[Bored chemist]

Well people like you always are always disparaging anything which is different or might change the status quo.

Nope.
I just disparage stuff that's known to be  wrong or nonsense.

This is usually due to personal gain of some or inducement.I would not be surprised you were a 'consultant' to this or that as so many are nowadays.

Nope.
But try to remember that making insulting comments like that is dangerously close to libel.

The other reason would be impose your moribund viewpoints on others.

Reality imposes its viewpoint much more filmy than I ever could.

The real reason I correct idiotic dross like yours is that I think that fora like this should be places here people can learn about science- rather than about drivel.

To ask questions, on the other hand, is a sign of higher intelligence and wisdom.

Ask the parents of a two year old about that.
The kids never stop asking questions; not because they are wise, but because they seek to acquire wisdom.
But the important bit is that, you don't have the sense that a two year old shows; you don't listen to the answers.

What is a "conspiracy theorist?

This is as good an answer as any
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

The pejorative "conspiracy theorist" is meant to demean and ridicule skeptics of official stories.

No.
It's meant to describe ideas that are daft- but still widely believed.

Our modern world which is full of collusion and conspiracy -- and yet you somehow DENY the existence of any conspiracies at all -

Liar.
I never said anything like that.

If your viewpoint is such that you have to tell lies to preserve it you should change it.

Most police detectives are, in reality,

... irrelevant to the discussion.


I'm still waiting for you to explain why you claim that Big Pharma (who, I accept are frequently immoral ad corrupt)  are in any way denying something by including it in their product description.

Your original post never made sense, and it still doesn't.

[Kryptid]

Have any peer-reviewed studies been done of average life expectancy of cancer patients who took chemotherapy vs. those who did not? If so, what were the results?

[Bored chemist]

Have any peer-reviewed studies been done of average life expectancy of cancer patients who took chemotherapy vs. those who did not? If so, what were the results?

Yes- lots.
This bunch
https://www.nice.org.uk/
exist just to ensure that the NHS only spends money on things that are known to work.
So, any cancer chemotherapy used in the UK is supported by studies which show it to work.

If you want to find research then the Cochrane institute is a good place to start
Here's an example I picked at random.
http://www.cochrane.org/CD009948/LUNGCA_cetuximab-a-new-treatment-for-advanced-non-small-cell-lung-cancer

It's not that cancer drugs don't have bad side effects- they do.
It's just that those effects- even new cancers- are less bad than dying quickly.

[profound (OP)]

Have any peer-reviewed studies been done of average life expectancy of cancer patients who took chemotherapy vs. those who did not? If so, what were the results?

People who get chemo die quicker and in more pain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/08/30/chemotherapy-warning-as-hundreds-die-from-cancer-fighting-drugs/

[smart]

You are confusing the results of in-vitro and/or animal research with human first-line treatment.

Here's what you'll end up with in terms of any peer-reviewed data suggesting that curcumin or green tea can be used as a first-line anti-oncogenic:

* nothing *

The preclinical studies of the anti-cancer properties of curcumin is preliminary evidences of the existence of alternative treatments for many types of cancer. In contrast, the cytotoxic effect of chemotherapy drugs can induce permanent damage to cells.
 

[Bored chemist]

You are confusing the results of in-vitro and/or animal research with human first-line treatment.

Here's what you'll end up with in terms of any peer-reviewed data suggesting that curcumin or green tea can be used as a first-line anti-oncogenic:

* nothing *

The preclinical studies of the anti-cancer properties of curcumin is preliminary evidences of the existence of alternative treatments for many types of cancer. In contrast, the cytotoxic effect of chemotherapy drugs can induce permanent damage to cells.
 

Plenty of people eat curry, yet they get cancer.
Have you any evidence that, at the sort  of levels where curcumin is carcinolytic, it is not toxic via other pathways?

[Bored chemist]

Have any peer-reviewed studies been done of average life expectancy of cancer patients who took chemotherapy vs. those who did not? If so, what were the results?

People who get chemo die quicker and in more pain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/08/30/chemotherapy-warning-as-hundreds-die-from-cancer-fighting-drugs/

In a very real sense, but you need to realise it's the Telegraph and they have no idea how to report science.
Let's have a look at the numbers. It's a  bit of a struggle- because much of the data is missing so there are some assumptions here but let's give it a go.
"At Lancashire Teaching Hospitals the 30 day mortality rate was 28 per cent for palliative chemotherapy for lung cancer, which is given when a cure is not expected and treatment given to alleviate symptoms. "

OK what that means is that 28% of lung cancer patients who were not given anti-cancer therapy died within a month.
And then we compare that to the other figures they cite.

"The study looked at more than 23,000 women with breast cancer and nearly 10,000 men with 9634 non-small cell lung cancer who underwent chemotherapy in 2014. Of those treated 1,383 died within 30 days. "
That's 33000 people  with cancer  and they got  therapy.
1383 of them died within a month- that's about 4.2 %

So, if you have cancer your chances of dying within a month are 4.2% if you get treated and 28% if you are not treated.
Now, a month isn't long, but a 7 fold improvement in your chance of living that month is going to be very important to some people.
So, that takes care of the first half of your assertion that "People who get chemo die quicker and in more pain."- it simply isn't true. People who are treated live longer .
The bit about "in more pain" is something you made up. It's not in the newspaper story and it's not in the original scientific paper.

Why did you make it up?

[smart]

Plenty of people eat curry, yet they get cancer.
Have you any evidence that, at the sort  of levels where curcumin is carcinolytic, it is not toxic via other pathways?

Are you kidding me? India is one of the primary curcumin producer and the Indian population among the world top consumers or curcuma longa.

https://nutritionfacts.org/2015/05/05/why-are-cancer-rates-so-low-in-india/

[Bored chemist]

Plenty of people eat curry, yet they get cancer.
Have you any evidence that, at the sort  of levels where curcumin is carcinolytic, it is not toxic via other pathways?

Are you kidding me? India is one of the primary curcumin producer and the Indian population among the world top consumers or curcuma longa.

https://nutritionfacts.org/2015/05/05/why-are-cancer-rates-so-low-in-india/

No
I'm not kidding, and I know they eat lots of turmeric in India.
I also know that, in spite of their consumption of curcumin, some of them get cancer.
So, curcumin is not some "magic"  chemical that prevents cancer.
At best, it may reduce the incidence slightly.

Why did you think I was kidding.
Why did you think I  might't know that they eat curry in India?
Why did you make that post?

Incidentally, the article fails to take account of a lot of other factors;
many Indians are vegetarian.
Few of them- at least in traditional conditions- are obese.
Both of those wold favour a low incidence of cancer without needing to resort to "magic"

[smart]

So, curcumin is not some "magic"  chemical that prevents cancer.

I disagree. Numerous preclinical studies have confirmed  the anti-cancer potential of curcumin for many types of cancer.
It is foolish to discard the direct relationship between the low-incidence of cancer and the high consumption of curcumin in India.
 

[Bored chemist]

So, curcumin is not some "magic"  chemical that prevents cancer.

I disagree. Numerous preclinical studies have confirmed  the anti-cancer potential of curcumin for many types of cancer.
It is foolish to discard the direct relationship between the low-incidence of cancer and the high consumption of curcumin in India.
 

You have not shown a direct relationship, so there's nothing to discard.
It's even more foolish to discount the idea that it might be something other than eating curry.
Meanwhile... back at the topic.

[exothermic]

You are confusing the results of in-vitro and/or animal research with human first-line treatment.

The preclinical studies of the anti-cancer properties of curcumin is preliminary evidence of the existence of alternative treatments

Sorry, but the preclinical research of curcumin.... has nothing to do with the fact that doctors are [not] "discarding it as an alternative option to chemotherapy".

Now don't get me wrong, as I am well-aware of curcumin's potential, and I've been taking Theracurmin on a daily basis for years.... but the reason why curcumin isn't utilized as a first-line and/or adjuvant anti-oncogenic, is due to it's profound pharmacokinetic limitations.

~

[exothermic]

It is foolish to discard the direct relationship

Speaking of foolish.... There is no direct relationship. Pick up a textbook.

the low-incidence of cancer and the high consumption of curcumin in India.

Care to explain the lower incidence of cancer in 17 other countries who do [not] traditionally consume curcumin?

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/all-cancers/by-country/

~

[profound (OP)]

Have any peer-reviewed studies been done of average life expectancy of cancer patients who took chemotherapy vs. those who did not? If so, what were the results?

Yes- lots.
This bunch
https://www.nice.org.uk/
exist just to ensure that the NHS only spends money on things that are known to work.
So, any cancer chemotherapy used in the UK is supported by studies which show it to work.

If you want to find research then the Cochrane institute is a good place to start
Here's an example I picked at random.
http://www.cochrane.org/CD009948/LUNGCA_cetuximab-a-new-treatment-for-advanced-non-small-cell-lung-cancer

It's not that cancer drugs don't have bad side effects- they do.
It's just that those effects- even new cancers- are less bad than dying quickly.

Here is a little conspiracy theory for you.

We will wait and see your positive spin on it:-
Monsanto Co. started an agricultural revolution with its “Roundup Ready” seeds, genetically modified to resist the effects of its blockbuster herbicide called Roundup. That ability to kill weeds while leaving desirable crops intact helped the company turn Roundup’s active ingredient, the chemical glyphosate, into one of the world’s most-used crop chemicals. When that heavy use raised health concerns, Monsanto noted that the herbicide’s safety had repeatedly been vetted by outsiders. But now there’s new evidence that Monsanto’s claims of rigorous scientific review are suspect.

Dozens of internal Monsanto emails, released on Aug. 1 by plaintiffs’ lawyers who are suing the company, reveal how Monsanto worked with an outside consulting firm to induce the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology to publish a purported “independent” review of Roundup’s health effects that appears to be anything but. The review, published along with four subpapers in a September 2016 special supplement, was aimed at rebutting the 2015 assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. That finding by the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization led California last month to list glyphosate as a known human carcinogen. It has also spurred more than 1,000 lawsuits in state and federal courts by plaintiffs who claim they contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma from Roundup exposure.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews

Monsanto’s internal emails tell a different story. The correspondence shows the company’s chief of regulatory science, William Heydens, and other Monsanto scientists were heavily involved in organizing, reviewing, and editing drafts submitted by the outside experts.

[Bored chemist]

Here is a little conspiracy theory for you.

We will wait and see your positive spin on it:-

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you claim that Big Pharma (who, I accept are frequently immoral ad corrupt)  are in any way denying something by including it in their product description.

Your original post never made sense, and it still doesn't.

It may have escaped your notice, but weedkiller isn't a pharmaceutical.

You also seem to have ignored the fact that quite a lot of stuff you have posted simply wasn't true, or was just stuff you made up.
When you answer those you will be in a reasonable position to start asking more questions.
That's the way debates happen.

[snorkfort]

The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is a derogatory smear phrase thrown at someone in an attempt to paint them as a lunatic. It's a tactic frequently used by modern-day thought police in a desperate attempt to demand "Don't go there!"

I agree. Too often mainstream media (msm) will use deceitful tactics in labeling some entity doing independent research a "conspiracy theorist". I don't know why independent research is being systematically discarded on the internet by msm trolls.

In reality, the ignorance of people in science is the reason mainstream media is falsely accepted as the truth. @profound, please continue your investigations. I respect people asking insightful science questions independently of the msm trolls seeking to hijack your thread with spam. 

The word "conspiracy theorist" is used nowadays with negative connotations to describe people who make ACCUSATIONS of conspiracies without credible EVIDENCE. The credible and conclusive evidence is always conveniently absent. I recognise your profile name. You have previously argued ridiculous points in a very biased and unscientific way without providing anything in the way of reliable evidence. You have also shown yourself unable to understand even the basic principles of science, and your constant need to promote unproven conspiracy theories does not belong on this forum. Your misuse of the word "mainstream media" means you are unaware of the diversity in the media, which indicates you do not read widely.

I call your attention to this study, which found analytic thinking exercises reduce belief in conspiracy theories.   
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25217762

Also, this study, which found a negative correlation between education and belief in conspiracy theories: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5248629/

And this study, which found belief in political and medical conspiracy theories was correlated with low self-esteem, low conscientiousness, more right-wing political views, younger age, low emotional stability, and low agreeableness.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28782805   

I recommend you read the full text before you criticise these studies or allege without evidence that the studies are the product of a conspiracy. (one thing believers in conspiracy theories often do is to claim that any evidence against their belief is the result of a conspiracy, while yet again producing zero evidence supporting that claim)

[smart]

The word "conspiracy theorist"

Sorry, it is a "term", unlike a simple word like "banana" or "gorilla"... In specific, the term "conspiracy theory" describes nothing objectively but is used liberally by mainstream media to discard independent research. Perhaps you should pick a dictionary to find out that this term is nonsense.

[smart]

Now don't get me wrong, as I am well-aware of curcumin's potential, and I've been taking Theracurmin on a daily basis for years.... but the reason why curcumin isn't utilized as a first-line and/or adjuvant anti-oncogenic, is due to it's profound pharmacokinetic limitations.

Would you care to explain me how a naturally-derived DNA methyltransferase inhibitor may have profound pharmacokinetic limitations?

[snorkfort]

The word "conspiracy theorist"

Sorry, it is a "term", unlike a simple word like "banana" or "gorilla"... In specific, the term "conspiracy theory" describes nothing objectively but is used liberally by mainstream media to discard independent research. Perhaps you should pick a dictionary to find out that this term is nonsense.

Your use of the term "mainstream media" is absolutely ridiculous. This indicates you know nothing about the diversity in the media. The term "conspiracy theory" has evolved over time, like MANY WORDS AND PHRASES IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. It now has negative connotations and is used by most people to refer to wacky allegations of conspiracies that are not based on credible evidence.

[smart]

Your use of the term "mainstream media" is absolutely ridiculous. This indicates you know nothing about the diversity in the media.

Please tell me about the so-called "diversity in the media", because so far my experience on internet forums like this one made me learned the true meaning of "mainstream media": It is the absence of diversity in the media which is problematic, not the opposite. Your use of the term "conspiracy theory" is evidence you belong into the msm camp.