# Is Chemotherapy a scam?



## moneyman

Over the years I've heard, anecdotally, that chemotherapy does more harm than good in attempting to battle cancer. Recently I became aware of yet another incident in which this seemed to be the case (the person, in their 50s, died within a few weeks of diagnosis and treatment, while showing no signs of poor health prior to treatment). In fact my own grandfather told me as he was dying that it was the chemo that finished him off, he was sure.

Again these are anecdotes, but it made me wonder what the evidence is regarding chemotherapy success rates. Intuitively it seems anything that makes you that sick could not be helping you, but I'm not a medical practitioner.

So I started digging around the web. Turns out there is quite a controversy, although that's not really surprising on the web. But some of it seems rather credible.

It certainly does not improve quality of life, in fact the opposite is true. But that could be worth it provided it significantly extended one's life. But does it?

The pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money on this stuff, so it can be difficult to find unbiased studies.

Anyone have any thoughts/experience?

I found this article, which is pretty damning, but haven't researched the studies it sites yet or the credibility of this site itself. Indeed, I've found it is difficult to find credible evidence either way on this subject, which makes me suspicious - shouldn't the evidence be overwhelming that chemo does what it is supposed to do, considering how frequently it is used and how hardcore it is?

I also found this site, which says "Proof of efficacy of a cancer treatment such as chemotherapy requires a randomised trial in which it has been shown that the group treated with chemotherapy experienced a significantly increased survival when compared with that of an untreated group. This has never been done. Unfortunately most claims for the efficacy of chemotherapy come from trials showing shrinkage of tumours; or from comparison of survival rates of unmatched groups over time."

If that is true, WTF?! Never been done??

Also this from that site - "Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives. In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemo use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths... 
The main problem with chemotherapy is that the general public is generally unaware that in most cases chemotherapy does more harm than good; most doctors knowledgeable in the area know this and will admit it in private. When an oncologist is asked what he or she can do for a patient's cancer it is hard to say - Chemotherapy is unlikely to help you!"

And another one - "Basically, the authors found that the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was 2.3 percent in Australia, and 2.1 percent in the USA. They emphasize that, for reasons explained in detail in the study, these figures "should be regarded as the upper limit of effectiveness" (i.e., they are an optimistic rather than a pessimistic estimate)."

That one I actually found the study, which is on the federal government's national institute of health website. I'd call that pretty credible.

Holy crap. This is starting to piss me off. People are dying from this, given false hope, and living through a painful hell over something there is no good evidence for that it truly helps?


----------



## Duke of Prunes

Tinfoil hattery.


----------



## FairleighCalm

Why do care so much? Are you just looking for something to get upset over? Chemotherapy may be a late stage therapy for seriously ill people. It is hard on those who are already sick. And cancer is a real booger to defeat.


----------



## moneyman

Duke of Prunes said:


> Tinfoil hattery.


Which - that it works, or that it doesn't work? And what is your evidence either way? Or is it just your feelings.



FairleighCalm said:


> Why do care so much? Are you just looking for something to get upset over? Chemotherapy may be a late stage therapy for seriously ill people. It is hard on those who are already sick. And cancer is a real booger to defeat.


I care because people I loved and cared about have suffered and likely died earlier because of it.

I also care because no doubt it will happen again to someone I care about, and I'd like to be informed about such critical matters. Wouldn't you? Or would you like to watch someone suffer even more unnecessarily and die even more prematurely than they otherwise would? What kind of question is that?


----------



## CeilingStarer

I think chemo is a load of crap. It's late and I haven't read your links, nor can be bothered finding my sources right now. There was a good documentary I saw once exploring this subject.

... but I was reading an article the other night which was interesting http://www.davidicke.com/articles/medicalhealth-mainmenu-37/29121

I mean David Icke is a nutjob to some, but it was interesting reading, and is about the work of an Italian Oncologist.


----------



## Amocholes

I work with a young woman who has breast cancer. She is currently in remission. Twice she has had to go through chemotherapy. She wouldn't be here without it.


----------



## moneyman

Amocholes said:


> I work with a young woman who has breast cancer. She is currently in remission. Twice she has had to go through chemotherapy. She wouldn't be here without it.


That's an anecdote though - not evidence.

Do you know of any evidence that indeed it was the chemo specifically that saved her life? Could it have been some other part of the treatment that sent it into remission, i.e. surgery, radiation, etc.?

As one of those links I provided says, there's never been a scientific study with a control group to test the efficacy of chemo. It has been observed however that many people survive or have their cancer go into remission without the use of chemo.

I found this article in the NY Times. It's 5 years old, but still shocks me that major independent studies had still not been performed on whether this stuff actually works or not. And as you see in the article, the jury was out on whether it was effective or not.

Then I found this one which appears to be the results of the studies mentioned in the article above. Note a few critically important points here.

One, the two people quoted the most about the study have financial links to major pharmaceutical companies. Conflict of interest anyone?

Two, despite the obvious conflict of interest, and despite their spinning it the best they could, the results indicate nothing about whether chemo itself is directly responsible for survival rates.

Three, the media/reporter did its typical arse-kissing of the "expert" corporate sponsored spokespeople by headlining "Longer Chemo for Breast Cancer More Effective" when it was *statistically insignificant* and also resulted in worse (and potentially deadlier) side-effects by going "longer". Somehow that got buried in the details though.

Four, and perhaps most importantly, THERE WAS NO CONTROL GROUP! The women had all had surgery, and were ALL given some combination of chemo to determine which "combo" was more effective. What about those who had no chemo after surgery? Hmmm - no mention of that!

It's things like that which make me very, very skeptical about this stuff. The media simply reports what the "expert" corporate spokespeople say, and as evidenced by that study, it is very biased and truly inconclusive.

I mean, look at the study objectively. People with a conflict of interest ultimately found that two different chemo treatments were statistically insignificant regarding effectiveness vs. each other, and no control group was used so you have no idea if the chemo even helped (or harmed) at all. It could have simply been the surgery, period, or even REDUCED survival after surgery for all we know.

So what do they report? "Longer Chemo For Breast Cancer More Effective". How freaking irresponsible is that?


----------



## moneyman

Even doctors themselves are mystified, as this one states -

"To put it bluntly, how effective is chemotherapy for breast cancer? I wonder how many women ask their oncologists these questions, and if they do, what would the answers be like?

a) Without chemotherapy what percentage of people died or would die from breast cancer?

b) With chemotherapy what percentage of people are cured or would be cured?

c) What is meant by cure?

Try and search the answers from the internet and see if you can get anything. There is a great chance that you will go on a merry go round trip! I experienced exactly just that and was terribly disappointed. Thousands of articles are written about breast cancer but I fail to find the clear-cut answers to the above questions."

And once again reference to the only credible study I've been able to find on the subject -

"the study concluded that overall, chemotherapy contributes just over 2 percent to improved survival in cancer patients.
Yet despite the mounting evidence of chemotherapy's lack of effectiveness in prolonging survival, oncologists continue to present chemotherapy as a rational and promising approach to cancer treatment."

"...in lung cancer, the median survival has increased by only 2 months [during the past 20 years, ed.] and an overall survival benefit of less than 5 percent has been achieved in the adjuvant treatment of breast, colon and head and neck cancers."

"...these figures "should be regarded as the upper limit of effectiveness" (i.e., they are an optimistic rather than a pessimistic estimate)."

So we have inconclusive anecdotes and inconclusive biased studies. But there is one independent credible study, and that one basically states that for all the hellish and potentially deadly side-effects, you have about a 2% chance (on the OPTIMISTIC side) of chemo helping you survive another 5 years after cancer.

Not a good track record in my opinion, especially since it's basically the "go-to" method of treating cancer. Heck, the placebo effect probably has a better track record, and you don't have to suffer the side effects.

More -

"There is also no convincing evidence," they write, "that using regimens with newer and more expensive drugs is any more beneficial than the regimens used in the 1970s." They add that two systematic reviews of the evidence been not been able to demonstrate any survival benefit for chemotherapy in recurrent or metastatic breast cancer."

"Another factor clouding the issue is the growing trend for clinical trials to use what are called 'surrogate end points,'...trials reported in terms of surrogate end points can create the illusion that the lives of desperately ill patients are being significantly extended or made more bearable by chemotherapy, when in reality this is not the case."

"...despite the early claims of chemotherapy as the panacea for curing all cancers, the impact of cytotoxic chemotherapy is limited to small subgroups of patients and mostly occurs in the less common malignancies."

"In view of the highly controversial nature of the study's findings, one might have expected it to receive enormous international attention. Instead, media reaction has been largely limited to the authors' native land of Australia; the study received almost no coverage whatsoever in the US."

"...nothing can obscure the fact that chemotherapy, for most indications, has far less effectiveness than the public is being led to believe."


----------



## Amocholes

moneyman said:


> That's an anecdote though - not evidence.


The evidence is that she's still alive and kicking. The fact that she is also able to work a full time job and coach her daughter's softball team means nothing.


----------



## moneyman

Amocholes said:


> The evidence is that she's still alive and kicking. The fact that she is also able to work a full time job and coach her daughter's softball team means nothing.


No offense, but did you read anything I wrote? What evidence do you have that the CHEMOTHERAPY is what enabled her to survive?


----------



## JimmyDeansRetartedCousin

I can only cite anecdotal evidence at this moment, but I've worked in a hospital pharmacy that provides chemotherapy regimes to patients for coming up three years. And I have been first hand to see that there are defintite little groups of people who have very serious types of cancer, and we have been treating them on and off for 5+ years. This is how I know that it works. I know of many, many people of whom chemotherapy has extended their lives.

I can't say anything for the moral guidelines and the efficacy of the american private healthcare system or the major drug companies, that in some peoples opinion appear to hold a monopoly.

But, the way that we find funding for chemotherapy drugs here in the UK is simply through meta-analysis of the number of people that it benefits. Nothing more, we do get pressured from representatives to try new unverified regimes, but the people who run the local trusts and are in charge of funding are not skewed by this. I have seen this first hand.

Chemotherapy is the one of the most effective anti-cancer therapies available currently. There is no veil trying to alude us of the fact that it's merely water with a memory. It is not a scam.

It is cytotoxic, this means that it kills cells. Dying is an inevitable possiblility, cancer enhaces this, and chemotherapy more so. Many people do not make it through chemo but they have a choice, and I hope that anyone who has gotten to the point of therapy has been taken there under the most absolute honest care.


----------



## scriabin221

It depends on the cancer and person, though hopefully there will be a better treatment available someday. Just read some articles and statistics that aren't biased towards anything and then make up your mind.


----------



## Amocholes

moneyman said:


> No offense, but did you read anything I wrote? What evidence do you have that the CHEMOTHERAPY is what enabled her to survive?


What evidence do you have that it did not? The treatment that she was given has kept her alive. If it had gone untreated then she would be dead. The chemotherapy was part of that treatment.


----------



## moneyman

JimmyDeansRetartedCousin said:


> ...people who have very serious types of cancer, and we have been treating them on and off for 5+ years. This is how I know that it works.





Amocholes said:


> What evidence do you have that it did not? The treatment that she was given has kept her alive. If it had gone untreated then she would be dead. The chemotherapy was part of that treatment.


Look, I know my posts can get a bit long, but both of you are completely missing the point. You're mistaking correlation for causality. I don't know how else to say it. DOES CHEMOTHERAPY ITSELF HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THESE PEOPLE SURVIVING.

Yes, people get "treated" and survive. But that treatment typically involves many other things besides chemotherapy. What we do know from chemotherapy is that the side effects can be very harmful and damaging and possibly deadly.

So a critical question would be "is it worth it". Which means you need to know how effective CHEMOTHERAPY, by itself, is. And according to the very limited research available on the subject that I have been able to find, NO, IT IS NOT.

Would these people have survived with all treatment EXCEPT chemotherapy? That's the question. Do I know one way or the other? NO. That is also a point of this thread. I'm trying to have a discussion to figure that out. The studies I've found so far are not encouraging at all.

Yet some of you still insist it works, with purely anecdotal evidence. This is the part of the problem I'm concerned with. Everyone "thinks" this stuff works. But the only scientific evidence I've found so far is that at best the odds are very, very slim and the risks are high.

One survey I found listed that over 75% of oncologists stated they would REFUSE chemotherapy as part of their treatment if they were in a similar position. These articles also mention why people are prescribed and accept chemotherapy as part of their treatment. The conclusion is basically because they are misled and/or making the decisions based upon emotions rather than facts.

Is any of this sinking in?


----------



## JimmyDeansRetartedCousin

Tinfoil hattery indeed. 

Good day sir!


----------



## moneyman

Found this on Wikipedia, which simply sources it from the same study I referenced in my earlier post (seems to be the only study around on the subject, which is bothersome, but at least there's one) -

"Chemotherapy is highly effective in some cancers, useless in others, and unnecessary in still others.

Taking all forms of cancer together, people who receive chemotherapy increase their odds of living five years after diagnosis by about two percentage points (e.g., from about 61% being alive after five years to about 63% of them being alive after five years). However, this overall rate obscures the wide variation. Cytotoxic chemotherapy produces much larger gains for some forms of cancer, including testicular cancer (about 40% of the men who live five years after diagnosis are alive because of chemotherapy), lymphomas (about 13%), and cervical cancer (12%). By contrast, chemotherapy is essentially useless in other cancers, including prostate cancer, melanoma of the skin, multiple myeloma, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, and pancreatic cancer: people who receive chemotherapy for these conditions are just as likely to die within five years as people who do not. Chemotherapy only slightly improves survival for some of the most common forms of cancer, including breast cancers (1.5%) and lung cancers (1.5%)."

So there's evidence that it works ok (40% of the men that survived 5 more years can thank chemo - but 60% survived without it?!) on testicular cancer. Not so great, better than nothing, for lymphomas and cervical cancers. Everything else it is essentially worthless, especially considering the quality of life due to side-effects.

And remember, the authors of the study erred on the side of OVER-estimating effectiveness.

The study does not say how many people die BECAUSE of chemotherapy ruining their immune system however. I'd really be interested in knowing that.

At any rate, how many of you knew that chemotherapy was shown to only be mildly effective on testicular cancer (and only in certain circumstances, not all) and nearly worthless on anything else? This isn't anecdotal, not myths or conspiracy theory, this was a scientific study. These are the facts people.

Here's the study itself

This is what they say about breast cancer (emphasis mine) -

"The best example of the 'over-selling' of chemotherapy is in breast cancer, where chemotherapy was introduced as the example of the new cure for solid malignancies. In Australia, in 1998, only 4638 of the 10,661 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer were eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy (44% of total). From our calculations, only 164 women (3.5%) actually had a survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. In other words, *on average, 29 women had to be treated for one additional woman to survive more than 5 years*."

"In breast cancer, the optimal regimen(s) for cytotoxic chemotherapy in recurrent/metastatic disease are still not defined, despite over 30 years of 'research' and a plethora of RCTs since the original Cooper regimen was published in 1969. There is also no convincing evidence that using regimens with newer and more expensive drugs are any more beneficial than the regimens used in the 1970s. In addition, two systematic reviews of chemotherapy in recurrent or metastatic breast cancer have *not been able to show any survival benefit. The absence of quality-of-life data in many RCTs of cytotoxic chemotherapy has also been noted*.

"Although response rates below 15% *may be due solely to a placebo effect, this fact has not been openly addressed*."

About lung cancer -

"The paper also found that some patients would *not have chosen chemotherapy if they had been more fully informed*."

This is my goal. More fully informed. Many of these treatments automatically prescribe chemotherapy, without any science backing them up. Doctors prescribe it and patients take it because it's "common knowledge" and "expected" and to use "all available tools" to combat cancer. Without regard that some of those tools may be far more risky than the actual benefit (or if there even is any benefit).

Again, these are the available facts, not anecdotes.

"However, despite the early claims of chemotherapy as the panacea for curing all cancers, the impact of cytotoxic chemotherapy is limited to small subgroups of patients and mostly occurs in the less common malignancies.
Even so, any new chemotherapy drug is still promoted as a major breakthrough in the fight against cancer, only to be
later rejected without the fanfare that accompanied its arrival."


----------



## moneyman

JimmyDeansRetartedCousin said:


> Tinfoil hattery indeed.
> 
> Good day sir!


Please explain. Or are you running away because you completely misunderstood what I was saying and don't have the courage to say so and admit you were wrong? Do facts challenge your feelings and frighten you?

For someone claiming "tinfoil hattery" you sure haven't demonstrated anything to the contrary (nor did the other person who posted that) - in fact you've only bolstered my argument by providing your "opinion" with nothing to back it up but your own feelings. Thank you!

This is perhaps the reason so many people get suckered into believing things that there is no evidence to believe.


----------



## JimmyDeansRetartedCousin

Well as I see it I have no reason to doubt the legitimacy of chemotherapy apart from your spurious claims of it being a hoax.

The one credible article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849 states that "it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival."

It still makes a contribution, albeit a minor one, this is only call for alarm because it raises the question of cost effectiveness. And again this is only _one _case study, with 22 subjects!

Clinical information involving patient names is a breach of confidentiality and I cannot show you anything from where I work, if you are legitimately concerned about this you contact the medicines informations department of your local hospital pharmacy. There should be someone there who can put your mind at rest.


----------



## JimmyDeansRetartedCousin

If you really want to find out about it and present a valid argument, you could educate yourself on the underlying chemistry and pharmaceutics, instead of just googling "chemo scam?!?!?"


----------



## Scorpius

Yea it's pretty much a scam and it shouldn't be so surprising..

Watch this video and you will understand..this guy had cancer and had to do his own search to save his own life..The first half of the video goes into detail about all the dangers of chemotherapy..I'll take the word of people like him over authority any day

http://www.nuganics.com.au/2007/07/06/jerry-brunetti-food-as-medicine/


----------



## Duke of Prunes

Yeah... I don't think a site about organic food and 'natural health' counts as a credible source, especially for anecdotal evidence.


----------



## Scorpius

If i had posted a link with just the video would that make a difference... 
If you are really concerned about the "credible sources" then you should check out the video itself then review its sources not the site where i found the link to the video.. :roll

Chemotherapy is load of BS..i mean what did you expect from the drug industry...but anyways, if you don't want to watch the video it's your choice to remain ignorant just don't make it seem like the video isn't a credible source on the subject because YOU don't want to watch it..lol


----------



## Music Man

To understand chemotherapy you first need to understand cancer from a molecular perspective.
Firstly, cancer isn't one disease, it is a group of diseases with different symptoms and different prognoses. 
The common link between all cancers is uncontrolled growth of cells, which is where knowledge of molecular biology/genetics comes in.
I don't know if many people here have knowledge of the cell cycle but it consists of 5 stages; M, G0, G1, S and G2 (metastasis, gap 0, gap 1, synthesis and gap 2).
Each of these stages have checkpoints which is crucial for checking whether the cell can continue dividing. If everything is ok with the DNA at each checkpoint then the cell progresses to the next stage in the cycle. However, if something is wrong with the DNA, such as a significant mutation, then continuing to the next stage in the cycle will introduce the mutation/s to daughter cells which isn't good. The checkpoints are there to stop the cell cycle if necessary to prevent damaged cells from dividing.
Various proteins control the cell cycle, such as cyclins and cyclin dependant kinases and p proteins, such as p53 (very important!).
If there are errors in these proteins, they can't do their job properly and so the cell can pass through the stages without being checked for errors, therefore passing on mutations.
There are certain, well known genetic errors which are common in cancers, such as errors in cyclin D CDK 4, ras oncogene, BCL1 and BCL2 which results in errors in checking and an inability to induce apoptosis if needed. As you can see, there are lots of targets which we need to be able to intervene with.

There isn't one magic cure for cancer and there will never be one, as there are different targets for different cancers and different treatments are required for different cancers, although scientists know how the public and the media love to dream of magic cures for everything.

Chemotherapy is a generic treatment for cancers, sometimes it is effective, sometimes it isn't effective, there are lots of variables to take into account, such as the type of cancer, stage of cancer (has it spread to form secondary tumours or is it still local?), response of cancer cells to the chemicals used (is the cancer somewhat resistant to the chemotherapy?), the growth rate of the cancer, more than one cancer type.

Unfortunately, chemotherapy can't distinguish between self cells and tumour cells very well and so self cells will be destroyed, resulting in muscle weakness, hair loss etc.

Sometimes, chemotherapy is given not as a cure but just to extend life by a few months, particularly in cases where nothing else can be done, for example, lung cancer or pancreatic cancer, if you get those, you won't be around for long in most cases!

The future in cancer treatment is specific, patient orientated treatment with specific targets being identified for every cancer as well as taking into account the patients genetic profile to produce tailor made treatments, which will be a lot more effective than generic chemotherapy. We should start to see a reduction in generic chemotherapy and an increase in tailor made treatments over the next few years and this is an area of cancer research I am hoping to go into.

Pharmaceutical companies generally are greedy and care about making as much money as possible but don't let this hinder your thoughts on just how difficult cancer is to treat, it's not exactly a walk in the park for both scientists and patients alike!

I will end this post by saying something you will already know and that is, cancer treatment is more effective the earlier you catch the cancer, so if you are concerned about anything you find, go to the doctor as soon as possible, don't put it off!

It's now nearly 2 in the morning, I'm off to bed, so goodnight


----------



## Duke of Prunes

Scorpius said:


> Chemotherapy is load of BS..i mean what did you expect from the drug industry...but anyways, if you don't want to watch the video it's your choice to remain ignorant just don't make it seem like the video isn't a credible source on the subject because YOU don't want to watch it..lol


lol I'm ignorant for not taking some video made by some 'omg big pharma is the evil and im scared of anything not made out of animal poo' idiot seriously?


----------



## nmpennea

I think that it helps people and hurts people. For instance, my grandfather went into remission but the poison from chemo killed him. He has 2% chance of remission and it happened because of it which gave me 2 more visits with him where he wasn't totally unhealthy that I would not trade for the world. It gave me him checking on me when he could barely walk, just to make sure I was okay. Is it dangerous, yes. And it is not always used, but sometimes it is the best option.

My uncle has state 3 cancer now and they haven't even mentioned chemo yet. He is just receiving radiation.

If I had exhausted all other options and/or it was my best shot at survival I would do it.


----------



## moneyman

JimmyDeansRetartedCousin said:


> Well as I see it I have no reason to doubt the legitimacy of chemotherapy apart from your spurious claims of it being a hoax.
> 
> The one credible article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849 states that "it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival."
> 
> It still makes a contribution, albeit a minor one, this is only call for alarm because it raises the question of cost effectiveness. And again this is only _one _case study, with 22 subjects!
> 
> Clinical information involving patient names is a breach of confidentiality and I cannot show you anything from where I work, if you are legitimately concerned about this you contact the medicines informations department of your local hospital pharmacy. There should be someone there who can put your mind at rest.





JimmyDeansRetartedCousin said:


> If you really want to find out about it and present a valid argument, you could educate yourself on the underlying chemistry and pharmaceutics, instead of just googling "chemo scam?!?!?"


First, thank you for a more productive response!

Second, that study is the only one I can find, because like I said there evidently haven't been any more credible studies published than that one on this subject. And again, I find that alarming. Why haven't there been more - especially due to the results found in this study?!

Third, the study involved far more than 22 subjects - it involved nearly *73,000* people. They studied 22 different TYPES of cancer.

Fourth, yes I could educate myself on the underlying chemistry and pharmaceuticals, just as I could educate myself on becoming a medical practitioner or a rocket scientist or whatever. However it is often much more efficient to ask the people who already know, or those who have conducted scientific studies on the subject. That is what I'm attempting to do. It may save me years of studying and homework.

Fifth, there appears to be controversy about this topic as many respected oncologists have gone on record claiming that the effects of chemotherapy are dubious and that they would not personally take chemotherapy as part of their regimen, if faced with the choice. Also, once again, the one and only credible study I found on the subject supports the notion that chemotherapy is not nearly as effective as popular opinion would have it, and suggests that the side effects compared to the efficacy (or lack thereof) may not be worth it many cases.

I'm learning as I post on this subject. I went into this thinking chemotherapy was solidly an effective method of fighting cancer, with little or no dispute. I'm finding that there are HUGE questions about its validity and efficacy, in at least many common types of cancer.

I encourage you to actually read that study I found, it may open your eyes too. Regardless of how much chemistry and pharmaceutical background one may have, this study speaks volumes in my opinion. Note that a couple of the researchers have ties to pharmaceutical companies too, which would normally raise my suspicions, but even if the results of this study are overly optimistic it's still pretty damning. Unless you already knew just how ineffective chemotherapy appears to be vs. popular opinion.

Edit - I made a mistake in the number of people in that study. They took nearly 73,000 people in Australia, and nearly 155,000 people in the US for a total of nearly *228,000 people* for this study.


----------



## beethoven

May I suggest this documentary?


----------



## lonelyjew

CeilingStarer said:


> I think chemo is a load of crap. It's late and I haven't read your links, nor can be bothered finding my sources right now. There was a good documentary I saw once exploring this subject.
> 
> ... but I was reading an article the other night which was interesting http://www.davidicke.com/articles/medicalhealth-mainmenu-37/29121
> 
> I mean David Icke is a nutjob to some, but it was interesting reading, and is about the work of an Italian Oncologist.


This is the most insane thing I've ever read. Cancer is, fundamentally a pretty basic thing. It's very basic mechanisms are not hard to understand, and, well, that "article" is unbelievably wrong. The guy doesn't have a basic grasp of biology.



Scorpius said:


> Yea it's pretty much a scam and it shouldn't be so surprising..
> 
> Watch this video and you will understand..this guy had cancer and had to do his own search to save his own life..The first half of the video goes into detail about all the dangers of chemotherapy..I'll take the word of people like him over authority any day
> 
> http://www.nuganics.com.au/2007/07/06/jerry-brunetti-food-as-medicine/


I hate videos like this. They can be extremely counterproductive, and very dangerous. Perhaps diet can help with some cancers, but cancer is way too diverse to expect any kind of panacea, and I would bet everything that I own that people who could be helped by a simple diet would be extremely rare.

IRT to the thread

I think musicman said it best, so to sum up what he said, cancer is extremely diverse, and thus the treatments need to be as well. Treatment must be matched to the cancer, and there are many factors which need to be looked at, like aggressiveness, metastasis, origin, the specific genetic mutations, etc.

There are many different types of chemotherapy treatments, and most rely on a very basic principle: they hurt cancerous cells more than healthy cells. For instance, because cancer cells generally divide at a much greater rate than normal cells, using a chemical which mimics a purine or pyrimidine (the things that make up DNA), you can cause DNA replication to fail, and cell death to occur. Cells like nerve cells, which don't divide, will not be harmed, however cancer cells will, ideally die or be severely inhibited. With them though, fast dividing cells like immune cells, epithelial cells, etc. will also suffer. The idea is, simply, to kill the cancer before the drugs kill you. Again very basic.

So to answer the op's initial question, chemotherapy is not a scam. It is extremely effective towards some cancers, and is a very important part of medicine.


----------



## lonelyjew

beethoven said:


> May I suggest this documentary?


I agree, but the answer isn't one thing or another, it's both. Preventative care, ie a good diet, exercise, early detection and treatment, etc. are critical to good health. All those things still won't prevent cancer completely, or prevent high cholesterol, or the onset of many other disorders in certain people. The ideal is good self care with good medical care to back it up.


----------



## moneyman

lonelyjew said:


> There are many different types of chemotherapy treatments, and most rely on a very basic principle: they hurt cancerous cells more than healthy cells... The idea is, simply, to kill the cancer before the drugs kill you. Again very basic.
> 
> So to answer the op's initial question, chemotherapy is not a scam. It is extremely effective towards some cancers, and is a very important part of medicine.


I'd like to agree with you, but so far I haven't seen any scientific evidence that chemo "hurts cancerous cells more than healthy cells". I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm just saying I haven't seen it.

Also, I have not seen any evidence that it is "extremely effective towards some cancers" - actually I've shown evidence to the contrary. More like it is somewhat effective in some cancers, and arguably not very effective at all for many (most?) common cancers.

Once again I would encourage the nay-sayers to read the study I posted. I personally found it startling.

Whether it's a scam or not seems to be, at this point, based upon what one's definition of scam is. If you consider something as "deceptive" to be a scam, then certainly an argument could be made here either way.


----------



## moneyman

For those too lazy to read the study, I pulled out some nuggets that I found interesting (aside from the interesting fact of how poorly effective chemotherapy was). Emphasis mine.

"Where assumptions were made, we *erred on the side of over-estimating the benefit*."

"*These estimates of benefit should be regarded as the upper limit of effectiveness*, as some eligible patients do not receive cytotoxic chemotherapy because of age, poor performance status or patient choice. Also, as noted in the text, the benefit of cytotoxic chemotherapy may have been overestimated for cancers of oesophagus, stomach, rectum and brain."

"The *minimal impact on survival in the more common cancers conflicts with the perceptions* of many patients who feel they are receiving a treatment that will significantly enhance their chances of cure."

"The *absence of quality-of-life data* in many RCTs of cytotoxic chemotherapy has also been noted."

"Although *response rates below 15% may be due solely to a placebo effect*, this fact has not been openly addressed. Indeed the whole question of the validity of response rates is very much open to debate."

"In view of the minimal impact of cytotoxic chemotherapy on 5-year survival, and the lack of any major progress over the last 20 years, it follows that the main role of cytotoxic chemotherapy is in palliation. Although for many malignancies, symptom control may occur with cytotoxic chemotherapy, this is rarely reported and, for most patients, the survival in those who obtain a response is rarely beyond 12 months."

"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."


----------



## Scorpius

lonelyjew said:


> I hate videos like this. They can be extremely counterproductive, and very dangerous. Perhaps diet can help with some cancers, but cancer is way too diverse to expect any kind of panacea, and I would bet everything that I own that people who could be helped by a simple diet would be extremely rare.


If you really hate videos like that then I'm guessing you didn't even watch this one because you are already against it..you already have your own ideas on the issue and you're basically judging the video based only on your "assumptions" about it not on the actual content...so how can you say it's extremely counterproductive and very dangerous..how can you arrive at that conclusion if you haven't even watched the video..

Same thing applies to duke of prunes..he is summarizing a 3 hour long video into one sentence assumption and pre made conclusion about it..

Guys if you don't want to watch the video it's ok..just don't talk about it and judge it like you actually seen it...it's ridiculous

Obviously there's this controversy going on about chemotherapy and its effectiveness...so watching a video that speaks against chemotherapy will challenge your knowledge and believes about the whole issue...but if someone is after the truth shouldn't they be looking at both sides first before they judge something..

The question again "is chemotherapy a scam?"

Even if chemotherapy is extremely effective against some cancers which i doubt it is but I'll take your word for it..that still doesn't mean that chemotherapy in general and how it's used isn't a scam because it's probably used more often than it should..

So if something that is only effective in certain rare cases to be used in most other cases where it wouldn't be effective much at all that would make it a scam..so maybe chemotherapy itself isn't that bad if used wisely but that is not the case because it's abused and pushed on people specially when it's the only option they are given..


----------



## Duke of Prunes

There's no controversy at all in the scientific community, there's just a few 'big pharma is evil eat yer greens chemicals are bad' types making a fuss and refusing to acknowledge the evidence as long as it benefits their anti-government agenda.


----------



## Donnie in the Dark

I find it laughable that some people think chemotherapy is a conspiracy. 
And yes, people will say that the chemo is killing them or that they don't want it because thats what it does. It kills cells,. Thats the whole point. And yeah, it doesn't always work but it provides a chance.

Sometimes I think people propagate these ridiculous ideas just to stand out.


----------



## lonelyjew

Scorpius said:


> Guys if you don't want to watch the video it's ok..just don't talk about it and judge it like you actually seen it...it's ridiculous


It's a 3 hour long video, I'm sorry but you can't expect us to watch it. I did read the text summary, and it said enough for me to judge it, probably accurately enough. Beyond the fact that there is no single cure for cancer, because each case is quite unique, the second biggest (I'll get to the biggest later) thing that bothers me about these kinds of claims is they are not backed by scientific research. This guy survived, whoopty doo, there is no way he can know it's because of his diet because correlation =/= causation. Perhaps the diet did help, perhaps it didn't. There is no way of knowing. The reasoning he and you are using are akin to faith healers, who pray to G-d and, should someone get better, they say the healing was do to divine healing, but should they die, their faiths are rarely shaken.

The biggest problem I have with quacks like that guy is that they have next to no real knowledge on the things they preach, but are charismatic enough, and tell a compelling enough story, to raise the hopes of people who are desperate for a cure, a way out. Their hope blinds them and they put their faith in a miracle, and when it doesn't come, their stories are ignored. How many people followed a similarly ignorant treatment path by refusing medical advice and going on a strict diet, and died as a result? Those people don't get a 3 hour informational video....



Scorpius said:


> Obviously there's this controversy going on about chemotherapy and its effectiveness...so watching a video that speaks against chemotherapy will challenge your knowledge and believes about the whole issue...but if someone is after the truth shouldn't they be looking at both sides first before they judge something..
> 
> The question again "is chemotherapy a scam?"
> 
> Even if chemotherapy is extremely effective against some cancers which i doubt it is but I'll take your word for it..that still doesn't mean that chemotherapy in general and how it's used isn't a scam because it's probably used more often than it should..
> 
> So if something that is only effective in certain rare cases to be used in most other cases where it wouldn't be effective much at all that would make it a scam..so maybe chemotherapy itself isn't that bad if used wisely but that is not the case because it's abused and pushed on people specially when it's the only option they are given..


Like Duke said, there is no controversy among the scientific community. If it's improperly used, than that needs to be addressed, but you're speaking in ignorance. I personally don't know this either, so I can only say that I would put my faith in an oncologist, a person who has spent their undergrad studying the basic sciences, four years in medical school learning about the human body and how to treat it, as well as doing cancer research, a number of years as a resident, working under other oncologists and continuing research, and very likely a fellowship afterwards, with yet more research. In that time, the oncologist would have become extremely knowledgeable in the various causes, forms, progressions, and treatments of cancers. They would know when to use drug X, or radiation, or surgical excision better than anyone else. Perhaps my neighbor got his car working by kicking it really hard, but I think I'd prefer to take mine to a mechanic.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding

It definitely works, sometimes, and sometimes doesn't work.

It's really up to the individual circumstances, whether it will work.


----------



## moneyman

Duke of Prunes said:


> There's no controversy at all in the scientific community, there's just a few 'big pharma is evil eat yer greens chemicals are bad' types making a fuss and refusing to acknowledge the evidence as long as it benefits their anti-government agenda.


And once again, don't know how many times I have to state this, I've posted a scientific study that concludes there is controversy in absolute terms.

You and others claiming there is no controversy have posted nothing to support your opinion.

I understand that there are tons of "natural" and "holistic" websites out there that jump on any shred of doubt about chemotherapy. I'm not here to push those sites or those beliefs. I'm simply trying to get an objective understanding about the efficacy of chemotherapy.

So far I've seeen nothing but anecdotes, feelings, and personal opinions from those who support chemotherapy whole-heartedly. Likewise, I haven't been able to find much credible evidence the other way - with one very credible exception from the "scientific community".

That is certainly grounds for controversy. Show me the credible evidence that states otherwise from the "scientific community" and I may take those claims more seriously. Until then, I'm not convinced, and neither should anyone else be.

Without solid scientific evidence, you're just as guilty of falling for a scam or conspiracy than those you mock. Back it up if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise you sound just like a tinfoil hatter 



Donnie in the Dark said:


> I find it laughable that some people think chemotherapy is a conspiracy.
> And yes, people will say that the chemo is killing them or that they don't want it because thats what it does. It kills cells,. Thats the whole point. And yeah, it doesn't always work but it provides a chance.
> 
> Sometimes I think people propagate these ridiculous ideas just to stand out.


Sometimes I think people haven't read the thread very thoroughly.



lonelyjew said:


> Like Duke said, there is no controversy among the scientific community.


Like I said above, I've posted a credible study that shows indeed there is controversy. Show us something that backs up your claim that there is no controversy. Can you? Or are you just speaking out of your posterior?

I realize I'm being antagonizing but that's because I have little patience for those who say something with authority or conviction but can't seem to back it up. All I'm asking is that you provide something credible to back up your claims.

It's ironic that people ignore the scientific study and expect others to simply believe their opinion, and somehow think they're on the higher ground.


----------



## Amocholes

You have already made up your mind and will not accept anyone saying otherwise so why bother?


----------



## moneyman

Amocholes said:


> You have already made up your mind and will not accept anyone saying otherwise so why bother?


That's not true. I have certainly been swayed one way vs. the other, but that is only because I haven't seen convincing evidence to show me otherwise.

I am not accepting "anyone saying otherwise" because I don't typically take people's word for it when there is a perceived controversy. I prefer something more objective. Not seeing it.

And still waiting for it. This is the reason I'm digging my heels in. I've presented an argument, and the opposition has been authoritative and patronizing but glaringly missing the all-important backup to their claims. I've even tried myself to dispute what I've posted, but can't find anything credible or applicable. If someone else can, please do.

Meanwhile, unsubstantiated claims and opinions will be called out for what they are - unsubstantiated claims and opinions.

I expect anyone disagreeing with me would demand the same. That is why I'm leaning so heavily on the one study I could find. There are plenty of other claims and stories out there supporting my argument, but I've ignored essentially all of them because I can't verify their credibility. All I'm asking is the same in return. I'd like to see credible backup, not more baseless claims. Those are a dime a dozen on both sides of the issue.


----------



## lonelyjew

Here's an article about an experiment using a new drug for pancreatic cancer:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/225130.php

Original article
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1011923#t=article

Mind you, they can't deny treatment to patients, so it's between the most effective current treatment and the new one. Pancreatic cancer used to be a death sentence, and while now the prognosis is likely never good with it, at least chemotherapy gives hope.


----------



## btryan

OP, since you already have one article to start with, why don't you check some of those 110 references as well as some of the more prominent authors.

----------Example--------
"An overall survival benefit of less than 5% has been achieved in the adjuvant treatment of breast, colon, and head and neck cancers [15-17]."

Reference: [15] Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 1998;352:930e942."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9752815

Abstract:
"Some months of adjuvant polychemotherapy (eg, with CMF or an anthracycline-containing regimen) typically produces an absolute improvement of about 7-11% in 10-year survival for women aged under 50 at presentation with early breast cancer, and of about 2-3% for those aged 50-69 (unless their prognosis is likely to be extremely good even without such treatment)."

First sentence in the paper's conclusion:
"The proportional benefits of polychemotherapy appeared to be largely unaffected by menopausal status, nodal status, or tamoxifen use-and, even though the proportional effect diminished with increasing age, there was clear evidence of benefit not just for women aged under 50 at the start of treatment but also for those aged 50-69 (with insufficient evidence among women aged 70 or over)."

Last sentences:
"Hence, this report makes no recommendations as to who should or should not be treated. Just in terms of recurrence and survival, however, the balance of the known long-term benefits and risks favours some months of adjuvant polychemotherapy for a wide range of women with early breast cancer."

So the paper they quote actually supports adjunct chemotherapy for women with early breast cancer. But then, you really have to read the entire paper to know what's going on.

----------End of Example--------

Each of these 110 references will lead you to even more references. Have a good read.


----------



## JimmyDeansRetartedCousin

http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/9/12/2134.abstract

A study from 1982 documenting he effectiveness of cyclphosphamide against breast cancer, this drug works.

Oh what's this? a 20 year follow up that _proves _again it's effectivness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/7877646?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn

This drug has long since lost it's patent, there is no alterior motive for a drug company to fake this kind of stuff.

Google methotrexate, doxirubicin, infliximab etc you'll find the same things.

Seriously it's not a scam.

I hope you see this and don't put yourself at risk.


----------



## Scorpius

lonelyjew:

Reading the summary on the site is not the same as watching the actual video..so you are still pretty much judging it based on assumptions and labels..perhaps the video is too long but the part that is about CHEMOTHERAPY which THIS DISCUSSION is about is like 1 hour long..still you probably wouldn't bother to watch it because your ideas are already fixed on the subject..but hey if you posted a video on how great chemotherapy is i wouldn't watch it either..lol

The real big problem i see is people coming up with these ridiculous silly labels to anyone that is presenting information that is against popular belief in an attempt to put it down based on nothing but arrogance...the guy actually backs up what he say with scientific evidence (for those interested in searching it further) but you have already judged him in your mind and a lot of the things you say have nothing to do with the video actually..again it's all assumptions so there really isn't much i can say about that..

Another big problem i see is equating manipulative scientific authority to real scientific evidence and truth...but that's a totally different subject

And there IS a controversy among the scientific community but even if there wasn't there is still a controversy among those who believe in chemotherapy effectiveness and those who don't..

There are many people who simply don't have that much trust in authority or big pharma anymore based on countless cases and evidence..what makes you think I'm going to believe a study on chemotherapy effectiveness that is probably funded by the same people that are pushing it..

Anyways, people will continue to believe what they want to believe and see what they want to see so this video isn't going to change your mind much on chemotherapy...you obviously have a lot of trust in the scientific authority so anything that is speaking against it you won't take too seriously..and this is where me and you can agree to disagree

As for the rest of you who are interested in learning about the dangers of chemotherapy you should check the video out, do your own search and then decide for yourself..


----------



## CeilingStarer

Modern mainstream science has basically become like religion in the dark ages.


----------



## Donnie in the Dark

Moneyman if you got cancer would you want chemo?


----------



## alte

moneyman said:


> .... So there's evidence that it works ok (40% of the men that survived 5 more years can thank chemo - but 60% survived without it?!) on testicular cancer. Not so great, better than nothing, for lymphomas and cervical cancers. Everything else it is essentially worthless, especially considering the quality of life due to side-effects.


40% is a very significant number especially when considering serious diseases like cancer which can have dismal survival rates. I think that even if a therapy improves survival by tenth of a percentage, it should be kept available as an option to patients. Chemo does have horrible side effects as you said. However, the decision to administer chemotherapy is done an individual basis per the patient's wishes. If they don't want it, then that's ok. But I imagine many people when faced with a terminal illness, want everything possible to be done .. as they hope for a miraculous cure. You can't fault them for this type of thinking.


----------



## Brightpaperwarewolf

Take it from the dude who actually had cancer and chemo.

MoneyMan, I can't put it in any other way. You are an idiot.

Once cancer metastasizes, any attempt to try some natural cures goes out of the window. Of course you can say all this bull**** when don't you have tumors pushing against your vital organs. If I tried a "natural" cure, I would've been dead. 

Yeah chemo was probably one of the most horrible experience I ever had, but it's lessened when you smoke lots of cannabis. Afterwards, simply start exercising again and went back to normal.


----------



## rctriplefresh5

Scorpius said:


> If i had posted a link with just the video would that make a difference...
> If you are really concerned about the "credible sources" then you should check out the video itself then review its sources not the site where i found the link to the video.. :roll
> 
> Chemotherapy is load of BS..i mean what did you expect from the drug industry...but anyways, if you don't want to watch the video it's your choice to remain ignorant just don't make it seem like the video isn't a credible source on the subject because YOU don't want to watch it..lol


my dog has cancer wasn't sure if i should raise my hand p i consider him a part of my nonextended(nuclears) family and a close friend


----------



## moneyman

lonelyjew said:


> Here's an article about an experiment using a new drug for pancreatic cancer:
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/225130.php
> Original article
> http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...1923#t=article
> Mind you, they can't deny treatment to patients, so it's between the most effective current treatment and the new one. Pancreatic cancer used to be a death sentence, and while now the prognosis is likely never good with it, at least chemotherapy gives hope.


That merely confirms what I've already said. There is no control group in that study. Only one type/mix of chemo vs. another type/mix of chemo. What about those who were given no chemo? Don't know. Also, the study was (of course) done by a large pharmaceutical company, hardly an objective panel.



btryan said:


> OP, since you already have one article to start with, why don't you check some of those 110 references as well as some of the more prominent authors.


Ahh - someone actually read the study! Congratulations, now we are making some progress.

Yes, the study claims that OVERALL the effectiveness in 22 types of cancer was around (optimistically) 2%. This means that in some cases it was more effective than others. Like in your example you posted. Good job.

I think I already said, or alluded to that when noting that testicular cancer was as high as 40% effectiveness. See my post # 16.

I'm not arguing that it never works. In fact, what I said in post # 30 is



moneyman said:


> Also, I have not seen any evidence that it is "extremely effective towards some cancers" - actually I've shown evidence to the contrary. More like it is somewhat effective in some cancers, and arguably not very effective at all for many (most?) common cancers.


So I'm not sure what your point is, other than recommending I read more about the study. Well, I recommend you read more of this thread since you seemed to have missed a great deal.



JimmyDeansRetartedCousin said:


> http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/9/12/2134.abstract
> A study from 1982 documenting he effectiveness of cyclphosphamide against breast cancer, this drug works.
> Oh what's this? a 20 year follow up that proves again it's effectivness.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...,f1000m,isrctn
> This drug has long since lost it's patent, there is no alterior motive for a drug company to fake this kind of stuff.
> Google methotrexate, doxirubicin, infliximab etc you'll find the same things.
> Seriously it's not a scam.
> I hope you see this and don't put yourself at risk.


...and once again a study comparing one type/mix of chemo vs. another, with no control group. And once again entirely inconclusive from what I'm trying to determine.

I hope you don't continue to put yourself at risk either, what with your trouble comprehending the issue.



Donnie in the Dark said:


> Moneyman if you got cancer would you want chemo?


It would depend upon many factors. You can bet I'd be doing some much more serious research than I've done here. Right now I'm just casually asking questions on an anonymous internet message board and googling stuff.

And discovering that many people have knee-jerk responses to certain things without knowing (or understanding) the facts themselves 



alte said:


> 40% is a very significant number especially when considering serious diseases like cancer which can have dismal survival rates. I think that even if a therapy improves survival by tenth of a percentage, it should be kept available as an option to patients. Chemo does have horrible side effects as you said. However, the decision to administer chemotherapy is done an individual basis per the patient's wishes. If they don't want it, then that's ok. But I imagine many people when faced with a terminal illness, want everything possible to be done .. as they hope for a miraculous cure. You can't fault them for this type of thinking.


I agree with you completely. I think people just need to learn to be more skeptical and discriminating, particularly in light of the surveys that showed many people would not have taken chemo if they understood the risks and the low (in most cases) efficacy rates better. The survey showing that most oncologists wouldn't take it highlights this.



Brightpaperwarewolf said:


> MoneyMan, I can't put it in any other way. You are an idiot.


Ok, so if I may humbly ask your opinion, oh enlightened one, was chemo the only treatment you received? And what, dare I ask, form of cancer was it?

And a note that when you go on record calling someone an idiot, be prepared to go the distance in explaining yourself. I personally take offense and will badger you until you eat your words, slither into the background, or apologize.

I also disdain those who claim moral or intellectual supremacy over anyone who dares question conventional wisdom yet only have ANECDOTES rather than scientific evidence to support their own claims. Or worse yet, those who haven't read or understood what I have written yet feel compelled to respond insultingly or patronizingly. I think that speaks more about the character of the person making those judgments than anything else that person says.


----------



## moneyman

JimmyDean - my apologies. I screwed up and clicked the wrong ncbi link. (But in your first link, from the journal, I stand by what I said.)

But in your second link, it does indeed appear that chemo by itself was an improvement after surgery than those with no chemo after surgery. I expanded the text to get the details.

In that particular type of cancer and under those criteria (node-positive, post radical mastectomy) it certainly appears to work - somewhat.

Note that it is not a miracle worker however. Especially for those who relapse - "Eighteen years after relapse, and after receiving a variety of salvage treatments, *4 percent of the women in the control group were alive with disease, as compared with 5 percent of the women in the CMF group*. (emphasis mine)

For those who were relapse free, overall 25% of the non-chemo survived 20 years vs. 32% for chemo treated. There's a difference, sure, but significant? This is on a 95 confidence interval, mind you, and although my statistics is a bit rusty I believe that means it's possible there is virtually no difference at all.

Also, "The median survival after the diagnosis of relapse was 36 months in the control group, as compared with 32 months in the CMF group." So after relapse, you had a slightly BETTER chance of survival without chemo than with. Only then, after the few remaining survivers that made it past a few years, did that whopping 1% survival rate come through after 18 years.

Also, check this part out of the study - "Within 20 years after surgery *second cancers were detected in 19 patients (5 in the control group and 12 in the CMF group)*." (again emphasis mine) Those with chemo were more likely to get second cancers - a lot more likely! May not change anyone's mind, but definitely something interesting to consider. And in Table 1 it even says "In the analysis of relapse-free survival, second primary cancers and deaths due to other causes were not considered events." Ok, so does that mean you're more likely to get second cancers with chemo, but we're not going to count deaths from those in the count of who survived and who didn't? Isn't that cherry-picking?

Puts it all a little bit more in perspective, eh? Just seems that these studies make it sound much rosier than the data actually tell, no? I also don't like that the sample is only 386, but it's better than nothing.

The way the "conclusion" and summary make it sound so wonderful, versus what the data actually say, makes me suspicious of the motives of the authors. But I'll buy that it did make a difference in this study for certain subgroups.

Anyways, the bottom line is that it still doesn't convince me that chemo is usually helpful, or very helpful at all. In fact reinforces to me that if this is the best it can do, a tiny percentage and only for certain people with certain types of cancer, it really sucks overall.


----------



## btryan

moneyman said:


> Ahh - someone actually read the study! Congratulations, now we are making some progress.
> 
> Yes, the study claims that OVERALL the effectiveness in 22 types of cancer was around (optimistically) 2%. This means that in some cases it was more effective than others. Like in your example you posted. Good job.
> 
> I think I already said, or alluded to that when noting that testicular cancer was as high as 40% effectiveness. See my post # 16.
> 
> I'm not arguing that it never works. In fact, what I said in post # 30 is


It seems you don't even bother spending time doing any real research, you are just quoting the numbers *without *checking the references to support your argument. How convenient!

No amount of evidence is going to convince you anyway. Don't bother replying until you have completed reading all those 110 references.


----------



## lonelyjew

Moneyman, unfortunately I don't know if you'll be able to find evidence which conclusively shows chemotherapy vs. no treatment unless you're willing to go on a hunt for very old articles, from the first clinical trials using chemotherapeutics. I don't think I have to explain the obvious necessity to not withhold treatment in clinical studies, not to mention the reason for its illegality. All studies of cancer drugs, which will be done by pharmaceutical companies most likely as they are horrendously expensive to do because of the huge amount of regulation and oversight there is over them, will always have the new therapy working against the current best standard therapy.

 You can however look at trends in cancer survival over the 20th century to see the clear advances we have made in cancer treatment, using chemotherapy and other treatments. Here's an article discussing the decline in cancer mortality in the US for people born after 1925 http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/69/16/6500.full.pdf+html. Unfortunately, again there are so many factors to be taken into account here, that you can't single out chemotherapy here.

  A much more obvious case can be made looking at leukemia survival rates through the last 50 years. Here's an excerpt from a fact sheet provided by the Leukemia and Lymphoma society:




> From 1960 to 1963, the five-year relative survival rate among whites with leukemia was 14 percent. From 1975 to 1977, the five-year relative survival rate for the total population with leukemia was 35.6 percent, and from 1999 to 2006, the overall relative survival rate was 55.3 percent



 http://www.lls.org/content/nationalcontent/resourcecenter/freeeducationmaterials/generalcancer/pdf/facts

 Chemotherapy has been a primary treatment for leukemia, and the massive increase in survival can be largely attributed to the efficacy of chemotherapy, and it's improvements.


----------



## lonelyjew

I also wanted to add, in talking to my GF about this, who was the lab manager for a lab in the cancer research center of U of M, she said this to me: "In the future, when people look back at the chemotherapy of today, they'll see it in the same light as amputations during the civil war. They'll see it as something that could have had truly horrible effects on the patients receiving it, and sometimes not even being worth it's use. However, it's the best thing we have right now." 

Unfortunately, for chemotherapy to be optimally effective, the treatment given must be customized to the specific cancer, and even today we are very limited in our capacity to do this. As personalized medicine becomes more common, and drugs are fine tuned, and used more effectively with other treatments, side effects will be minimized, while outcomes will be greatly improved. Until then, like she said, it's the best thing we have a lot of the time.

edit*

Anyways, I guess I also want to add that there isn't much more I can add to this debate. You asked if chemotherapy is effective, and it clearly is extremely effective for some forms of cancer and not as effective in others. 

Even the study posted about it's overall effectiveness concedes this, and further, you have to keep in mind that it also does not take into account chemotherapy vs. no treatment. That 2% is improvement for all outcomes, after the benefits of other treatments. To discount this is, well, idiotic, especially when considering, like I and others have repeatedly said, that the improvement is different for different cancers. I imagine, that for cancers which have been shown to be extremely unresponsive to a certain drug, or chemotherapy in general, oncologists wouldn't hook up their patients and hope for a miracle, they would prescribe other treatments. The logic you seem to be using would have you discounting the use of a drug like AZT against all viral infections because, if it's role as a treatment was studied against all viruses, it would seem ineffective on the whole, despite the fact that it has great effects in slowing the HIV virus. Hell, even in HIV/AIDS, I'd like to know how much of improvement in condition is specifically attributed to it, because on the whole, by itself, it might not make much of a difference it makes when all of the other drugs are used. This however, again, does not discount it's importance in being part of a cocktail of drugs used against this specific virus. 

To repeat myself, for the reason above, you cannot discount chemotherapy just because it's role, by itself, may not have massively positive effects, for all cancers, in the presence of other treatments. Chemotherapy is an integral part of cancer treatment.


----------



## moneyman

btryan said:


> It seems you don't even bother spending time doing any real research, you are just quoting the numbers without checking the references to support your argument. How convenient!
> No amount of evidence is going to convince you anyway. Don't bother replying until you have completed reading all those 110 references.


Excuse me, but what exactly is your point? Do you have a question or rebuttal to what I've posted? Or are you simply trying to be antagonizing.

You brought up one example of a specific type of cancer that may possibly be helped by chemotherapy. I'm not disputing that, and have stated so several times already. What is your evidence that chemo is highly effective in all or even most of the cancers it is prescribed for? Or do you not have any and you'd rather just claim I don't - how convenient.

So again, what is your point other than to spout off about me "not reading the references"? Do you have something relevant to share? Because I haven't seen it yet. Bringing up one specific claim about chemo helping does nothing to my argument that it is relatively ineffective and oversold.

What part of "overall it is effective 2% of the time, optimistically, for 5 year survival rates on 22 different types of cancer" do you not get or agree with? Would you call that a highly effective treatment? A 98% failure rate with high likelihood of horrible side-effects?

Saying "no amount of evidence will convince" me, while you haven't even provided anything new, is a cop-out. How convenient.

Don't bother replying until you have something relevant to post that I have not already addressed.



lonelyjew said:


> Chemotherapy has been a primary treatment for leukemia, and the massive increase in survival can be largely attributed to the efficacy of chemotherapy, and it's improvements.


I see that the info on that link supports that, but I can't find where or how that information was arrived at. Not saying it's false, just saying I can't tell how credible it is. I agree it certainly looks and sounds credible though. My biggest reservation is that they may be comparing old chemo treatments with new chemo treatments, but no control groups.

They also mention this - "The risk of long-term effects of anticancer therapy has been recognized for years. To reduce the risks of therapy, treatments continue to evolve, and the lowest effective doses of drugs and radiation are used."

Under "treatment" for the various leukemias, it is, like most cancers, a combination of therapies, including chemo. So I'm not sure how they know that it is the chemo, not improvements in radiation therapy or stem cell therapies or "watch-and-wait" therapies that are contributing to higher survival rates.

For example, what if they have gradually been using less chemo and more "watch-and-wait" therapy, allowing the body to not be entirely destroyed by chemo and rebuild its immune system to fight it on its own, and that has been the improvement? We don't know from this information.

It's promising, but not conclusive. And again, this is one type of cancer. Chemotherapy is used on a whole host of cancers, and again the evidence I have found indicates a poor track record, overall.



lonelyjew said:


> You asked if chemotherapy is effective, and it clearly is extremely effective for some forms of cancer and not as effective in others.


I do not agree that it is "extremely effective" for some forms of cancer. I've only seen that it is somewhat effective for some. Something that fails more often than it succeeds is in my opinion not extremely effective. Even a 50/50 could not be considered "extremely effective" - that's the toss of a coin! And you consider something less likely than the toss of a coin "extremely effective"?



lonelyjew said:


> I don't think I have to explain the obvious necessity to not withhold treatment in clinical studies, not to mention the reason for its illegality.


The study I found didn't seem to have a problem with this. All that's necessary is to include people who voluntarily choose not to use chemo in your study. Of course, if people don't understand that chemo is not a silver bullet, they're not likely to volutarily withhold it. And how do people know how effective it is if there isn't anything available to inform them? Or if there is a huge myth in society about how effective it is?



lonelyjew said:


> you have to keep in mind that it also does not take into account chemotherapy vs. no treatment. That 2% is improvement for all outcomes, after the benefits of other treatments. To discount this is, well, idiotic


Why do you think I am not keeping this in mind, especially since that is actually what I have been saying all along. You know, the whole how do we know that it is chemo *specifically* that is helping, and not the OTHER TREATMENTS



lonelyjew said:


> you cannot discount chemotherapy just because it's role, by itself, may not have massively positive effects, for all cancers, in the presence of other treatments. Chemotherapy is an integral part of cancer treatment.


This is the conclusion I've drawn based upon the evidence - not only does it not have "massively positive" effects, it has mostly tiny probabilities of positive effects and high probabilities of very negative effects. So is the trade-off worth it? That's up to the individual, but they must know the facts before they can make an informed decision. As evidenced in this thread, there are a lot of misunderstandings about just how effective chemo is and what exactly the risks are.

Your statement that it is an integral part of cancer treatment ignores the reality that much is unknown about whether that is true or not in most cases.


----------



## moneyman

I will say (again, but more clearly this time) that there is absolutely evidence that chemotherapy helps some people with some cancers to survive longer. I do not dispute that.

I will also say, again, that my concern about chemo is how conventional wisdom leads people to believe that chemotherapy is a necessary and very effective treatment in all the cancers it is prescribed for.

My conclusion at this point is that if everyone knew precisely how effective it was for their specific ailment, based upon credible evidence, and the known risks (side effects, including likelihood of dying or developing other cancers/ailments due to the treatment) involved, would it be prescribed and accepted as often as it is? No. 

For example a very, very slim chance of surviving a few more months or years coupled with a much more likely chance of chemo killing me or making my life miserable for those extra months/years would at least cause me to hesitate. Particularly if I have a very slim chance of surviving the same amount of time or longer without chemo. If a doctor said to you, chemo has been shown to improve your chance of surviving 5 more years by 4%, but your chance of surviving that long without it is 3%, what would you do? What if he also said the chemo could make you so weak it kills you, or allows other diseases to get a hold of you, and will make you very sick for a long period of time, what would you do? Would you think that chemo is extremely effective at that point? Absolutely necessary and integral part of your treatment?

My primary goal with this thread was to explore the efficacy of chemotherapy and challenge the status quo. In my opinion, which was backed up by several posters in this thread, there is a myth in our society that chemotherapy is absolutely necessary and highly effective for fighting cancers. At this point, the evidence shows that this is not the case. Is it somewhat effective? Sometimes. Sometimes, perhaps most times, it's not very effective at all.

Is it a scam? Not in the sense that we typically associate the word "scam" with. Is it oversold and misunderstood? I believe it clearly is.

When faced with something as frightening as cancer, I think people (including doctors) will try anything to fight it - despite the risks or terrible odds. Just as people will try risky and potentially deadly homeopathic or holistic remedies, people will try medically acceptable remedies with just as crappy a track record. Why not, when you may be dying? But perhaps if we attempt to shed some light on it before we or someone we care about falls ill, we will be more properly informed to at least ask some pertinent questions from reliable people.


----------



## btryan

moneyman said:


> What is your evidence that chemo is highly effective in all or even most of the cancers it is prescribed for?


You came here with one big question, and you expect other people to do all the hard work and research for you? Are you a high school student? If I don't go through the references 1 by 1, then you just can't do the homework. If I don't show you something NEW, then you will never learn anything.

Also, all you quote are just websites. You are a typical example of *cyberchondria*.


----------



## moneyman

btryan said:


> You came here with one big question, and you expect other people to do all the hard work and research for you? Are you a high school student? If I don't go through the references 1 by 1, then you just can't do the homework. If I don't show you something NEW, then you will never learn anything.
> 
> Also, all you quote are just websites. You are a typical example of *cyberchondria*.


I've asked you *two times* above what your point was, and you haven't answered that yet.

If you had a strong argument or a valid point I would take you more seriously, but since your only goal is to try to belittle me, I can't. I will encourage you to try again however, I do have some patience. Lose the smug attitude, read and comprehend the thread, and demonstrate something relevant.

If you prove to be unable to that, which so far you have shown that you are unable to do those things, then go troll someone else's thread. Simply insisting I "do the homework" and "do the research" and "read the references" is meaningless. I've made my point. I'm curious what YOUR point is. Are you arguing that chemotherapy is highly effective for all cancers? Some cancers? Do you dispute some point I've made? *What is your point?* Again, do you have one, or are you simply a troll?

Try to bring something to the table if you can. Or is this the best you can do? "Don't reply until you read all those references" and "do your own homework". I hate to break it to you, but the burden of proof is on me to support my conclusions. I have done that. If you have a different point, the burden of proof is on you to support your conclusions. Is that concept elusive? Of course, once again, you need to have a point in the first place.

And as for your comment "all you quote are websites". Is there something else I am supposed to be quoting, Mr. Authority On Everything Whom Hath No Point? Would you like me to quote something my Dr. said, i.e. another anecdote? Would that be more convincing and credible? Or how about a TV show I saw? Or something my professor said? Or a book I read, in which everyone would need to go out and buy it or borrow it to read it and confirm what I was saying? Get my drift yet? Websites are something everyone can check out for themselves immediately to verify credibility and authenticity. Anything else is either anecdotes or not easily verifiable. Did I really have to explain all that?

Lastly, your cyberchondria statement. Cyberchondria "refers to the unfounded escalation of concerns about common symptomology based on review of search results and literature online."

One, note in that description the term *symptomology*. Know what that means? Look it up. I'm not going to do all YOUR homework for you. Does it look like I am having an unfounded escalation of concerns about symptoms? Yeah, didn't think so. cyberchondria... Fail

Two, I began this thread stating concerns I had based upon personal evidence I had experienced in real life, i.e. anecdotes, and anecdotes from others. In other words, my concerns began not based upon website searches but with real world experiences. cyberchondria... Fail

Three, as nobody (especially you) has been able to refute the conclusions in the study I've drawn from, nor the credibility of that study, I would not consider that "unfounded" concern. cyberchondria... Fail

Total fail my friend. Is this an indication of what your research and comprehension skills are like?

Please come back when you have something relevant to add to the discussion. Preferably with a more respectful tone. I'm open to criticism in my conclusions and especially evidence to the contrary, if it can be done in a relatively objective fashion. Others have found a way to do so, I have faith that you can too. Thank you.


----------



## Brightpaperwarewolf

moneyman said:


> Ok, so if I may humbly ask your opinion, oh enlightened one, was chemo the only treatment you received? And what, dare I ask, form of cancer was it?
> 
> And a note that when you go on record calling someone an idiot, be prepared to go the distance in explaining yourself. I personally take offense and will badger you until you eat your words, slither into the background, or apologize.
> 
> I also disdain those who claim moral or intellectual supremacy over anyone who dares question conventional wisdom yet only have ANECDOTES rather than scientific evidence to support their own claims. Or worse yet, those who haven't read or understood what I have written yet feel compelled to respond insultingly or patronizingly. I think that speaks more about the character of the person making those judgments than anything else that person says.


Don't you think most of this dung you wrote is insulting? Personally I don't care what you believe. I'm more offended that you actually are so cold and misguided with your head straight up your *** that you actually feel offended by my statement. Anyone who's been in my shoes would say the exactly same thing that you are a ****ing idiot. I will continue to say it because you deserve it. It has little to do with moral or intellectual supremacy. It's the fact you are an inhuman piece of ****. Nothing more.

You aren't the one that lost a year of his life. You aren't the one that had to it 6 hours each day of a week sitting next to an IV. You aren't the one that had to wear a bag of piss on your leg that connected to some object shoved up your dick. You aren't the one who was sliced open, twice. You aren't the one who had his lung collapse. You weren't the one that had to endure a feeling like you are frozen but burning from the inside. Want more?.

With all that, tumors pushing against your vital organs is far more painful than the treatment I went through and if I had to do it all over again, I would. I have zero to prove to someone who actually believes this bull****. I don't care. You can have intellectual and moral superiority. Doesn't change what I think about your character. An insulting patronizing little brat.


----------



## lonelyjew

Moneyman, did you even bother to read the article you're basing your whole opinion on?



> Those who do not have an operation
> (n ¼ 67  21 ¼ 46) are suitable for treatment by radiotherapy
> or a combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
> In a Cochrane review reporting seven RCTs and 1653
> patients [31], preoperative chemotherapy in resectable
> thoracic cancers was not shown to have a role, but an
> MRC trial [32] and a recent meta-analysis [33] has
> confirmed a benefit for preoperative chemotherapy.
> A further Cochrane review [34] of combined chemotherapy
> and radiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone
> for oesophageal cancer showed a significant absolute
> improvement in overall survival at 1 and 2 years for
> combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy of 9% and 8%
> respectively, and a 5% absolute reduction in local failure. It
> can be concluded that, when a non-operative approach was
> selected, then concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy
> were superior to radiotherapy alone. Chemotherapy, therefore,
> has a curative role in all patients except those who are
> M1 at presentation.





> An American College of Surgeons Patient Care Study for
> patients treated between 1982 and 1987 found that nodenegative
> D2 surgery was only possible in 31% of people
> with operable stomach cancer [40]. At presentation, 20%
> have metastatic disease and 40% of the remainder are
> locally advanced or inoperable. Chemotherapy, therefore,
> has a curative role in the 31% out of the 40% who may be
> candidates for radical surgery (12% of total)





> The overall survival benefit for chemotherapy was 5%
> for colon cancer and 9% for rectal cancer.





> chemotherapy in addition to surgery improves overall
> survival by 5% at 5 years. Chemotherapy improves survival
> by 4% at 2 years when given in addition to radiotherapy,
> and was responsible for a 10% improvement in survival at 1
> year compared with best supportive care.





> A meta-analysis [61], later a Cochrane Review [62], has
> confirmed a 12% absolute overall survival benefit with
> concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy compared with
> surgery alone or radiotherapy alone.





> Radiotherapy has been the standard treatment, although
> there is now a move to combine chemotherapy and
> radiotherapy to minimise long-term complications. In
> a meta-analysis of the initial treatment of early stage
> Hodgkin's disease [83], the addition of chemotherapy to
> radiotherapy, or the use of more extensive radiotherapy
> fields, had a large effect on relapse, but only a small effect
> on overall survival. If initial treatment had been radiotherapy
> alone, many recurrences could be salvaged with
> chemotherapy alone or with bone-marrow transplantation.
> This represents an improvement in 5-year survival to 95%
> from 80% with radiotherapy alone.





> With
> intermediate and high-grade NHL, the use of chemotherapy
> has improved the prognosis by inducing durable complete
> remission in a significant proportion of patients. However,
> this benefit is restricted to NHL patients with large B cell
> histology (30% total), where about 50% of the 70% who
> obtain a complete response are durable long-term survivors.


----------



## lonelyjew

I also have to add, again, the math the authors are using is horribly misleading. If chemotherapy is used in only a specific form of lung cancer that makes up 10% of all cancers, but in that 10% it provides a 50% increase in 5 year survival, the author would tell you the effectiveness of chemotherapy in lung cancer is .10X.50 = .05, or 5%. I thought I made this point pretty clear in one of my last posts....

Further, the whole basis for the calculations the authors are using would hold that all more specific subtypes of cancer are equal in their responses to chemotherapy, which is not the case. Again, even in cancers where chemotherapy is more likely to be useful, it may not be useful at all. If a patient was showing no response, or minimal response, to a drug(s), they would not continue them on it. Other patients would have a dramatic response to it. To ignore this is, again, misleading.


----------



## btryan

moneyman said:


> And as for your comment "all you quote are websites". Is there something else I am supposed to be quoting


So, you don't know have to do a proper research. Go to the following websites:

Google scholar: http://scholar.google.com.au/
PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
ScienceDirect: http://www.sciencedirect.com/

Type in keywords, or copy and paste the references and here come scientific papers. Find the right papers, check the author's claim against what is actually written in the original papers. Simple, and extremely time-consuming, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't mind since you are such an eager learner.

Congratulations, now you are making some progress too.


----------



## lonelyjew

I think btryan is as equally annoyed with you when you say things like this:



moneyman said:


> So again, what is your point other than to spout off about me "not reading the references"? Do you have something relevant to share? Because I haven't seen it yet. Bringing up one specific claim about chemo helping does nothing to my argument that it is relatively ineffective and oversold.
> 
> ....
> 
> Saying "no amount of evidence will convince" me, while you haven't even provided anything new, is a cop-out. How convenient.
> 
> ....
> 
> I see that the info on that link supports that, but I can't find where or how that information was arrived at. Not saying it's false, just saying I can't tell how credible it is. I agree it certainly looks and sounds credible though. My biggest reservation is that they may be comparing old chemo treatments with new chemo treatments, but no control groups.


You don't trust my source, which seems reputable, because you don't see the primary sources, but you don't bother checking the primary sources of your own article. As long as I'm posting, I think it would be prudential of you to check the efficacy of chemotherapy after 2004, when that study was published. Hell, a lot of data from your study comes from the early 90's, and earlier, since which medicine has greatly improved. I don't have anything off hand to show their is a difference, but I'd be willing to bet that, even with the awful math the authors use in that article, there would be marked improvements in the chemotherapies used today over those of *20 years ago*.


----------



## diamondheart89

Musicman said pretty much everything I wanted to say, but basically, it depends on the origin of the cancer, the stage, and the malignancy. Chemo is only helpful and effective in certain cases. The simplest explanation is that you're basically using strong toxic chemicals to kill the cells that are growing uncontrollably and trying to conserve the healthy cells as much as possible. It isn't pleasant, comfortable, or without massive risks ..but it does save lives and allow people more time. Obviously, it isn't appropriate in all cases.


----------



## moneyman

Well that all took way longer than it should have 

Lots of valuable info learned here, forget the actual topic of the thread!

Hopefully none of you mind this stuff being used for other purposes.

Thanks to all who participated!!


----------



## Brightpaperwarewolf

moneyman said:


> Well that all took way longer than it should have
> 
> Lots of valuable info learned here, forget the actual topic of the thread!
> 
> Hopefully none of you mind this stuff being used for other purposes.
> 
> Thanks to all who participated!!


Have fun wacking off to it.


----------



## lonelyjew

moneyman said:


> Well that all took way longer than it should have
> 
> Lots of valuable info learned here, forget the actual topic of the thread!
> 
> Hopefully none of you mind this stuff being used for other purposes.
> 
> Thanks to all who participated!!


Heh, no problem. It was a good thread, with a good question, and for the record, I think you're absolutely right to not simply take people at their word on things like this. I do however hope that you can see that the infamous 2% benefit paper you posted, as I said repeatedly, uses math that is very misleading.

Anyways, what other purposes? Research paper/argumentative paper?


----------



## marinwestend

*This is an old thread but here is my thoughts*

I have seen a number of people go on Chemo. One I am sure died, not sure about the rest.

I knew a guy that was a toxicologist in a hospital and did work for the police. He said that Yes if you survive the cancer the chemo can kill you.

It kills living cells and is not as selective as they wish, but are getting better. So what happens is you blood is "clogged" with dead cells which you body cannot get rid of quick enough. That is what kills you if the cancer does not you "choke on the dead cells".

The offical chemo survival rate is 60%. The drug companies over exaggerate so no telling what it is. The unknown is when someone does die while receiving chemo, what did kill them the cancer or the chemo?

That is something I am sure would show in an atopsy but they would never do or tell the truth.

Find an alternative. People have cured themselves of terminal cancer just by diet. Yes diet, look it up. A pure vegan diet to starve the cancer, no fruit, no sugars no starches, no animal products at all just grains and vegetables very lightly cooked if cooked at all. Probably would not hurt to take supplements like C as well. People have also been cured by large doses of C. But will not work for all cancers. But start it as soon as you find out. They do not usually use chemo until the last resort, so you normally have time.

Prevention is the key. Take antioxidant supplements to get rid of the potential cancer cells and "junk" floating around in your blood. It is these mutated cells and parts of cells that get absorbed in live cells and start dividing into mutated cells called cancer.


----------



## BuriedAlive

Here is my input and what I believe....

---Chemo is* not* a scam. It destroys the cancer cells in your body but yet at the same time it also destroys a persons good nonmalignant cells. Researchers are trying to find ways to make chemo a less toxic treatment but they say they have not found a way yet. 
You will feel like complete **** during the course of chemo but when you go into remission, you only need less doses of it for the time being and can extend a persons lifespan. Some people dont need chemo for years after treatment.
Now all bodies are different, and no cancer is the exact same as someone elses. For one person perhaps having chemo could be very effective. But as for another, maybe an elderly or late stage cancer, it would help very little- just causing more side effects than actual helping. It goes down to the biology of the cancer and the person itself.

----Pharmaceuticals COULD be the scammers, not the chemo. I honestly believe that somewhere a company could have the cure for cancer but are withelding it to keep their income from the sick. Think of all the money they would loose if cancer was cured. They would go bankrupt after they recieve a persons last bill after being cured. They want $$$$ so why on earth should they let out a cure? Same as insurance companies.


----------



## komorikun

It can cure cancer but you will never be the same afterwards, physically/mentally (look up chemobrain). There are so many long-term side effects from the drugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-chemotherapy_cognitive_impairment


----------



## ASB20

I've read enough medical lit that I understand that chem kills cancer cells. It's quiet effective.

However, it's a scorched-earth strategy. It wipes out a lot more than just cancer, and depending on your beliefs and views, it might not be worth it. Yes, it can preserve your life. But is life riddled with a treatment that annihilates your health and ability worth it?

I think it's a matter of costs and benefits. If you're young and/or generally healthy, then chemo's probably worth it in many cases. If you want to live many more years, then chemo can help you be better off to achieving that goal.

But if I were old or suffering from bad health already, I wouldn't do it. It'd be too much of a risk with not enough upside in such a case. It's economics 101 there: The equilibrium point in such a scenario means that your future prospects have to at least much, if not outweigh, the potential costs. 

The real question is...how much do you value your future life? Do you value it enough to sacrifice your present in what will be, almost assuredly, a terrible and painful battle?

For some, yes. For others, no.


----------



## prettyful

WTF?!


----------



## Sacrieur

No, it isn't.

Since you know, it's better than being dead.


----------



## Dylan2

My friend's uncle's cat says chemotherapy is a scam and only made him worse.

Science says chemotherapy is effective in preventing patients with cancer from dying.


----------



## ASB20

Sacrieur said:


> Since you know, it's better than being dead.


Depending on the stage and ramifications of the cancer, I'd say that's debatable. But that's another topic entirely.


----------



## BNDP

So, didn't read the entire thread but I had an extremely aggressive cancer of unknown primary. I was near death. The docs threw me on a high-dose regimen of cyclophosphamide, adriomycin and cisplatin. Worked for me. Cancer responded extremely well, currently in remission, looking good. I didn't expect chemo to work at all. I was glad to be so wrong.


----------



## PersonPersoning

Cancer is caused by living unnaturally. You cant fix living unnaturally by more of the unnatural. By exposing yourself to deadly radiation. Sure some people survive with chemo, but they survive in spite of it. Not because of it. The only way a body can heal is through itself. Is through getting what it needs to heal. Through getting rid of that which is causing dis ease. Its known that people who have cancer and dont do anything at all live longer than people who start chemotherapy. Thats a red flag. If you have cancer, your best bet without harming yourself further is to get on a raw food detox. But dont expect any doctor or average person to tell you that. They will think you are crazy because they are ignorant. Theres no money in telling someone to go on a grape fast.


----------



## lonelyjew

PersonPersoning said:


> Cancer is caused by living unnaturally. You cant fix living unnaturally by more of the unnatural. By exposing yourself to deadly radiation. Sure some people survive with chemo, but they survive in spite of it. Not because of it. The only way a body can heal is through itself. Is through getting what it needs to heal. Through getting rid of that which is causing dis ease. Its known that people who have cancer and dont do anything at all live longer than people who start chemotherapy. Thats a red flag. If you have cancer, your best bet without harming yourself further is to get on a raw food detox. But dont expect any doctor or average person to tell you that. They will think you are crazy because they are ignorant. Theres no money in telling someone to go on a grape fast.


Are you a board certified oncologist, or a biologist/biochemist who does cancer research? Do you even have a bachelors in a science, or taken even rudimentary classes on human physio, or cell bio? Honestly, do you know the first thing about what cancer is and isn't, because you're making some very strong statements there, and I'd hope that you have some actual, hard, factual knowledge to back up those strong statements. Honestly, I can care less what you personally believe in, but it bothers me a great deal when people like yourself steer sick people the wrong way, and make them more sick by wasting time with this sort of wishful thinking, which can lead to that person dying because of your well meaning but ignorant/misguided advice... If you need a famous example, Steve Jobs had a very treatable cancer (winning the lottery of pancreatic cancers), instead he went your detox rout, and by the time he realized he was only getting worse, it was too late to cure him.

Seriously, from someone who has some idea of what they're talking about, please stop spreading this sort of ignorance, it causes a lot more harm than good, and yes, people unfortunately die because of the exact crap you're preaching.



BNDP said:


> So, didn't read the entire thread but I had an extremely aggressive cancer of unknown primary. I was near death. The docs threw me on a high-dose regimen of cyclophosphamide, adriomycin and cisplatin. Worked for me. Cancer responded extremely well, currently in remission, looking good. I didn't expect chemo to work at all. I was glad to be so wrong.


That's great to hear! Reading that first part, that they didn't know the primary, implies a tumor that is so poorly differentiated (very high grade) that it didn't look like anything in your body. That's usually very, very, very bad, so wahoo that you're doing well now ! After dealing with those particular drugs, which I know are pretty nasty, its good that it payed off.


----------



## ugh1979

Dylan2 said:


> My friend's uncle's cat says chemotherapy is a scam and only made him worse.


:lol


----------



## ugh1979

lonelyjew said:


> Are you a board certified oncologist, or a biologist/biochemist who does cancer research? Do you even have a bachelors in a science, or taken even rudimentary classes on human physio, or cell bio? Honestly, do you know the first thing about what cancer is and isn't, because you're making some very strong statements there, and I'd hope that you have some actual, hard, factual knowledge to back up those strong statements. Honestly, I can care less what you personally believe in, but it bothers me a great deal when people like yourself steer sick people the wrong way, and make them more sick by wasting time with this sort of wishful thinking, which can lead to that person dying because of your well meaning but ignorant/misguided advice... If you need a famous example, Steve Jobs had a very treatable cancer (winning the lottery of pancreatic cancers), instead he went your detox rout, and by the time he realized he was only getting worse, it was too late to cure him.


Indeed. People who say modern medicine and cancer specialists are "ignorant" and the "correct" treatment is eating grapes/praying to Xenu/eating dog meat etc are dangerously ill informed.

They get their "evidence" from anecdotal experiences, which are highly fallacious. Lay people easily misunderstand the results of complex medical issues and many other things when they use personal and anecdotal experience rather than scientific tests utilising rigorous scientific method.


----------



## ugh1979

PersonPersoning said:


> Cancer is caused by living unnaturally.


While of course exposure to certain carcinogens not typically found in the life of someone living "naturally" (read pre-industrial society), can increase the chances of developing a cancer, it's totally false to say it's caused entirely by living unnaturally. Cancer has always existed.



> You cant fix living unnaturally by more of the unnatural. By exposing yourself to deadly radiation. Sure some people survive with chemo, but they survive in spite of it. Not because of it.


Nonsense. There is over 50 years and tens of thousands of published medical papers which show chemo and radiation therapy are effective. What's your counter-evidence?



> The only way a body can heal is through itself.


Absolute nonsense. Are you really trying to discredit medicine in its entirety by saying the only way the body can heal is through itself?

If so, that's a laughable ridiculous statement. :lol



> Is through getting what it needs to heal.


It is, but that is very often medicine.



> Through getting rid of that which is causing dis ease.


Again, chemo and radiation therapy can get rid of cancer.



> Its known that people who have cancer and dont do anything at all live longer than people who start chemotherapy. Thats a red flag.


Can you support that wild claim with any evidence?



> If you have cancer, your best bet without harming yourself further is to get on a raw food detox. But dont expect any doctor or average person to tell you that. They will think you are crazy because they are ignorant. Theres no money in telling someone to go on a grape fast.


That sounds like the sort of statement that will win a Darwin Award.


----------



## blue2

lol..I've read comments here that living unnaturally causes cancer, I know off a girl off 3 that had brain tumours, how can a 3 year old live unnaturally..? there is no such thing as living unatturally its all just life, chemo and battling cancer takes a lot off courage too go through, I have witnessed this in my family,i commend anyone that went through that, I am 29 I've drunk alot off alcohol,i've smoked occasionally in the past, and I eat what some would consider unhealthy, I've never been in a hospital for any kind off treatment in my life so far, but no should I get sick ,I would never have this treatment,in my experience it just prolonged suffering..if death wants me ,it can have me,i've seen enough off life anyway....


----------



## noscreenname

blue2 said:


> lol..I've read comments here that living unnaturally causes cancer, I know off a girl off 3 that had brain tumours, how can a 3 year old live unnaturally..? there is no such thing as living unatturally its all just life, chemo and battling cancer takes a lot off courage too go through, I have witnessed this in my family,i commend anyone that went through that, I am 29 I've drunk alot off alcohol,i've smoked occasionally in the past, and I eat what some would consider unhealthy, I've never been in a hospital for any kind off treatment in my life so far, but no should I get sick ,I would never have this treatment,in my experience it just prolonged suffering..if death wants me ,it can have me,i've seen enough off life anyway....


Nah maaaannnn you just don't understand the mother of that girl probably ate lots of gmo foods and HFCS while pregnant.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding

Chemotherapy is the only way to cure cancer. 

So no, it's not a scam. It's scientifically proven.


----------



## ugh1979

Ahvav said:


> I didn't really understand why people do chemotherapy
> 
> The cure for cancer was found a while ago
> 
> Source: http://www.collective-evolution.com...f-alberta-doctors-discover-a-cure-for-cancer/


You should really check the counter argument/debunking of such crazy claims before being gullible and believing they are true: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/cancercure.asp


----------



## ugh1979

Ahvav said:


> People are calling it a myth because the drug companies are making billions on "finding a cure"
> 
> I suggest you read this
> 
> And this
> 
> http://www.thedcasite.com/Library/Dichloroacetate_induces_apoptosis_in_endometrial_cancer_cells.pdf
> 
> SOURCE:http://www.thedcasite.com/the_dca_papers.html#Wong


Yeah conspiracy theories are cool. :roll I'll stand by the debunking of it from a reputable debunking site.


----------



## Vee87

Probably works for some people, never worked for anyone in my family. I will definitely decline chemo / radiation if I ever get cancer.


----------



## ugh1979

Ahvav said:


> If studies from Harvard aren't enough, I don't know what is.


1 study which has been debunked means nothing.

If there was multiple studies saying the same thing then you'd have a case. That's how science works. The science needs to be replicated.

The fame that would come from finding a viable cure for cancer means thousands of scientists would be trying what your one study claims if there was merit in it.

As I say, all you have is a "big pharma" conspiracy theory.


----------



## W A N D E R L U S T

No it's not a scam, my friend had cancer and had to undergo chemotherapy which saved his life. He was away from school almost half a year but he's caught up to us now and amazingly healthy. Yay!!  xx


----------

