The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is Chemotherapy Useless?  (Read 5290 times)

Offline profound

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Is Chemotherapy Useless?
« on: 16/10/2013 08:05:40 »
An Australian research study indicates  very poor effectiveness from chemotherapy OF ONLY 3%

which is within the margin of error of any study involving humans.Here is the study:-

http://www.burtongoldberg.com/home/burtongoldberg/contribution-of-chemotherapy-to-five-year-survival-rate-morgan.pdf


 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Is Chemotherapy Useless?
« Reply #1 on: 16/10/2013 08:54:34 »
A very interesting paper but an incorrect inference from good data. The raw data shows that chemotherapy is very effective in some cancers but by no means all. Aggregating the whole lot is meaningless as most patients tend to have only one major cancer, and even if you had a "good" and a "bad" candidate tumor simultaneously, it's still worth treating the "good" one with chemotherapy.

Meta-analyses like this are frequently misleading because that add apples to oranges and conclude that fruit is not available all year round, therefore should not be part of a staple diet.
 

Offline profound

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: Is Chemotherapy Useless?
« Reply #2 on: 18/10/2013 08:02:40 »

According to a new study recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature, chemotherapy not only promotes the growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer cells.chemotherapy, which is a recognized poison, damages the DNA of healthy, non-cancerous cells, causing them to produce molecules that in turn produce more cancer cells.simple common sense dictates that blasting healthy cells where scientists are apparently baffled as to how this can be. And we are not talking about minor damage here -- according to the figures, major damage to healthy cells occurs as a result of routine chemotherapy treatments.

The researchers found that chemotherapy can cause fibroblasts (cell DNA) to increase production of a molecule called WNT16B by 30-fold in tissues surrounding a tumor," explains the group Cancer Research U.K. in a recent report on the study. "This then helps cancer cells to grow, invade neighboring cells and resist chemotherapy," it adds.

"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy," explains Dr. Allen Levin, M.D., from the University of California, San Francisco,"Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors."

one doctor heavily vested in the cancer industry has already come out to call not for an end to chemotherapy but rather for the development of new treatments that might alter the body's natural resistance mechanisms to better accommodate the toxic effects of chemotherapy. This is how the conventional medical system operates, of course -- simply add new sewer drugs into the mix to cover up the side effects of other drugs, and lather, rinse, repeat.

I think all these chemo people should be arrested ,tried and and put in prison for endangering patient lives with the snake oil that chemo is and including all the the executives of the drug manufacturers for promoting this for patient use where it clearly causes harm.

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v18/n9/full/nm.2890.html
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is Chemotherapy Useless?
« Reply #3 on: 19/10/2013 15:14:40 »
This "I think all these chemo people should be arrested ,tried and and put in prison for endangering patient lives " seems a very strong statement to bas on one report which has errors that have been pointed out to you.

How do you explain the increased survival rates?
 

Offline profound

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: Is Chemotherapy Useless?
« Reply #4 on: 19/10/2013 20:17:18 »
This "I think all these chemo people should be arrested ,tried and and put in prison for endangering patient lives " seems a very strong statement to bas on one report which has errors that have been pointed out to you.

How do you explain the increased survival rates?

The increased survival rates are simply due to more people being diagnosed with cancer and with false positives.The false positive rate is very high.Take breast cancer for example.
so many women are being falsely diagnosed with cancer just so the doctor can cover his backside.Then subjected to dangerous levels of radiation and toxic drugs.

Did you not hear about that American doctor who made a whopping $30 000 000  from deliberately and falsely diagnosing people with cancer so he could he could line his own pockets?

He was winning the lottery every time he made a false diagnosis.

$30 million !!!


If any other substance caused harm and death then of course people would be arrested and imprisoned.

why not chemo drugs?

And where are the flaws in the Nature Journal peer reviewed study.
« Last Edit: 19/10/2013 20:22:56 by profound »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is Chemotherapy Useless?
« Reply #5 on: 19/10/2013 20:43:17 »
SO, you extrapolate from one fraudulent doctor to the whole of oncology.
That's quite a step.
OK, here in the UK the doctors don't get paid by results. They don't have that incentive to over-diagnose.
There is also a committee whose role is to ensure that only those drugs that genuinely work and offer good value for money are prescribed.
http://www.nice.org.uk/
It has a massive incentive to avoid exactly the sort of things you are accusing doctors of doing.

Why are the survival rates here also rising at much the same rate as elsewhere?
Could it be that you have just bought into a conspiracy theory?

 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Is Chemotherapy Useless?
« Reply #6 on: 19/10/2013 21:39:22 »
An Australian research study indicates  very poor effectiveness from chemotherapy OF ONLY 3%

which is within the margin of error of any study involving humans.Here is the study:-

http://www.burtongoldberg.com/home/burtongoldberg/contribution-of-chemotherapy-to-five-year-survival-rate-morgan.pdf
In 2000 I contracted Acute Myloid Leukemia (AML). I had chemotherapy and it saved my life. Odds of living without it and no other treatment = 0.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is Chemotherapy Useless?
« Reply #7 on: 20/10/2013 09:51:12 »
There is also the fact that doctors, pharmacists and medical researchers who get cancer chose to be treated with these drugs.

Profound's assertions are untenable and insulting.
As such, they say more about him than they do about chemotherapy.


I think this
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=48351.msg414847#msg414847


is informative in a way the author didn't intend.
« Last Edit: 20/10/2013 09:55:19 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline profound

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: Is Chemotherapy Useless?
« Reply #8 on: 20/10/2013 10:45:59 »
There is also the fact that doctors, pharmacists and medical researchers who get cancer chose to be treated with these drugs.

Profound's assertions are untenable and insulting.
As such, they say more about him than they do about chemotherapy.


I think this
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=48351.msg414847#msg414847


is informative in a way the author didn't intend.


just as expected you ignored the Nature published peer reviewed study.you are trying to divert attention from it.

Chemo causes more cancer.

When it comes to breast cancer,for example, it’s important to understand that getting regular mammogram screenings is NOT going to prevent anything. In fact, mammography, which employs radiation, can increase your risk since ionizing radiation itself causes cancer.

    “A European study published in 2012 found that when those who have the genetic predisposition for breast cancer (BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation) are exposed to any diagnostic radiation before age thirty, their risk of breast cancer increases by 90 percent.

    The study also found that a history of mammography before age thirty raised the risk by 43 percent. In fact, even one mammogram before the age of thirty for those with the BRCA1 gene mutation was associated with an increased risk.

    A newer type of mammogram touted to be much better at detecting breast cancers, called tomosynthesis, takes a 3-D image of the breast. You definitely want to avoid this type of mammogram because it uses three times more radiation than the standard type!”

Furthermore, mammograms:

    Are incorrect 80 percent of the time (providing a false negative or false positive)
    Use compression, which can damage breast tissue or potentially spread cancer
    Are not effective for up to 50 percent of women (women with dense breasts or implants)
    Can lead to over-diagnosis and over-treatment of non-invasive cancers
    Can lead to the disturbing practice of “preventative” double mastectomies.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Is Chemotherapy Useless?
« Reply #9 on: 20/10/2013 11:47:33 »
Breast Cancer can be a very devastating disease, and has a much better cure rate with early diagnosis. 

No single method is 100% accurate for early diagnosis, but by combining information from a physical exam, mammogram, and ultrasound, and if necessary a biopsy, one can get a reasonably accurate diagnosis.

Younger breast tissue tends to be denser and more difficult to interpret with mammograms.  Thus, mammograms may not be recommended in young women.  That doesn't mean they would not be beneficial in more mature women.

Medical treatment may include curative, preventative, palliative, and perhaps even just providing some hope. 

A treatment such as a bilateral mastectomy is not taken lightly, but may be both curative, and give peace of mind to individuals with high risk factors for breast cancer.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is Chemotherapy Useless?
« Reply #10 on: 20/10/2013 13:05:41 »

just as expected you ignored the Nature published peer reviewed study.you are trying to divert attention from it.
No. That's not true is it?
I had already stated my views on it- specifically that I agreed with an earlier post.
To be precise I said "This "I think all these chemo people should be arrested ,tried and and put in prison for endangering patient lives " seems a very strong statement to base on one report which has errors that have been pointed out to you."
Edit, Oops, got the references muddled there.
It was the other paper I had responded to.


The Nature paper refers to the development of resistance to some drugs.
If the drugs don't work, you can't logically get resistance.

So, in order to try to divert attention from my questions
Why do doctors choose chemotherapy?
 and how come the survival rates are increasing in the UK (where doctors are not paid by results)?
you had to come up with some irrelevant distraction

Incidentally, in case anyone reading this has been misled by profound's assertions about the risk from radiation from mammography, the dose used is equivalent to a couple of months of typical background radiation, or about half the radiation dos you would get from smoking a pack of cigarettes, or about a third of the additional dose you would get from living at high altitude - like New Mexico. (It's much less than the additional exposure you get from living in Aberdeen)
There is technically an additional risk. But the risk of not getting screened is bigger.
« Last Edit: 20/10/2013 18:54:13 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Is Chemotherapy Useless?
« Reply #11 on: 20/10/2013 16:55:06 »
Quote from: profound
According to a new study recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature, ....
Please provide exact reference.

Quote from: profound
...chemotherapy not only promotes the growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer cells.
I find this to be a misleading statement. Chemotherapy is basically poison. Taking poison can do terrible things to the body include causing other forms of cancer. But you must take this into perspective. Not having chemo could mean certain death. I'd rather risk another form of cancer than certain death. In fact that's exactly what I actually did do so I'm not speaking in the abstract by any means whatsoever. And I'm perfectly fine and most of the other Leukemia patients who survived who were treated with chemo are almost all doing fine. You need to look into the odds of things like other cancers being caused by the chemo. You've quite misinterpreted chemotherapy from the way you read that article's conclusions.

I recommend you go to a cancer support group and talk to cancer survivors about this.

The kind of Leukemia I had was Acute Myloid Leukemia (AML). I spoke to my oncologist about those results you've quoted. He explained that AML is rare and would not be reflective in the stats.  Breast cancer therapy is much improved with anti-estrogens and antibodies, Lymphoma outcomes better with addition of antibodies, prostate cancer hormone therapy, CML kinase inhibitors, etc

As noted about one has to be extremely careful when looking at statistical data. They can be misleading if not thoroughly understood by the reader.
« Last Edit: 20/10/2013 17:12:01 by Pete »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is Chemotherapy Useless?
« Reply #11 on: 20/10/2013 16:55:06 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums