Cancer is finally cured in Canada but Big Pharma has no interest.



SeoReborn said:
That is the point. Past a certain stage Chemo as well as other treatments such as radiation should not be used. They are toxic and damaging to the body. Hence not only does the chemo not help get rid of the cancer, it makes it worse or kill off the patient. If there is a 'cure' that is non toxic, even those in the late stages that chemo cannot help due to its toxicity, this 'cure' could help. For those stages, chemo and other toxic treatments are not viable treatments.
Click to expand...

For late stage patients I generally agree. If treatment isn't going to help, the patient should be allowed to die as peacefully as they can. But it should always be the patients decision unless it will put a doctor or other people at risk.

As for chemo as a whole, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Maybe I'm mistaking you being against chemo in only late stage patients for you being against chemo in general. If that's the case, we're arguing over nothing. Though i am still not a fan of how the data was presented or collected in either of those studies. And I'm also guessing that's why there were published in lower-tier medical journals and not in the most respected peer-reviewed ones.

But if I'm not wrong on you being against chemo in general, where you see it killing off 27% people who would have died without treatment, I see it as extending the life of of the other 73% of those end of life patients, not to mention giving extended and full life to much of the other 98% of chemo patients. I have no problem with people opting not to use chemo at end of life stage. My grandmother had mid-to-late stage small cell lung cancer. She opted not to have chemo because it would have only extended her life by about 6 months. The benefits of those six months don't outweigh the suffering that active chemo would have caused.

That isn't the right choice for everyone. My grandfather had prostate cancer. Surgery couldn't get it all because it had spread and hormone therapy wasn't putting it in remission. He was given less than a year to live without treatment. With treatment (chemo) it would have maybe extended his life by 3 years. He opted to have the treatment because he felt 3 years was enough of an incentive to go through the suffering of treatment. He ended up living for another 10 years, eventually succumbing to cancer that returned. But without the chemo, he would have been gone within a year of the original diagnosis.

My point is, it's really up to the patient to make an informed decision. Again, you're pointing to studies where realistically chemo should have probably never been used. That isn't indicative of the overall prognosis for chemo. Chemo and radiation are toxic because there isn't a better answer right now. There isn't likely to be a better answer in the near future. If there is that's great, but why should people opt to forgo treatments that in most cases are very successful at extending lives.

Again, your pointing at studies that account for only 2% of all chemotherapy patients. If you can't understand why I'm saying your missing the point about chemo in general, I don't know what else I can say. And honestly, I'm not trying to be offensive. We simply disagree here if I'm understanding you correctly.


Wasn't trying to catch you out. My knowledge is that medicinal drugs does not boost immune system but rather makes it worse instead. So if there is a drug, I wanted to know about it. Antibiotics actually reduces the white blood cell count instead of boosting the immune system. I have not looked indepth into immunoglobulin therapies, but a brief look is that its a transfusion of antibodies from donated blood, not a medicine.
Click to expand...

I was actually being serious. I have no problem getting called out when I'm lazy. The transfusions you're talking about are going to be the new medicine. It's related (rather sort of a precursor) to a field call biologics (or biological medicine) and it, along with nano-tech delivery systems are very likely the future of medicine. At the very least, those fields will change the way we treat illness and disease. They could even provide the non-toxic treatments or cures for cancer that everyone wants.

As to antibiotics, they can lower your white blood cell count, but when that happens it's only temporary and i don't think that's the norm, just a possible side effect.

When someone is taking antibiotics it's because they have a bacterial infection. When you have an infection, your body typically has a higher concentration of white blood cells because those are the cells that fight the infection. Since the antibiotics also fight the infection, as the infection lessens, the white blood count will drop back to within a normal range. However, as I said, there is a possibility that antibiotics can decrease WBC, but it will return to normal after stopping antibiotics. In the meantime, the antibiotics are capable of fighting off other bacterial infections while your WBC is compromised.

Antibiotics work the same way in people with compromised immune systems that already have low white blood cell counts. I would assume that people with immuno diseases would have their WBC monitored regularly anyway, so if antibiotics were reducing that number, they and their doctors would take appropriate action. Like I said, I'm not an expert on this, but it seems to me that they wouldn't give antibiotics to people with cancer, HIV, or other immuno diseases if it was going to further compromise their immune system.
 
Could be promising, like many have said though there's so much testing that needs to be done. I definitely don't believe the conspiracy theories of certain individuals in the industry purposely holding back this information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom