I wonder sometimes....
Comments
-
conspiracy for money
I don't know too many doctors that think solely about profit, especially in the heartbreak area of cancer where they see more then the average patients deaths.
My life for chemo dollars? No, not into big pharma conspiracy theories or big doctor conspiracy theories. Too much heartbreak in my onc's eyes at times. Trust me, he wanted to save that man at least long enough for him to walk down the alter with his daughter, my onc tried his damnedest.
And honestly? Every time you walk into your onc's office and you're wondering that type of question, maybe it's time to find an onc that cares, because you have to believe the one you have doesn't if you go in thinking that way.
If we all believed that, why are we trying to live then? If we believed it was big pharma, doc profits over our lives? Heck, if that's true we might as well give up now.
Winter Marie
0 -
not to wonder; thinking for (y)ourselves
I'm sure that oncology can already do much better if true innovators were free to enter and compete with exisiting technologies, without interference from government agencies and established competitors. The FDA appears hostile to indifferent to cheap, more effective medicines with less side effects, like my wife uses. Several factors contribute to herd thinking, the state medical boards also have a long history of eliminating heresy that would make the previous citizens of Salem Town proud.
We've spent well under $50,000 total (including insurance payments) in almost 3 years for two surgeries and continuous chemo. My wife doesn't have chemo sicknesses, and is active without restrictions. Her stage IV is held at a small residual, held in check by mild immunochemo despite incomplete surgical removal of mets from the mesentery (necrosed with neoadjuvants), presumed peritoneal seeding (clean post alt neoadjuvants) and a massive cluster of para aortic nodes, along with several questionable nodules in the lungs and features in the liver, with bad biomarkers from the tissue samples.
Btw, my wife has been to an official medical oncologist, only once.
0 -
For what it's worth....
about 4 or 5 years ago there was a small study done in Canada where oncologists and nurses were asked if they had cancer would they do chemo. About 95% said no, they would not. I asked my own oncologist if he would and he said no and then quickly changed the subject.
0 -
I have to agree Winter Marieherdizziness said:conspiracy for money
I don't know too many doctors that think solely about profit, especially in the heartbreak area of cancer where they see more then the average patients deaths.
My life for chemo dollars? No, not into big pharma conspiracy theories or big doctor conspiracy theories. Too much heartbreak in my onc's eyes at times. Trust me, he wanted to save that man at least long enough for him to walk down the alter with his daughter, my onc tried his damnedest.
And honestly? Every time you walk into your onc's office and you're wondering that type of question, maybe it's time to find an onc that cares, because you have to believe the one you have doesn't if you go in thinking that way.
If we all believed that, why are we trying to live then? If we believed it was big pharma, doc profits over our lives? Heck, if that's true we might as well give up now.
Winter Marie
My sister has a very limited "insurance" plan...next to nothing. The onc's office worked with her to get a grant for all her chemo, labs and office visits. That particular grant is funded by the local hospital and the ONC's OFFICE! They are determined to help everyone regardless of their financial ability to pay.
No doubt there are the money grabbers out there, but there are many more who take on the fight for their patients and keep up with what treatements are out there which may help them.
Cancer research, in my opinion, has a moving target it is trying to control/kill/cure. There are so many different types, so many different reactions to the same treatments, so many unknowns.
The best any of us can do is find a medical team which we feel is in our corner, doing all they can to keep us alive. If you don't feel that way about your team, then it is time to change.
Just my 2 cents.
Marie who loves kitties
0 -
I started to type a reply toherdizziness said:conspiracy for money
I don't know too many doctors that think solely about profit, especially in the heartbreak area of cancer where they see more then the average patients deaths.
My life for chemo dollars? No, not into big pharma conspiracy theories or big doctor conspiracy theories. Too much heartbreak in my onc's eyes at times. Trust me, he wanted to save that man at least long enough for him to walk down the alter with his daughter, my onc tried his damnedest.
And honestly? Every time you walk into your onc's office and you're wondering that type of question, maybe it's time to find an onc that cares, because you have to believe the one you have doesn't if you go in thinking that way.
If we all believed that, why are we trying to live then? If we believed it was big pharma, doc profits over our lives? Heck, if that's true we might as well give up now.
Winter Marie
I started to type a reply to this....I just have so many thoughts running through my head right now that I can't seem to put down in words.
0 -
hoping for better healthJohn23 said:richls -
Re:
"........for a week in the hospital and four chemo treatments.......
.........it has cost almost 90,000 dollars........
.........It sometimes feel like she is a cash cow for the Dr........
.........Why would they want to find a cure for this beast when it is so profitable?.......
.........Please excuse my rant..........."It's not a "rant", it's logic and awareness sinking in.
Hoping for her better health,
John
john,
i love that phrase.
I think as long as we have hope, well action soon follows.
even my dear friend told me he felt so much more alive off xeloda when he was at the clinic.
now he is back on it he is depressed a bit. oh then he needs another upper to fix that.
hope is fundamental, it encourages or facilitates action. Positive actions worked for me at last, they may help others.
Richls,
get the frustration out, then go for a walk or exercise. its a beautiful sunny day.
maybe we can walk and talk ourselves to good health. but you have to talk to the right people and listen.
everyone,
profit is the goal of our capitalistic system, the legal framework protects that. so if a drug company managing director had the free cure for cancer on his desk, that would destroy his company. would he disclose or release it ? what do you think.
heck my onc and surgeon in australia were not even that interested in what my german doctors did. do you know the reason ?
conspiracy is everywhere, it is just a reflection of our greedy heartless society based on greed. survival takes effort not just suffering, our doctors are just as trapped in our medical system as we are its patients. Personally I think prisoner is a more appropriate word to describe most oncology patients. not in a physical sense, but in a spiritual and emotional sense.
of course using the health system we have access to wisley helps, taking responsibility for our health and taking action essential. I am off for a walk and to pray.
Making my world a better place starts with me, if we all did it, well life would be so much better. everyday is precious.
hugs,
Pete
0 -
Nothing in life comes without a price tag.....
I truly understand what you are saying.. When I was diagnosised originally and my gastroenterologist gave me the name of 2 surgeons.. my response to him was to whom would he send his sister or mom to see... and I refused to leave without an answer.. he tried to change the subject but I pressured for a response and I am so glad I did.. he was right .. she is the best partner I have in this battle.. I have become friends with her.. she gave me her email adress while I as in the hospital and I would email everytime something happened or I had a question and she was just wonderful. My other surgeon visited me every night and he was good too.. my proctologist actuall calls me to speak to her patients sometimes.. I just love her.. my oncologist is great though not at easy to reach.
But as I titled this nothing comes without a price.. my surgerys cost 1/2 mill and my chemo is 35thousand a month... ct is 3thousand..so in the scope of things it is costly to get sick. I work for the company that hopefully will find the cure someday to this horrible disease but even I find it hard to justify these type of dollars. though I can tell you billions of dollars are spent on the drs and researchers that develope these drugs and protocols we follow..
My hope is that something good comes from there efforts and my dollars..
0 -
Hmmmm
I have my 3 month check up tomorrow and I think I will give my oncologist a huge hug! I think I have been taking him for granted. I thought all oncologists were like him. When I was in the middle of treatment I got sick and ended up in another hospital where he didn't have privileges. He called the hospital daily to get updates from the oncologist there and he even stopped in to visit one time. On another occasion, due to some symptoms my surgeon thought I might have a blockage or another issue so he wanted me to have a CT scan. I stopped in the cancer center to get fluids and I asked the nurse if I could just make an appointment to get a scan there. She said it would probably be the next day. She told the oncologist and he had them work me in that day and so that I didn't have to wait and worry about the results he had the radiologist read them and then stayed over that day and saw me after the last patient to discuss the results. He has always had my best interests at heart. Together we have come up with a plan we are both happy with and I don't think he is in it for the money. After I had been a patient for about six months, I went to check in and the receptionist said I needed to stop in at the financial desk. I panicked because for six months I never did that and I never paid out of pocket. I sat down at the desk and the lady asked if I wanted to pay the balance or be billed. I said how much and she said 6. I said sorry I don't have 600. She laughed and said it is 6 dollars. I laughed and said guess I will pay the balance then. I don't believe there is a conspiracy.
0 -
One of those 'internet things'luvinlife2 said:For what it's worth....
about 4 or 5 years ago there was a small study done in Canada where oncologists and nurses were asked if they had cancer would they do chemo. About 95% said no, they would not. I asked my own oncologist if he would and he said no and then quickly changed the subject.
I've read the reports and much written about why it's not true. The following is the first explaination I found - the study was specific to oxali when first introduced but
the facts:
Do Doctors Refuse Chemotherapy On Themselves?
While there is no truth in the claim that doctors refuse chemotherapy on themselves, on almost every website dedicated to the promotion of alternative cancer treatments it says that most – if not all – doctors on principle would refuse chemotherapy on themselves because of its high toxicity and ineffectiveness. Yet these same doctors are said to be perfectly happy to pour this poison into their patients – merely for profit, as is the standard insinuation.The basis for these shocking and deceitful allegations is this excerpt from a book by Philip Day:
Several full-time scientsts at the McGill Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)
jli managed to find more information on the study mentioned by Philip Day, which includes information on a follow-up study dating from 1997, and he also found another study from 1991: “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies“.
The first thing that stands out is that the 1985 (!!) survey was not, as Philip Day claims, about all available therapies for lung cancer, but about cisplatin, a then new chemotherapy with considerable side effects. The question also pertained to the use of cisplatin as a palliative treatment for “symptomatic metastatic bone disease,” i.e. for incurable (non-small-cell) lung cancer. The 1985 survey found that about one-third of physicians and oncology nurses would have consented to chemotherapy in a situation like this.
A follow-up survey was conducted in March 1997 at a session on NCCN clinical practice guidelines, in which the participants were asked to respond to the same question regarding chemotherapy:
“You are a 60-year-old oncologist with non-small-cell lung cancer, one liver metastasis, and bone metastases.
Your performance status is 1. Would you take chemotherapy? Yes or no?”Of approximately 300 people in attendance, 126 (42%) responded to the survey. The majority of respondents (51%) were oncologists and hematologists.
Among oncologists/hematologists, 64.5% said that they would take chemotherapy, as did 67% of nurses. The two nonmedical administrators both voted no. In the “other” category, which included a mix of radiation oncologists and other types of physicians, 33% said that they would take chemotherapy.
The overall results of the 1997 follow-up survey show that 64.5% would now take chemotherapy – which is almost a doubling from 34% to 64.5% of those willing to have chemotherapy and radiotherapy and a quadrupling from 17% to 64.5% of those who would take chemotherapy alone.
The study from 1991, “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies,” pertains not just to lung cancer, but to many kinds of cancer and cancer stages, from early stage to terminal, as well as to experimental therapies. It shows percentages as high as 98% of doctors willing to undergo chemotherapy, while the remaining 2 % were uncertain, and none answered “definitely no” or “probably no” to chemotherapy.
Should another survey be conducted today, there’s a good chance the results would be even higher in favour of chemotherapy, given that over the years chemotherapy has shown enhanced clinical benefit and medication to lessen side effects has improved greatly.
So, do doctors really refuse chemotherapy on themselves?
No, they definitely don’t.
See also:
So chemotherapy does work, after all
0 -
RobinKaye said:
One of those 'internet things'
I've read the reports and much written about why it's not true. The following is the first explaination I found - the study was specific to oxali when first introduced but
the facts:
Do Doctors Refuse Chemotherapy On Themselves?
While there is no truth in the claim that doctors refuse chemotherapy on themselves, on almost every website dedicated to the promotion of alternative cancer treatments it says that most – if not all – doctors on principle would refuse chemotherapy on themselves because of its high toxicity and ineffectiveness. Yet these same doctors are said to be perfectly happy to pour this poison into their patients – merely for profit, as is the standard insinuation.The basis for these shocking and deceitful allegations is this excerpt from a book by Philip Day:
Several full-time scientsts at the McGill Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)
jli managed to find more information on the study mentioned by Philip Day, which includes information on a follow-up study dating from 1997, and he also found another study from 1991: “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies“.
The first thing that stands out is that the 1985 (!!) survey was not, as Philip Day claims, about all available therapies for lung cancer, but about cisplatin, a then new chemotherapy with considerable side effects. The question also pertained to the use of cisplatin as a palliative treatment for “symptomatic metastatic bone disease,” i.e. for incurable (non-small-cell) lung cancer. The 1985 survey found that about one-third of physicians and oncology nurses would have consented to chemotherapy in a situation like this.
A follow-up survey was conducted in March 1997 at a session on NCCN clinical practice guidelines, in which the participants were asked to respond to the same question regarding chemotherapy:
“You are a 60-year-old oncologist with non-small-cell lung cancer, one liver metastasis, and bone metastases.
Your performance status is 1. Would you take chemotherapy? Yes or no?”Of approximately 300 people in attendance, 126 (42%) responded to the survey. The majority of respondents (51%) were oncologists and hematologists.
Among oncologists/hematologists, 64.5% said that they would take chemotherapy, as did 67% of nurses. The two nonmedical administrators both voted no. In the “other” category, which included a mix of radiation oncologists and other types of physicians, 33% said that they would take chemotherapy.
The overall results of the 1997 follow-up survey show that 64.5% would now take chemotherapy – which is almost a doubling from 34% to 64.5% of those willing to have chemotherapy and radiotherapy and a quadrupling from 17% to 64.5% of those who would take chemotherapy alone.
The study from 1991, “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies,” pertains not just to lung cancer, but to many kinds of cancer and cancer stages, from early stage to terminal, as well as to experimental therapies. It shows percentages as high as 98% of doctors willing to undergo chemotherapy, while the remaining 2 % were uncertain, and none answered “definitely no” or “probably no” to chemotherapy.
Should another survey be conducted today, there’s a good chance the results would be even higher in favour of chemotherapy, given that over the years chemotherapy has shown enhanced clinical benefit and medication to lessen side effects has improved greatly.
So, do doctors really refuse chemotherapy on themselves?
No, they definitely don’t.
See also:
So chemotherapy does work, after all
I had to readthe whole article to get to Orac's gem at the bottom
"While it’s true that chemotherapy decreases a woman’s risk of dying from her breast cancer, the vast majority of women do not individually benefit from chemotherapy."
From the mouth of ORAC! funny how none of his fans mentioned it either....
"So, do doctors really refuse chemotherapy on themselves?" some of them for sure...depends on what cancer and other variables.
0 -
RobinKaye said:
One of those 'internet things'
I've read the reports and much written about why it's not true. The following is the first explaination I found - the study was specific to oxali when first introduced but
the facts:
Do Doctors Refuse Chemotherapy On Themselves?
While there is no truth in the claim that doctors refuse chemotherapy on themselves, on almost every website dedicated to the promotion of alternative cancer treatments it says that most – if not all – doctors on principle would refuse chemotherapy on themselves because of its high toxicity and ineffectiveness. Yet these same doctors are said to be perfectly happy to pour this poison into their patients – merely for profit, as is the standard insinuation.The basis for these shocking and deceitful allegations is this excerpt from a book by Philip Day:
Several full-time scientsts at the McGill Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)
jli managed to find more information on the study mentioned by Philip Day, which includes information on a follow-up study dating from 1997, and he also found another study from 1991: “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies“.
The first thing that stands out is that the 1985 (!!) survey was not, as Philip Day claims, about all available therapies for lung cancer, but about cisplatin, a then new chemotherapy with considerable side effects. The question also pertained to the use of cisplatin as a palliative treatment for “symptomatic metastatic bone disease,” i.e. for incurable (non-small-cell) lung cancer. The 1985 survey found that about one-third of physicians and oncology nurses would have consented to chemotherapy in a situation like this.
A follow-up survey was conducted in March 1997 at a session on NCCN clinical practice guidelines, in which the participants were asked to respond to the same question regarding chemotherapy:
“You are a 60-year-old oncologist with non-small-cell lung cancer, one liver metastasis, and bone metastases.
Your performance status is 1. Would you take chemotherapy? Yes or no?”Of approximately 300 people in attendance, 126 (42%) responded to the survey. The majority of respondents (51%) were oncologists and hematologists.
Among oncologists/hematologists, 64.5% said that they would take chemotherapy, as did 67% of nurses. The two nonmedical administrators both voted no. In the “other” category, which included a mix of radiation oncologists and other types of physicians, 33% said that they would take chemotherapy.
The overall results of the 1997 follow-up survey show that 64.5% would now take chemotherapy – which is almost a doubling from 34% to 64.5% of those willing to have chemotherapy and radiotherapy and a quadrupling from 17% to 64.5% of those who would take chemotherapy alone.
The study from 1991, “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies,” pertains not just to lung cancer, but to many kinds of cancer and cancer stages, from early stage to terminal, as well as to experimental therapies. It shows percentages as high as 98% of doctors willing to undergo chemotherapy, while the remaining 2 % were uncertain, and none answered “definitely no” or “probably no” to chemotherapy.
Should another survey be conducted today, there’s a good chance the results would be even higher in favour of chemotherapy, given that over the years chemotherapy has shown enhanced clinical benefit and medication to lessen side effects has improved greatly.
So, do doctors really refuse chemotherapy on themselves?
No, they definitely don’t.
See also:
So chemotherapy does work, after all
Statistics are an interesting thingStatistics can either prove or disprove a theory depending on how they are used.
In this instance, I found the percentaqge of those who did not respond to be telling. In the first study 67% responded, while in the second only 42% responded. Given that most studies guarantee anonimity, makes you wonder why non-responses rose. Could it be that there is a segment of those who received the survey did not want to disclose their own preference to not take chemo so as not to bias future patients?
The to do or not do chemo decision, like cancer itself, has so many other factors to be considered. A person, regardless of profession, will probably consider age, overall health beyond cancer, financial circumstances, family circumstances, religious beliefs and more when making the choice. To say that "all must" or "all must not" does not fit the human diversity.
Only the patient can make this decision. Hopefully it is made with the best information available on all points, and not just based on a statistic.
That is my 2 cents.
Marie who loves kitties
0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 121.6K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 446 Bladder Cancer
- 308 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 395 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.3K Kidney Cancer
- 671 Leukemia
- 791 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 234 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.1K Ovarian Cancer
- 56 Pancreatic Cancer
- 487 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.4K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 534 Sarcoma
- 719 Skin Cancer
- 646 Stomach Cancer
- 190 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.9K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards