Chemotherapy Ineffective 97% of The Time

KathyLQ

I'm not a doctor and I'm not giving medical advice.

I found this article interesting:  http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/04/11/study-shows-chemotherapy-does-not-work-97-of-the-time/

"A study published in August 2003 revealed that of adult cancer in the USA and Australia, the use of chemotherapy, when looking at adjuvant and curative use, provided a cure only 2.1% of the time in the USA and 2.3% of the time in Australia.

The study undertook a literature search for randomized clinical trials which saw a 5-year survival rate that was attributed solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adult malignancies. The data was taken from the cancer registry in Australia and from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data in the USA for 1998. As stated, the final results show that the overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA."

 

Puffin2014

old data

I don't think I'd put too much credence to a study published 13 years ago on treatments that were done 18 years ago.

joannstar

Puffin2014 said:

old data

I don't think I'd put too much credence to a study published 13 years ago on treatments that were done 18 years ago.

I agree with Puffin

Treatment has changed since I had chemo 6 years ago in 2010...the data is old, I wouldn't waste time even reading the article. There is so much mis-information on the internet it can be a very scary place to visit!

KathyLQ

I advocate that a patient

I advocate that a patient should do a lot of their own research.  My experience, in listening to women in breast cancer support groups, is that they don't.

I did tons of research, and choose no chemo.   My decision is not a recommendation to others.   However, this is an open forum, and I do believe those like myself should post here, as well as anyone else wishes to.

Doctors are allowed to 'make money' on chemo, as reported by NBC and others.  Google it.   I think that is a conflict of interest.

Here's some MDs who talk about when chemo is effective, and when better nutrition is very important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLV4molpUy4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTg-Ltu6C_I

Although this is not a study about breast cancer, here is a study which found, for lung cancer, an immunotherapy drug was more effective than chemotherapy in most patients with advanced lung cancer.  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151219144929.htm

And this doctor, Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, gives a real good history of chemotherapy, and how chemotherapy is mostly effective on the same cancers today as they were shortly after they were developed in the late 40's.    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24YkS4bwHvs

He says the blood related cancers respond the best to chemo, and the typical solid tumors (lung, colon, prostate, pancreatic, breast cancer) do not respond well to chemo.   These later cancers kill hundreds of thousands a year.   

The goal of this man, is to be a healer.   For me, 5+ years after my diagnosis, this man tells me the truth about cancer treatments.

I know I'm somewhat unique in that I did research.   After my initial diagnosis, one radiologist I had an interview with, realized I wanted 'facts', and he lent me a recent copy of his medical 'bible' on breast cancer and radiation, told me to take it home and return it when I was ready.   It was 3 inches thick, I had it about 3 weeks.   He realized I felt radiation on my chest wall after a full masectomy, was more likely to produce addtitional cancers later in life, than any good it would do in 2010.

 

 

 

 

button2

KathyLQ said:

I advocate that a patient

I advocate that a patient should do a lot of their own research.  My experience, in listening to women in breast cancer support groups, is that they don't.

I did tons of research, and choose no chemo.   My decision is not a recommendation to others.   However, this is an open forum, and I do believe those like myself should post here, as well as anyone else wishes to.

Doctors are allowed to 'make money' on chemo, as reported by NBC and others.  Google it.   I think that is a conflict of interest.

Here's some MDs who talk about when chemo is effective, and when better nutrition is very important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLV4molpUy4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTg-Ltu6C_I

Although this is not a study about breast cancer, here is a study which found, for lung cancer, an immunotherapy drug was more effective than chemotherapy in most patients with advanced lung cancer.  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151219144929.htm

And this doctor, Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, gives a real good history of chemotherapy, and how chemotherapy is mostly effective on the same cancers today as they were shortly after they were developed in the late 40's.    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24YkS4bwHvs

He says the blood related cancers respond the best to chemo, and the typical solid tumors (lung, colon, prostate, pancreatic, breast cancer) do not respond well to chemo.   These later cancers kill hundreds of thousands a year.   

The goal of this man, is to be a healer.   For me, 5+ years after my diagnosis, this man tells me the truth about cancer treatments.

I know I'm somewhat unique in that I did research.   After my initial diagnosis, one radiologist I had an interview with, realized I wanted 'facts', and he lent me a recent copy of his medical 'bible' on breast cancer and radiation, told me to take it home and return it when I was ready.   It was 3 inches thick, I had it about 3 weeks.   He realized I felt radiation on my chest wall after a full masectomy, was more likely to produce addtitional cancers later in life, than any good it would do in 2010.

 

 

 

 

Internet sources

Dear Kathy, I am a firm believer in chemo and radiation and never hesitated to do both. Of course, it's true that this is an open forum but I'm not agreeing with your posting actual links. I wouldn't do that about traditional medicine either. The problem is that, yes, doctors make large sums of money and further their careers with cancer, but there are even MORE snake oil salesmen out there, waiting to con people. In my internet searches (and I agree with you that patients should be pro-active and ask for second or third opinions), I have noticed that there are ALWAYS more flaky "alternative" options than there are from reputable sources. I would be interested indeed if you could prove to me that any of your sources are making no money whatsoever on what they are pushing. How can you believe them? A quick internet search of your Dr. Gonzales shows him plugging a number of treatments/books etc. Anyway, I'm thrilled you are cancer free and wish you all the best, Anna

KathyLQ

button2 said:

Internet sources

Dear Kathy, I am a firm believer in chemo and radiation and never hesitated to do both. Of course, it's true that this is an open forum but I'm not agreeing with your posting actual links. I wouldn't do that about traditional medicine either. The problem is that, yes, doctors make large sums of money and further their careers with cancer, but there are even MORE snake oil salesmen out there, waiting to con people. In my internet searches (and I agree with you that patients should be pro-active and ask for second or third opinions), I have noticed that there are ALWAYS more flaky "alternative" options than there are from reputable sources. I would be interested indeed if you could prove to me that any of your sources are making no money whatsoever on what they are pushing. How can you believe them? A quick internet search of your Dr. Gonzales shows him plugging a number of treatments/books etc. Anyway, I'm thrilled you are cancer free and wish you all the best, Anna

If you're a believer in chemo

If you're a believer in chemo and radiation, you should use them.   If you're not or your not sure, and you want to know what all of your options are, you'll be the type of person who likes doing research and doesn't just accept a treatment plan from an oncologist without questioning the outcomes.

button2, in one swoop you've tried to define Dr. Gonzales as flaky without doing any research.   Why be so negative about someone writing a book?   Do you have another better method for a person to document their successes?   I mean, do you want them to just stand on the streetcorner and yell?   Do you think everyone writes books because they're trying simply to sell their books?   Or is there a possibility that some people write books to make knowledge available to many?

What I find as discouraging, is individuals who post here, and say NOTHING about good health practices, nothing about changing the diet to boost the body's immune system, nothing about supplements which are proven to boost the body's immune system.

I am in the later, I believe that an essential good diet is necessary for good health.

camul

KathyLQ said:

If you're a believer in chemo

If you're a believer in chemo and radiation, you should use them.   If you're not or your not sure, and you want to know what all of your options are, you'll be the type of person who likes doing research and doesn't just accept a treatment plan from an oncologist without questioning the outcomes.

button2, in one swoop you've tried to define Dr. Gonzales as flaky without doing any research.   Why be so negative about someone writing a book?   Do you have another better method for a person to document their successes?   I mean, do you want them to just stand on the streetcorner and yell?   Do you think everyone writes books because they're trying simply to sell their books?   Or is there a possibility that some people write books to make knowledge available to many?

What I find as discouraging, is individuals who post here, and say NOTHING about good health practices, nothing about changing the diet to boost the body's immune system, nothing about supplements which are proven to boost the body's immune system.

I am in the later, I believe that an essential good diet is necessary for good health.

I liked this post. Hopefully, we Will continue to have

Our own opinions, and that we are respectful even if we dont agree.  I do like that Kathy is putting up the links so we can read where her info is coming from.  I was first dx'd 14 plus years ago.  I did, chemo, no rads, and tamoxifen until it became toxic to my system.  8-9 yrs later dx'd stage iv.  Same onco did Tamoxifen again,  5 months toxic again to my system, this was 2010.   Did rads, and chemo, which was not effective, so on to another, and on and on.   GOT liver lesions while on chemo,  one was effective on the lesions. After 2 1/2 years of weekly chemo, I got clots.  Then emboli to lungs.  Onco decided no more chemo.  I  got a 2nd opinion at onset of stage iv dx.  That chemo and Tamoxifen was what the 2nd opinion also said because I had both bone mets and soft tumor lesions (like breast lumps on arms and back), skin lesions were gone fast, bone mests never slowed.  e

When I GOT blood clots, onco decided no more treatment, it was time for hospice, so after 13 years i went to a different onco at our other cancer center.  His first assessment was, overtreated with chemo, undertreated with hormone blockers.  He flat out said, no chemo, i am putting you on Femara.  I was on it for a month, then switched to Aromason.  My tumor markers dropped from 530 to 24.  It was the first time thru all of this that I was stable!  He flat out said, chemo is not effective on bone mets!

I asked why did he continue the chemo when it was clearly not effective?  The new doctor had worked doing both research and clinical at the National Institute of Health, specializing in breast cancer.  I asked if my previous onco would not know that chemo Is Berry seldom effective on bone mets with Bc bcuz he treated all cancers, ne said no.  It has been known for years, could it be financial? As the push for ending all treatments and starting hospice started 3 years ago, when my insurance was no longer primary, medicare kicked in. I am still alive, and still not ready for hospice.  In a lot of pain, and at this time out of options to extend my life, but waiting for approval for a pain pump so I can function better, on less pain Meds.

 It has been very hard believing my orig onco treated me with financial gain as a motivator as I thought He was the greatest.  Saw changes when Medicare kicked in.  I felt as though i became a number.  I questioned why I was not on hormone blockers, why he wanted to do more chemo when the pain was increasing and the tumors were growing so aggresively?   I learned I am my own best advocate.  I question my new onco, He too. Cast figure out why with the treatment from my old onco, but so many that i am seeing now left because he changed.  I asked my new doc if it was financial, he just said he does not treat based on money, that he isnt an owner.  And, I stilll like my first onco, i dont want to believe it was financil, and he said he had nothing left to treat me with so It was time for a new doctor.  

 I believe that i am here because of the chemo in 2002, along with changing my diet, reducing my stress level, exercizing, my beliefs, and my will to live, and my sense of humor.  I think some doctors are working for organizaations that push them to "sell more", or push them to see too many patients, where they are unable to give their best.

We all have choices, with how aggressive triple negative is, i would be afraid not to do chemo!  However we all make our own decioions, and I accept and respect your choice.  That is one thing I like about this site.  We can express our opinions and beliefs, we have to be respectful though of others.  That does not mean We have to agree.

button2

KathyLQ said:

If you're a believer in chemo

If you're a believer in chemo and radiation, you should use them.   If you're not or your not sure, and you want to know what all of your options are, you'll be the type of person who likes doing research and doesn't just accept a treatment plan from an oncologist without questioning the outcomes.

button2, in one swoop you've tried to define Dr. Gonzales as flaky without doing any research.   Why be so negative about someone writing a book?   Do you have another better method for a person to document their successes?   I mean, do you want them to just stand on the streetcorner and yell?   Do you think everyone writes books because they're trying simply to sell their books?   Or is there a possibility that some people write books to make knowledge available to many?

What I find as discouraging, is individuals who post here, and say NOTHING about good health practices, nothing about changing the diet to boost the body's immune system, nothing about supplements which are proven to boost the body's immune system.

I am in the later, I believe that an essential good diet is necessary for good health.

Thanks for your reply

Kathy, if you have read any of my other posts, you will see that I am a HUGE believer in eating good food for health. I have become a long distance runner in the past three years and just signed up for my first marathon today! I eat whole foods with spices such as turmeric and I only eat a small piece of meat once a week. I have completely cut out sugar. I just feel that many supplements are over priced and haven't been proven to work. Why take turmeric pills, when I can put a spoonful of organic turmeric in my food for pennies? My cancer was 95% fatal (HER2). If it wasn't for the target therapy Herceptin, I would not be here talking to you. When I was diagnosed, I got a second opinion on what to do. Maybe now you can understand me a bit better! All my best to you, Anna

bulmabriefs144

https://csn.cancer.org/discussion/comment/1536210#Comment_1536210

If a study is right, it's right, no matter how old it is.

Let's use a farming analogy, since I'm a farmer and happen to have the horse sense God gave me. Suppose cancer is a weed. It grows quickly. It reproduces quickly. You are trying to grow fruits and vegetables.

Do you… (A) Drop a nuke on the soil? (B) Cover the soil with a strong herbicide like Agent Orange? Or ( C ) Dig up the fruits and vegetables up to get rid of the weeds?

The answer is (D) None of the above. These are false choices that the medical industry has bullied the public into. It doesn't matter that you're a rational person who wants to die with dignity. Doctors will work on the emotions of your loved ones and get them to sign off on these options, all of which are expensive, possibly ineffective, and in some cases more dangerous than simply doing nothing.

Removal of organs weaken the immune system. You should only selectively remove the cancer.

Radiation risks later cancer, and kills the healthy bacteria of the body, turning it into a lifeless wasteland incapable of fighting off anything. Killer-T Cells fight cancer on their own. Diet and exercise helps. Once radiation is used, those cells are basically dead. Further, I think I read somewhere that radiation caused the cancer to mutate and become immortal.

Chemotherapy is basically poisoning the body. Who thought up this approach?

Exercise and a diet low in caffeine and refined sugar, high in fiber, and rich in antioxidants has been shown to at least delay cancer, and could possibly detox the body. But once you poison your immune system, the body is not able to even handle healthy food.

shebakim

Hi there - pharmacist and IBC patient here! Agree that there are limitations and risks to radiation and chemo, and certainly are alternative therapies and diet changes worth consideration. However, there is a lot that I have to disagree with in your comment above.

"If a study is right, it's right, no matter how old it is" - fortunately, science is always evolving and changing with new research and better information. An old study likely used old treatment options, many of which are no longer utilized. So, painting all chemo/radiation with a broad brushstroke is doing a disservice to the incredibly targeted approaches and new research results that now exist.

"Removal of organs weakens the immune system. You should only selectively remove the cancer." What an individual chooses to remove is a very personal decision, and may be based on preventative hereditary concerns, aesthetic considerations, or other dynamics unique to a person's specific anatomy and disease. That being said, my surgeon did recommend a conservative approach, mentioning that lumpectomy + radiation has been shown to have better outcomes than total mastectomy (in my specific case). Nonetheless, I am opting for total unilateral mastectomy for a host of reasons related to the aggressiveness of my tumor and specific anatomy.

"Radiation risks later cancer…" is a true statement, which makes the use of radiation a true risk vs benefit discussion that only a radiation oncologist is qualified to lead. Thankfully this technology has also come a very long way in terms of how targeted and specific the radiation treatments can be, but certainly it's good to go in eyes-wide-open in terms of the side effects of this treatment modality. In my case, I am hoping to avoid radiation by doing a total mastectomy.

"Chemotherapy is basically poisoning the body" is again a true statement on the surface, but is missing the point. Chemo is intended to poison the rapidly-dividing cells of the body (hence hair, mucous membranes, digestive tract, and cancer), and is extremely effective at shrinking the cancer and treating local metastases when used appropriately. This is the area in which there are so many exciting new options, primarily with those drugs that are highly targeted for HER2 or other biomarkers. Some (such as Kadcyla) are literally like a little bomb of poison (cytotoxins to be exact) that are delivered EXACTLY to the site of the cancer, thanks to a very targeted HER2 receptor. This type of treatment is exactly where the old studies fall short.

My point is - if you want to be informed and be an advocate for your own care, that is wise and absolutely appropriate. However, please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater here or attempt to shame or misinform others with these outdated and non-science-based views. There is much to be celebrated in our current treatment options, thanks to the brilliant, educated, and caring doctors and researchers involved in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer.

All of my best to you all!

Arx001

It’s unfortunate that you’re posting a nutritionist and a regular physician both of whom are not oncologists. Every doctor is entitled to conduct a scientific experiment and publish it. There are many journals that are open to unconventional ideas and methods of treatments. This is the way to go in medicine. Any doctor can bring an alternative.

Furthermore I know personally that RT reduced my tumor and chemo eliminated it. Noone says chemo is a good thing. The medical community is trying to find new alternatives to chemo but also they are making better drugs. FYI the chemos today and more gentler than chemos of the past. Just look at platinum based drugs, oxaliplatin is a third gen agent. Read about capeticabine…

I wish you handn’t posted these strange videos with a most misleading 97% title not because you don’t have the right to do so but because the standards of these videos are pretty low - too low to be promoted to cancer patients. You are not bringing in something new to the field but only quackery…

"In one non-randomized clinical trial of terminally ill people with pancreatic cancer, the Gonzalez-treated patients were found to have died much earlier than those treated with conventional chemotherapy. A better quality of life was also reported by the chemotherapy arm.” Wikipedia