an effort to put the contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy into perspective.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. TopTop #8
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    Quote phooph wrote: View Post
    Jeff,

    Another in a long list of attacks on nutrition. ...
    No, I've never "attacked" nutrition. Not even close. I'm a big fan of balanced diets and healthy forms of exercise.

    Vitamin pills are another topic entirely and have to be looked at for what they are: toxic artificial substances Nature never intended us to take. The difference between a nutrient and a toxin is very often a matter of dose. Megadosing on vitamins has only proven harmful in studies. There are a few rare illnesses where a person's system won't absorb certain vitamins so there might be individual cases where vitamin therapy fits, but the number of cases is vanishingly small.

    All the vitamin studies I've seen recently recommend certain foods that are rich in various vitamins, but not one of them recommends vitamin pills. Makes sense to me. Foods are natural, vitamin pills are not.

    When we attempt to simplify complex natural processes, like the absorption of vitamins, we court disaster, or at best, waste our time and money.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  9. TopTop #9
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    Quote Zeno Swijtink wrote: View Post
    ... It's not an attack on traditional medicine, but an effort to put the contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy into perspective.
    It's also worth noting that there are many different forms of chemotherapy, not all of them highly toxic.

    For the most part, I'm not for chemotherapy in the way it's so often used. I think it's another tool of medicine that is dramatically overused. Funny that as I write this I'm listening to an anti "traditional" cancer treatment rant on KPFA. So far it's all complaints and no solutions. Ah, there it is. It's about diet. They're saying the same thing modern medicine does. It's best to have a (primarily) plant based diet (note this "Healing Cancer" "documentary" calls for a totally plant based diet) containing large amounts of fruits and vegetables. That's what all the modern studies say so I don't doubt its validity. However, it's also worth noting that vegetarians get cancer too, and those who develop cancer are rarely "cured" by switching to any kind of specific diet.

    There are a great many successes in the struggle to cure cancers. Most of them come from so called western medicine. Studies of genetics, diet, environment and microbiology are finding keys to understanding cancers.

    If there are other treatments and cures from other sources I welcome them, and so does modern medicine.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. TopTop #10
    phooph's Avatar
    phooph
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    Jeff,

    I am not accusing you of attacking nutrition. This is an ongoing assault by the drug industry that has been waged for decades. I do agree that the best vitamins are those in our food, however, the increasing pollution in our environment negatively impacts upon nutrients and the amount the average person can consume in food often does not meet the needs of the individual.

    Minerals are another issue as our industrial farming methods are depleting the soil of essential minerals. Having spent decades on the subject and having read copiously of research reports, the idea that the people can garner all they need from their food only applies to a small group of people who eat an extremely well balanced diet consisting of carefully selected foods very high in nutrients. I try to consume such a diet, free of refined foods of all kinds and still I must supplement.

    Not every one is able to absorb everything from their food. The elderly notoriously suffer from age induced malnutrition often on a diet that served them well in their earlier years, and malnutrition accelerates aging. People with chronic diseases tend to be deficient in particular minerals. All diabetics, for instance, are zinc deficient.

    One might note that a study done on over a million NYC school children in which they were given a simple multivitamin supplement once a day produced higher grades, fewer missed days of school and a reduction in disruptive behavior and truancy. Similar studies done in a prisons both here and in Europe found supplementation markedly reduced aggression. Here's another.

    Many studies have been done on the role of supplementation and disease prevention.
    https://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/139/1/51
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18303648
    https://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten...ct/287/23/3127

    And there are many diseases that are ameliorated by vitamin supplements including HIV.

    Ruth

    Quote Braggi wrote: View Post
    No, I've never "attacked" nutrition. Not even close. I'm a big fan of balanced diets and healthy forms of exercise.

    Vitamin pills are another topic entirely and have to be looked at for what they are: toxic artificial substances Nature never intended us to take. The difference between a nutrient and a toxin is very often a matter of dose. Megadosing on vitamins has only proven harmful in studies. There are a few rare illnesses where a person's system won't absorb certain vitamins so there might be individual cases where vitamin therapy fits, but the number of cases is vanishingly small.

    All the vitamin studies I've seen recently recommend certain foods that are rich in various vitamins, but not one of them recommends vitamin pills. Makes sense to me. Foods are natural, vitamin pills are not.

    When we attempt to simplify complex natural processes, like the absorption of vitamins, we court disaster, or at best, waste our time and money.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  11. TopTop #11
    Sylph's Avatar
    Sylph
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    I agree that B-12 and other vitamins may be needed for the elderly and there are roles for other specific vitamins in certain populations or individuals.
    Kind of interesting that the first ref. downplays the role of vitamin supplementation:
    "The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against the use of supplements of vitamins A, C, or E; multivitamins with folic acid; or antioxidant combinations for the prevention of cancer or cardiovascular disease. "
    The second is apparently sponsored by Wyeth, which produces Centrum vitamins!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. TopTop #12
    phooph's Avatar
    phooph
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    Quote Braggi wrote: View Post
    How about megadosing on vitamins while doing chemotherapy?

    https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20...rapy-bad-combo

    -Jeff
    Here's another viewpoint on the article just out today:

    In Cancer Scare Story, Medical Researchers Admit Vitamin C Protects Cells from Free Radical Damage

    Wednesday, October 01, 2008 by: Mike Adams


    (NaturalNews) In headlines around the world, Vitamin C is once again under attack. The vitamin is extremely dangerous, researchers now say, because it might "interfere with the toxic effects of chemotherapy. " These mainstream media articles, of course, are attempting to convince cancer patients to stop taking vitamins that support health and, instead, allow chemotherapy to poison their body's cells without any protection whatsoever for healthy cells.

    But in stating that Vitamin C prevents chemotherapy chemicals from doing their work (of poisoning cells), what they're really doing, in effect, is admitting that Vitamin C is really, really good at protecting cells from free radical damage.

    "Vitamin C appears to protect the mitochondria from extensive damage, thus saving the cell," said lead researcher Dr Mark Heaney. A BBC article adds, "Vitamin C appeared to protect tiny structures inside the cancer cells called mitochondria from damage."

    Why are these admissions so remarkable? Because for decades, the mainstream medical establishment has insisted that vitamins have no protective effects on human cells whatsoever. Vitamins are useless, we've been told. They're inert. The FDA even has an official policy on this strange belief: Vitamins have zero physiological effects on the human body, because if they did, they'd be drugs, not vitamins.

    Apparently, then, if you believe western medicine's bizarre position on this subject, Vitamin C is inert and offers no protective effects to your body's cells unless you're on chemotherapy, in which case Vitamin C suddenly and magically protects cells from free radical damage.

    Apparently, Vitamin C is self aware and knows to only activate itself when taken by a cancer patient, but not by anybody else. This is precisely the belief of modern medical authorities.

    Yes, it's an awkward belief to wrap your head around... even for conventional medicine, which is steeped in a cult-like belief in pharmacology. The upshot of all this is that they can't attack Vitamin C as a "danger to chemotherapy patients" without admitting the vitamin actually protects human cells from damage by toxic chemicals.

    Of course, they're trying to have it both ways: One week, you'll see an article that says antioxidant vitamins are useless and have no benefits, and then the next week you'll see articles like we're seeing today, which claim that Vitamin C is so incredibly powerful at blocking the toxicity of chemicals that it poses a huge hazard to chemotherapy patients.

    You can't have it both ways, doc.

    Either Vitamin C works to protect cells -- ALL cells -- from damage, or it doesn't. Vitamin C doesn't just selectively turn itself on when consumed by cancer patients. The truth is that Vitamin C works to protect cells in everyone, regardless of what disease they might have!

    The myth of chemotherapy "treatment"
    There's another myth that deserves to be busted here, too: The myth that protective supplements "interfere" with toxic chemotherapy chemicals. The truth is, toxic chemotherapy is more quackery than anything else. Statistics show ZERO improvement in lifespan or quality of life for about 98% of patients receiving chemotherapy. Only a very small number of people suffering rare forms of cancer have any documented benefits from the often-deadly procedure.

    Let's face it, folks: Chemotherapy is poison. The whole point of the treatment is to poison the cancer cells, hoping the cancer dies before the patient dies. But often, the patient dies first. Chemotherapy has killed more people than it has ever saved. By any reasonable measure, chemotherapy is a barbaric form of modern quackery. It's based on junk science and sold with fear, and it offers nothing but pain, vomiting, hair loss, muscle loss and a dangerous suppression of the body's immune system.

    Anti-cancer supplements, on the other hand, offer a much nicer alternative: Support the body's immune system and help it overcome cancer on its own! Using powerful anti-cancer supplements in combination with detox therapies, virtually anyone can overcome cancer without ever needing to poison themselves. There are so many anti-cancer supplements available today, there's not even room to name them all, but here's a short list:

    Cat's claw, Spirulina, Vitamin D3, Vitamin C, Zinc, Selenium, Reishi Mushrooms, Shiitake Mushrooms, Garlic Extracts, Ginger, Quercetin, Broccoli Sprouts, DIM, Omega-3 fatty acids, Bloodroot, Chaparral, Curcumin (turmeric), Resveratrol and numerous others. Sunshine is anti-cancer. Raw foods are anti-cancer. Rainforest herbs are anti-cancer. And curing cancer, I've come to learn, is remarkably easy. I've personally met hundreds of people who have cured both early-stage and late-stage cancers using nothing but nutrition, sunlight and exercise. I've never met a single person cured by chemotherapy, though. Even the cancer doctors will tell you they have never cured anyone with chemotherapy (they don't even believe in cures!). I have visited many of their funerals, however.

    But wait: You're not supposed to know about these cancer cures! The FTC and FDA are busy running around the country threatening retailers of these cancer products, extorting money from them, threatening to imprison them and confiscate their products if they dare use the "cancer" word. It's a deliberate campaign to wipe out any knowledge about cancer therapies. In effect, it's an online book burning that's pursued for the purpose of eliminating all competition for chemotherapy, thus boosting the revenues of Big Pharma and keeping people sickened with cancer.

    The outright fraud of cancer non-profit groups
    And don't even get me started on the pink ribbon cancer non-profit groups, which are a total fraud, of course. They refuse to even teach women the basics of cancer prevention. They won't teach anyone about vitamin D, for example, or the anti-cancer properties of fresh produce. Their focus is to trap women in a system of cancer screening that actually causes breast cancer. Mammograms actually cause cancer, didn't you know? They irradiate the breast and heart. If you get enough mammograms, you'll eventually get breast cancer, because the mammography machines gave it to you! And once you're given a cancer diagnosis, they've got you trapped in a system of dangerous chemotherapy treatments that will absolutely destroy your health.

    It's quite a racket. An incredible scam. But hey, if you believe that buying "pink" candy made with cancer-causing chemicals is a great way to support cancer "research" (whatever that means), then go ahead! Buy all the pink crap you can find in the stores! Just don't kid yourself into thinking you're helping find a cure for cancer.

    The truth is, they're not looking for a cure. They're just looking to make a quick buck by selling you false hope... the hope that by buying more junk, you will be part of finding a "solution" for cancer.

    Well, the solution already exists, folks. It's found in anti-cancer foods, herbs and supplements. It's found in the sunshine berries, cacao and acai berries. The solution to cancer has already been found. It just can't be patented. It's not a drug. So the cancer industry has zero interest in actual cancer solutions that really work, and they keep selling the lie that they're "looking" for a cure.

    At the same time, they are doing their very best to try to scare people away from nutritional supplements that actually protect healthy cells: Vitamin C, chlorella, zinc, omega-3 oils and so on. That's their strategy: Keep people sick and stupid. Act like they're "searching for the cure." Take your money, sell you false hopes, and keep you ignorant so that you never find out the REAL cures for cancer that exist right now.

    That's the sad (but true) state of our modern cancer industry. It's a racket run by deceptive, dishonorable people who are far more interested in making a quick buck than solving the world's cancer problems.

    Their jobs, after all, depend on cancer. And very few people will ever advocate something that might be a threat to their paychecks.

    And remember this: Chemotherapy is merely a very expensive form of physician-assisted suicide.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  13. TopTop #13
    Sylph's Avatar
    Sylph
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    This is a silly statement:
    Sunshine is anti-cancer. Raw foods are anti-cancer. Rainforest herbs are anti-cancer. And curing cancer, I've come to learn, is remarkably easy. I've personally met hundreds of people who have cured both early-stage and late-stage cancers using nothing but nutrition, sunlight and exercise. I've never met a single person cured by chemotherapy, though. Even the cancer doctors will tell you they have never cured anyone with chemotherapy (they don't even believe in cures!). I have visited many of their funerals, however.
    Once you have cancer, you should avail yourself of all that conventional plus alternative medicine has to offer, after studying up on your particular kind of cancer. Of course, people have been cured by chemotherapy! As Jeff as pointed out, there are thousands of different kinds of cancer, some more treatable than others.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  14. TopTop #14
    phooph's Avatar
    phooph
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    Quote Sylph wrote: View Post
    This is a silly statement:

    Once you have cancer, you should avail yourself of all that conventional plus alternative medicine has to offer, after studying up on your particular kind of cancer. Of course, people have been cured by chemotherapy! As Jeff as pointed out, there are thousands of different kinds of cancer, some more treatable than others.
    Nothing silly at it at all if you are informed on the subject. Vitamin D is now considered critical in preventing cancer so yes, sunshine is anti-cancer. There are so many things that help prevent and reverse cancer that it could literally fill a very large book and many of these things are studied in science labs around the world and the data posted on science websites. Most of them never become a drug. I've spent a lot of time in the NIH database looking up herbs and other alternatives to see what studies have been done and what results they have. You'd be surprised.

    I agree that if you get cancer you should learn as much as you can about that particular cancer, then make lifestyle choices to support your body's abilities to defend against it. Learn also about all the alternatives and try those first!!!!!! An immune system damaged with chemotherapy is less able to deal with cancer. If that doesn't work go with chemo, surgery, radiation. But don't further damage your body till you have no other choice. The reality is we all get cancer every day and our bodies kill it off. When our immune systems are unable to do that we "come down with" cancer.

    I have seen many people go to alternatives after having been damaged by conventional medicine which failed but left them impaired, sometimes permanently. I have seen a lot of people free themselves of cancer using alternatives, often after having been failed by conventional medicine. As the original post revealed, most, but not all, chemotherapy fails. Consider the exception that is made for the chemo drugs that only succeed 1% or 2% of the time. What other drugs would be approved with such a poor track record? I'd like to see that measured against the spontaneous remission rate.

    I know a couple of people who got rid of their cancer with chemo but they had cancers that were among those most easily treated with chemo.

    The reality is that not much has changed in conventional medicine when it comes to treating cancer. The death rate has actually increased over time, and not all because we are living longer. We often hear that people are living longer after diagnosis, but that has all been attributed to earlier detection so of course people would be living longer after diagnosis.

    Here's a page of quotes on treating cancer from doctors and researchers.


    "Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy…Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors…Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo than without it."—Alan Levin, M.D.

    "My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate life-threatening situations."---Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, vol 6. )

    "In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life."---Interview of Dr Ralph Moss, Ph.D.

    "The great success stories of chemotherapy were always in relatively obscure types of cancer. Childhood leukemia constitutes less than two percent of all cancers and many of chemotherapy's other successes were in diseases so rare that many clinicians had never even seen a single case (Burkitt's lymphoma, choriocarcinoma, etc.)"—Ralph Moss

    "A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy (NCI Journal 87:10)."—John Diamond
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  15. TopTop #15
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    Quote phooph wrote: View Post
    Here's another viewpoint on the article just out today:
    ... Why are these admissions so remarkable? Because for decades, the mainstream medical establishment has insisted that vitamins have no protective effects on human cells whatsoever. Vitamins are useless, we've been told. They're inert. The FDA even has an official policy on this strange belief: Vitamins have zero physiological effects on the human body, because if they did, they'd be drugs, not vitamins.

    Apparently, then, if you believe western medicine's bizarre position on this subject, Vitamin C is inert and offers no protective effects to your body's cells unless you're on chemotherapy, in which case Vitamin C suddenly and magically protects cells from free radical damage. ...
    Oh gods! What a crock of crap. Where do you come up with this garbage?

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  16. TopTop #16
    Braggi's Avatar
    Braggi
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    Quote phooph wrote: View Post
    ... "A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy (NCI Journal 87:10)."—John Diamond
    Now, let's put on our thinking caps and try to figure out why this was. Hmmmmm. I think I have it. The ones who got chemotherapy were actually ill. The ones who didn't get chemo weren't ill enough to require that kind of radical treatment.

    That might have made the difference.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  17. TopTop #17
    phooph's Avatar
    phooph
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    Quote Braggi wrote: View Post
    Now, let's put on our thinking caps and try to figure out why this was. Hmmmmm. I think I have it. The ones who got chemotherapy were actually ill. The ones who didn't get chemo weren't ill enough to require that kind of radical treatment.

    That might have made the difference.

    -Jeff
    You actually believe that the National Cancer Institute would be that sloppy with their journalism? This is one of the cancer establishment's chemotherapy pushers. Their incentive is in the opposite direction.

    "The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before…More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being "cured". When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly."---Dr J. Bailer, New England Journal of Medicine (Dr Bailer’s answer to questions put by Neal Barnard MD of the Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine and published in PCRM Update, sept/oct 1990.

    "As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good."---Alan Nixon, Ph.D., Past President, American Chemical Society.

    Studies show that women taking tamoxifen after surviving breast cancer then have a high propensity to develop endometrial cancer. The NCI and Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug, aggressively lobbied State of California regulators to keep them from adding tamoxifen to their list of carcinogens. Zeneca is one of the sponsors of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

    "We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison."—Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist.

    * Late Dr Hardin Jones, professor at the University of California in Berkeley concluded in 1975 after analyzing cancer survival statistics for several decades that “patients are as well, or better off, untreated”.


    * Dr Charles Moertel of the Mayo clinic in Baltimore said that the major chemotherapeutic drug, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) only produces an objective response in 15 to 20% of patients. Even then, improvements were only partial and temporary. This very poor result is offset by the toxicity of the drug and the disastrous emotional upsets caused by the side effects.


    * A German epidemiologist Dr Ulrich Abel studied most of the published reports on chemotherapy and wrote to a further 350 cancer centers and experts and stated that “the success of most chemotherapy is appalling. There is no evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer”. He also commented that: “when a tumor mass partially or temporarily disappears, those tumor cells which remain can sometimes grow much faster afterward. Often, patients who do not respond to chemotherapy survive longer than those who do”.


    All this said, the growing disappointment with classic chemo is moving research in other directions and there are newer drugs that are showing some promise. The number of articles on the failed war on cancer in high profile publications has acted as a stimulus to look for compounds that target cancer cells specifically. The major hurdle is in the requirement of patents to protect investment. Many effective compounds abound in nature, but finding a way to patent a drug from them without destroying their effectiveness has been the challenge.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  18. TopTop #18
    MsTerry
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    No chemo is designed to shut down your immune system.

    Quote Braggi wrote: View Post
    Now, let's put on our thinking caps and try to figure out why this was. Hmmmmm. I think I have it. The ones who got chemotherapy were actually ill. The ones who didn't get chemo weren't ill enough to require that kind of radical treatment.

    That might have made the difference.

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  19. TopTop #19
    MsTerry
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    Jeff,
    I am not sure if you are aware that there is not just ONE chemotherapy, but there are literally hundreds of deadly chemo-cocktails available to experimenting doctors.
    I know you like science and double blind tests, but you can't find any reliable studies that can tell you what a particular ailment really needs. Thus it is up to the doctors to dothe experimenting with doses and chemo combos.
    What would i do?
    I can't tell you since I have seen first hand what havoc chemo can wreak on a body with no positive results. I also have seen, how it stopped early stage breastcancer.
    Clinging to chemo as a cure-all is a dangerous thing to do.
    Blood letting was a widely accepted practice in the middle ages. It did help and 'cure' some people, but nowadays it is frowned upon as a naivety. Will chemo go down the same path?

    Quote Braggi wrote: View Post
    That appears as a simple question, but there are hundreds if not thousands of answers for it. Cancer isn't an illness. It's many, many illnesses grouped together as a classification. Some are so different from others there are almost no similarities. Compare melanoma with leukemia. Prostate cancer with lung cancer.

    If I had melanoma I'd opt for surgery as soon as possible. Leukemia I'd go for chemo (there have been amazing breakthroughs in recent years amounting to near cures), lung cancer and I might opt for surgery, radiation and chemo. Prostate cancer and I might opt for no treatment at all.

    Any of these and I'd likely cut way back on calories and increase my exercise to become as lean as I could and still be healthy.

    I would avoid vitamin pills as much as I do now because they appear in nearly all the recent studies to only cause harm and do no good.

    So? How 'bout you MsTerry?

    -Jeff
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  20. TopTop #20
    MsTerry
     

    Re: How Effective is Chemotherapy?

    Anti Cancer Treats (ck the last paragraph)

    Is it just me, or does it seem like, these days, almost everyone has cancer somewhere in their family tree? Terrifying? Totally. But the good, absolutely fantastic, news is that regardless of your family history, you can very easily lower your cancer risk. The best way to start: Pile some delicious food on your fork, chew, swallow and repeat.

    It turns out that a healthy diet can help to override any cancer-prone genes you might have at work in your body. "Nutrition has a bigger influence on cancer than inherited genes, which means you could significantly reduce your odds of the disease through diet alone," explains Joel Fuhrman, M.D., author of Eat for Health (Gift of Health Press).
    OK, OK. I know what you're thinking right about now: She's going to tell me I have to eat kale at every meal. Not so! I mean, for the record, you should always eat as many fruits and veggies as possible, because they will dramatically lower your odds of ever hearing the dreaded diagnosis. But there are many other, less rabbity ways to eat away at your cancer risk.

    Add whole grains to your diet.
    My two faves, aside from a thick piece of freshly baked whole-grain bread? Oatmeal with a pinch of cinnamon for breakfast, or brown rice with a chicken and veggie stir-fry for dinner. Bonus: Because whole grains are high in fiber, you won't be hungry five minutes after you step away from the table.

    Spice things up.
    In India, where people cook with many cancer-fighting seasonings such as cumin, ginger, garlic and turmeric, breast cancer rates are about five times lower than in the United States. Plus, adding Indian seasonings to your brown rice or veggies adds loads of flavor without adding loads of calories. Find easy-to-make recipes with these cancer-fighting spices at Self.com.

    Nibble on chocolate.
    Ah, and now we've come to my favorite study ever! Consider this your permission slip to indulge in a dark chocolate bar, guilt-free. Researchers have discovered a compound in dark chocolate that fights fast-growing cancers, such as colorectal cancer. "The compound requires the activity of an enzyme called kinase, which causes cancerous cells to die but leaves normal cells alone," says Richard Pestell, M.D., director of the Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. The darkest varieties offer the greatest benefit. Try our guide to picking the good-for-you kind of chocolate at Self.com.

    Find more cancer-fighting tips in SELF's 2008 Women's Cancer Handbook
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email