phorum - Health & Medicine Forum at Asiawind - Chemotherapy contributes to a quarter of cancer deaths: study

Health & Medicine Forum at Asiawind

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Chemotherapy contributes to a quarter of cancer deaths: study

Author: FM Liew
Date: 09-30-11 06:23

There is saying goes; "There are many ways to skin a cat." as much as there are many ways to cure the same disease. Why choose only western medical methodology, which is found to be totally wrong and known to only accelerate a painful and ugly death...and the funny part is; it's not cheap.

==========
Excerpt:
A new study has raised serious questions about the use of chemotherapy for late-stage cancer patients.

The review of 600 cancer patients in Britain who died within 30 days of treatment has found that one in four of the deaths was either caused or hastened by the chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy is a standard treatment for cancer but the study questions whether seriously ill patients can cope with it.

The study was done by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Deaths. The enquiry's members are drawn mainly from British medical royal colleges.

Most of those patients looked at in the study had chemotherapy as palliative treatment to relieve the symptoms of cancer - a cure had already been ruled out.

The report found 40 per cent of them suffered significant poisoning as a result of the treatment.

"I think there's always a need to be cautious and it's very important that patients are fully informed of the risks as well as the potential benefits to treatment," said Dr Morse.

"But at the end of the day it will be the patient's decision as to whether to accept chemotherapy or not."

The study asked whether patients were given enough information about the treatment. Dr Diane Morse says in one in five cases the decision to go ahead with chemotherapy was inappropriate.

"Where it was felt to be inappropriate, it was felt that the patient would have had better quality of life if the treatment had not been given," she said.

"They were patients that were very close to the end of life and perhaps chemotherapy was not to the benefit to them."

Professor Jim Bishop, the chief executive officer of the Cancer Institute of New South Wales, says Australia has much better cancer survival rates than the UK.

But he says the study raises important questions for doctors here too.

"What it boils down to is not so much cautiousness but rather what does the evidence say," Professor Bishop said.

"Is there good evidence that intervention at this stage will improve things, can we improve the symptoms or is it in fact, there is no evidence that this would improve the patients well being?

"In which case that should be discussed fully with the patient and the patient be involved in that choice."

Cancer Council CEO Professor Ian Olver says while chemotherapy is sometimes the best way to relieve the symptoms of cancer, some patients might not fully understand its limits.

"I think you have got to be very careful that the benefit is not either overstated or that the patient doesn't believe that it is going to do more than it can," he said.

Based on an AM report by Sara Everingham.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-11-13/chemotherapy-contributes-to-a-quarter-of-cancer/204358

Reply To This Message

Hundreds of cancer patient deaths 'caused by chemotherapy'

Author: FM Liew
Date: 09-30-11 06:27

Would western medical doctor share these facts with patient?
============
Excerpt:
A study by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) found that of 600 patients who died within 30 days of treatment, 27 per cent had their deaths hastened or caused by chemotherapy.

The report warns that doctors should be more cautious when giving the treatment to patients, especially when they are very sick.

It concludes that 19 per cent of those who died within a month should not have received chemotherapy at all.

Tens of thousands of cancer patients across Britain receive the treatment every year and it has been credited with greatly prolonging the life expectancy of many sufferers.

However, it can be hard on a patient's body, especially their immune system.

The report recommends that consultants consider reducing the dose of chemotherapy for severely ill cancer sufferers and that patients be given more information to help them decide if it is the best treatment for them.

Professor Tom Treasure, from University College London, who chaired the report, said: "Chemotherapy has transformed the outlook for many cancer patients. However, our study asked difficult questions and found some unpalatable answers about decisions made in the weeks before (these patients) died. These merit careful consideration."

The study looked at all patients who died within 30 days of receiving chemotherapy in June and July 2006.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/3439818/Hundreds-of-cancer-patient-deaths-caused-by-chemotherapy.html

Reply To This Message

Like a lawyer, MD would twist facts

Author: FM Liew
Date: 09-30-11 06:31

Excerpt:
The (Lack of) Reliability of Conventional Cancer Statistics

When it comes to conventional cancer treatment, another key point to consider is the way its statistics are packaged. In her well-researched and well-written book "Outsmart Your Cancer", Tanya Harter Pierce outlines 6 main ways in which cancer statistics are manipulated to make them look better than they are - she had obtained these findings mainly from the excellent work of Lorraine Day, MD, and Ralph W Moss, PhD.

* "Cure" is defined as being alive 5 years after diagnosis. This means that a person could be very sick with cancer for 5 years and 1 day, after which he or she dies, and still be declared as "cured" by chemotherapy. Isn't this simply playing with words?

* Certain types of cancer and certain groups of people which exhibit poor recovery rates are simply excluded from overall statistics. This artificially raises the average "cure" rate.

* Easily curable cancerous and even pre-cancerous conditions are included in overall statistics. An example for the latter is ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which was included in and now accounts for a significant portion of breast cancer statistics. This move artificially increases the overall recovery rate.

* Earlier detection is taken to mean longer survival time. This means that a person may die at the exact same point of cancer development as another person, but the former is taken to have lived longer simply by virtue of the fact that his tumor was discovered earlier. In other words, different start points are used. Isn't this merely delusional?

* Patients who fail to "complete" conventional treatment protocols are excluded from overall statistics. This means that if a patient prescribed a 10-course chemotherapy protocol dies after 9 sessions, he is not included as a "failure" case. Control groups, however, play by different rules. This, again, artificially raises cure rates for conventional protocols. Isn't this totally unscientific?

* Adjusting for "Relative Survival Rate". This is perhaps best explained by Dr Moss: "Relative survival rates take into account the 'expected mortality figures'. Put simply, this means that if a person hadn't died of cancer he might have been run over by a truck, and that must be factored into the equation." Once again, this artificially raises the success rates of conventional treatment.

Conclusion

Taking into account the abovementioned, two main questions spring to my mind. Are cancer patients and their families informed of the fine print of cancer statistics when they are advised by their doctors to proceed with conventional cancer treatment, or when they are told that chemotherapy offers a such-and-such percentage of "cure" and is therefore their best (or only) option?

And, if, even after such deliberately deceptive maneuvers, official conventional cancer statistics still read so poorly, how bad exactly would the real statistics read without the blatant manipulation?

Intuitively, we probably know the rough answers.

Ultimately, the choice to go conventional, alternative or a combination of both is a decision which lies and should continue to lie with patients and their families. It will be a sad day when sick people are forced to undergo any particular protocol, especially when, statistically speaking, the method does not even work.

But a fundamental assumption underlying free will is the availability of perfect information, which unfortunately seems far from reality as far as cancer treatment is concerned. In choosing the type of cancer therapy to undergo, the above questions must be seriously considered by those affected. And if certain parties choose to present blinkered perspectives of reality, then it is up to cancer patients and their families to do as much as they can to patch up the remaining portions of that reality which are blocked from their view.
http://www.naturalnews.com/025499_cancer_chemotherapy_treatment.html

Reply To This Message

Facts finding..

Author: FM Liew
Date: 09-30-11 07:12

Science is about observation and tests to prove the hypothesis.

Have western medical sciencitist ever test chemo medicine and method on a healthy human and instead of lab rat?

If a normal healthy subject can survive the ordeal, without worsening the healthy body, than chemo is perhap the correct method..but fact is; no one would take the RISK to such tests, which would likely leads to death - Instantaneously.

If a healthy subject can not or may not withstand the ordeal, how do anyone with a sane mind expect the weak and sick subject survive it.....do we rely on common sense anymore?

Reply To This Message

Newer Topic | Older Topic

All messages are the expression of the contributors, who are solely responsible for the content. The forum does not endorse any views.

The Asiawind forums are provided to you by InTechTra Inc.