permanent liver damage from chemo, irinotecan may lead to increased mortality after liver surgery UP

pete43lost_at_sea said:

hi pepe
I must have put my foot in it this time.
I am not this interested in the wedding but I hope they have a great nmarriage.

About tylenol, well apparrently in one the many liver papers I was reading its abuse was one of the major causes of liver failure.

hugs,
Pete

John23 said:

Whew !

I missed this remark the first time around!

Re:
"Not that I don't agree with what you say, but for someone without
metastatic disease, you have a lot of opinions about what those
with metastatic disease should or should not be doing."

Man, Blake.... You sure are brutal !

So you'd prefer to have separate forums set up to accommodate
cancer victims by what? Stage? Or by how far the cancer's travelled?
What exactly should be required?

Did your oncologist have cancer? Is your oncologist presently
suffering with a metastatic cancerous condition? If not, why should
that physician be giving you advice?

A little OT, but to explain a thing or three:

I considered myself a stage 3c, because my 1st oncologist said
that it's what I was. The second onco, the surgeons, radiologists,
etc, etc said I was a stage 4...... That was back in 2006. So I
considered my stage a 3c, since that gave me a better shot.
Hell, I'm no fool. If I have a chance to do better, I'll grab
that golden ring before it passes by; 3c it was! It was a toss-up,
and I chose the lesser of the two evils.

My rude awakening came in Jan of 2011, when an oncologist
I never met before, was at the foot of my hospital bed. She was
telling me that I wouldn't live out the year unless I did chemo;
that not many stage 4 victims make it that long, even with chemo,
but at least chemo will give me a chance.

She told me she had two stage 4 patients presently, that have
lived almost two years so far, thanks to chemo treatments.

I asked what changed my stage from a 3c to a 4? She looked
at the records she was holding, and noticed that she was looking
at the wrong records. She thought my 2006 operation was what
just occurred in Jan 2011.

She said that I apparently was a stage 4 from 2006. Imagine that?
She thought I had been operated on in 2011 and had a major
tumor removed, and would need chemo if I expected to live a year.

After she regained her composure, she said that it would be
beneficial for me to get chemotherapy treatments now, anyway.

So even though they had said I had cancer throughout my lovely
bod, they didn't hand me proof. Consequently, I can't offer you
proof either. But I do now acknowledge the fact that I had been
a stage 4 and didn't have much time to live. I guess I'm just one
helluva lucky guy, since we don't believe in alternatives around
here, right? Well, you've just given me reason to feel the same!

Blake (and others), don't allow cancer to scare the hell out of you.
You have a right to live, and a right to use whatever means will
provide you with a continuance of life.

But be careful about taking what might kill you, in your effort to
stay alive.

And -that- my dear Blake, was the point of Pete's post, and
the dialog held within it's text.

"It doesn't have to make you sick to make you healthy."

Stay well,

John

John23 said:

Blake -

Re:
"the dx of stage 4 requires some kind of metastasis, and in
all your stories (you've posted it many times, though I do like
the new wrinkle from January) you never had any. "

If you've read my bio as you've claimed, you should have noted
that back in 2006, I had 7 out of 28 nodes testing positive. And,
the tumor grew out through one section of colon, and into an
adjoining section. And yes, I preferred to think of it as a "3c".

By the way, I really hated to join your discussion, since you seem
to have a habit of deleting/editing your posts, leaving an answering
party looking a bit foolish (answering what doesn't exist).

All of this banter is very OT, and of no concern.

The point of the article that Pete posted here, is a very good read
and should not "scare" anyone. All chemotherapy is toxic, and we
all know that (or we all should know that). It's unfortunate when
an oncologist does not make all the information available so the
patient is able to make an informed choice.

Making an informed choice should not be "an option", it should
be a requirement. When one if frightened, it is easy to run into
blank alleyways, but when one can think clearly, they can make
better choices for their survival.

The choice is -not- limited to "mainstream medicine or alternative",
it is also knowing what will cause damage or death, and what will not.
It is the ability to know what medication to choose, or deny,
regardless if it's "mainstream" or an alternative.

Some of the chemotherapy used today, is being used arbitrarily
by too many physicians.

With that in mind, why should anyone accept taking a dangerously
toxic chemical that may cause irreparable harm, when it may not
be needed at all? They can't make an educated choice if they
don't know about the possible irreparable harm.

It's threads like this one posted by Pete, that can provide a newly
diagnosed cancer patient with the arsenal needed to properly question
the physician.

All people have the right to choose their medical care. Not providing
enough information about a specific form of care, is denying a person
of that right to make an educated choice.

I'm glad Pete didn't delete this thread. It's informative, and needed.

Best wishes, as always.

John