Should I get chemo?
January 22, 2006 10:10 AM Subscribe
Posted for a relative: Should I get chemotherapy and radiation, or should I look into alternative methods?
I have recently had a mastectomy. The pathology showed estrogen-driven tumor, negative HER2 and clear lymph nodes. Due to the size of the tumor, my oncologist is recommending 12 weeks of chemotherapy, then radiation, then hormonal therapy.
After extensive internet research, reading, and talking to friends (including the head of the nursing department at my hospital), I am considering using alternative methods instead of chemo and radiation. I have changed my diet, added supplements that should change the inside environment that caused the tumor.
Dr. Duane Townsend says that genisteine from soy is an estrogen blocker, which should do the same thing as the hormone therapy (tamoxifin).
Burton Goldberg's Definitive Guide to Cancer says that chemotherapy for breast cancer is only 32% effective, and can often create "super-tumors", and accelerate their growth.
We are posting this question in hopes that someone with knowledge or experience in treatment of breast cancer can provide some insight into the conflicting advice we're getting from varying sources.
I have recently had a mastectomy. The pathology showed estrogen-driven tumor, negative HER2 and clear lymph nodes. Due to the size of the tumor, my oncologist is recommending 12 weeks of chemotherapy, then radiation, then hormonal therapy.
After extensive internet research, reading, and talking to friends (including the head of the nursing department at my hospital), I am considering using alternative methods instead of chemo and radiation. I have changed my diet, added supplements that should change the inside environment that caused the tumor.
Dr. Duane Townsend says that genisteine from soy is an estrogen blocker, which should do the same thing as the hormone therapy (tamoxifin).
Burton Goldberg's Definitive Guide to Cancer says that chemotherapy for breast cancer is only 32% effective, and can often create "super-tumors", and accelerate their growth.
We are posting this question in hopes that someone with knowledge or experience in treatment of breast cancer can provide some insight into the conflicting advice we're getting from varying sources.
ACOR maintains a large number of lists for various types of cancer where patients discuss their cases and treatments. These lists are an invaluable source of information regarding treatment options. It has a searchable archive of posts from its members for each group. I belong to one such list and would recommend it without reservation.
posted by Neiltupper at 10:39 AM on January 22, 2006
posted by Neiltupper at 10:39 AM on January 22, 2006
I worked for a small private office that specialized in IPT, which -- in short -- alleges to be a more potent chemotherapy with minimal side effects. There was also a strong emphasis on nutrition, supplements, and spiritual healing in this particular office. You may look into this and see if it is right for you.
I don't know if I particularly buy it, and if I myself had cancer I would go through regular chemotherapy. However this is your decision to make and I can only share with you my opinion of it. There's much information on the web.
Best of luck to you.
posted by viachicago at 10:41 AM on January 22, 2006
I don't know if I particularly buy it, and if I myself had cancer I would go through regular chemotherapy. However this is your decision to make and I can only share with you my opinion of it. There's much information on the web.
Best of luck to you.
posted by viachicago at 10:41 AM on January 22, 2006
...is only 32% effective...
What does your oncologist say is the success rate for patients like you that undergo the treatment he or she recommends?
Like Duck says I think you should be very wary of alternative therapies that often seem to be based on anecdotal evidence and some wishful thinking than clinical trials.
Simply take your concerns and you alternative treatments to a couple of oncologists and see what they say. I good doctor should treat your questions with respect and be able to explain to you in a scientific way why they think completely using alternative methods is a bad idea.
posted by sevenless at 10:45 AM on January 22, 2006
What does your oncologist say is the success rate for patients like you that undergo the treatment he or she recommends?
Like Duck says I think you should be very wary of alternative therapies that often seem to be based on anecdotal evidence and some wishful thinking than clinical trials.
Simply take your concerns and you alternative treatments to a couple of oncologists and see what they say. I good doctor should treat your questions with respect and be able to explain to you in a scientific way why they think completely using alternative methods is a bad idea.
posted by sevenless at 10:45 AM on January 22, 2006
Burton Goldberg is full of shit and is only interested in lining his pockets by selling books and DVDs. For the love of all that's holy, see another oncologist or, fuck, I don't know, a podiatrist before listening to a word Goldberg says.
Here is something written by Mr. Goldberg that demonstrates that he's either a fraud or out of his goddamn mind.
In it, he says: "Most of what Barrett claims can be refuted, easily and decisively. That's not my intention here." The funny thing is that he does not refute Barrett because he cannot, not because it's "not his intention." Goldberg attacks Barrett because the scientific method is detrimental to Goldberg's bank account.
Please read this as well.
Ignoring Western medicine and science and trusting in people selling books and DVDs instead of publishing in peer-reviewed medical journal can kill you.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:51 AM on January 22, 2006
Here is something written by Mr. Goldberg that demonstrates that he's either a fraud or out of his goddamn mind.
In it, he says: "Most of what Barrett claims can be refuted, easily and decisively. That's not my intention here." The funny thing is that he does not refute Barrett because he cannot, not because it's "not his intention." Goldberg attacks Barrett because the scientific method is detrimental to Goldberg's bank account.
Please read this as well.
Ignoring Western medicine and science and trusting in people selling books and DVDs instead of publishing in peer-reviewed medical journal can kill you.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:51 AM on January 22, 2006
Personally, I'd rather lean on traditional rad/chemo therapy, as unpleasant as the prospect may sound. They're proven to be effective. You don't want to mess around with unproven alternative therapies. I don't think there's a single piece of medical literature in a seriously regarded journal that points to a dietary supplement killing a tumor. But IANAD, so take this whole paragraph with a shakerful of salt.
My father was diagnosed with renal cancer years ago and read this book, whose techniques he applied in conjunction with his surgery and radiation therapy. Some dismiss Siegel as a quack, but my father showed his doctors a thing or two they hadn't seen before in a cancer patient, and he was treated at the Mayo Clinic.
One of those doctors gave him two years to live. That was eighteen years ago this summer. I fully believe that what he learned in that book, helped save his life.
posted by middleclasstool at 10:54 AM on January 22, 2006
My father was diagnosed with renal cancer years ago and read this book, whose techniques he applied in conjunction with his surgery and radiation therapy. Some dismiss Siegel as a quack, but my father showed his doctors a thing or two they hadn't seen before in a cancer patient, and he was treated at the Mayo Clinic.
One of those doctors gave him two years to live. That was eighteen years ago this summer. I fully believe that what he learned in that book, helped save his life.
posted by middleclasstool at 10:54 AM on January 22, 2006
Keep in mind that you can often just have radiation if you don't want to go through chemo. It's not both or nothing. You should be able to get reasonable numbers to make a good decision.
The best thing to do might be to find a top-notch breast cancer program and just get a second opinion and numbers from them.
With someone I know well who had breast cancer, her 5-year survival numbers were something like 85% with just lumpectomy + radiation and 90% with lumpectomy + radiation + chemo. (I don't remember the numbers, but they were both above 80% and only 5% apart.) You can decide if the extra 5% chance of survival is worth going through chemo. The person I know elected for both, but radiation only might be a decent compromise if you really, really want to avoid chemo.
Both chemo and radiation have their own risks, of course. (They can possibly cause other cancers.) However, I think that if "alternative" therapies worked so well, they'd be double-blind tested and would cease to be "alternative."
Best of luck.
posted by callmejay at 10:54 AM on January 22, 2006
The best thing to do might be to find a top-notch breast cancer program and just get a second opinion and numbers from them.
With someone I know well who had breast cancer, her 5-year survival numbers were something like 85% with just lumpectomy + radiation and 90% with lumpectomy + radiation + chemo. (I don't remember the numbers, but they were both above 80% and only 5% apart.) You can decide if the extra 5% chance of survival is worth going through chemo. The person I know elected for both, but radiation only might be a decent compromise if you really, really want to avoid chemo.
Both chemo and radiation have their own risks, of course. (They can possibly cause other cancers.) However, I think that if "alternative" therapies worked so well, they'd be double-blind tested and would cease to be "alternative."
Best of luck.
posted by callmejay at 10:54 AM on January 22, 2006
You can decide if the extra 5% chance of survival is worth going through chemo.
I mean if your percentage difference is worth it, not that you'll necessarily have 5% difference. You need a good doctor who knows all the specifics. IANAD.
posted by callmejay at 10:56 AM on January 22, 2006
I mean if your percentage difference is worth it, not that you'll necessarily have 5% difference. You need a good doctor who knows all the specifics. IANAD.
posted by callmejay at 10:56 AM on January 22, 2006
please don't use the Internet as a reference library on cancer. too much of it is outdated and anecdotal, and unless you're using pubmed to keep up with the latest reviewed articles or something, it's basically worthless.
doctors actually have a vested interest in keeping you alive and usually try to recommend the best option(s) that will do that, believe it or not.
the wording "change the inside environment that caused the tumor" makes it sound like you think that cheeseburger you had last July was the breaking point and it gave you cancer. this scares me. there's a lot more to it than keeping red meat away from your colon or whatever.
posted by kcm at 10:58 AM on January 22, 2006
doctors actually have a vested interest in keeping you alive and usually try to recommend the best option(s) that will do that, believe it or not.
the wording "change the inside environment that caused the tumor" makes it sound like you think that cheeseburger you had last July was the breaking point and it gave you cancer. this scares me. there's a lot more to it than keeping red meat away from your colon or whatever.
posted by kcm at 10:58 AM on January 22, 2006
Let's see if we can clear a few things up.
First of all, pathology can't show an 'estrogen-driven tumor'. Pathology is just slicing up the tumor and looking at it under a microscope, with the benefit of special stains and reactions to illuminate structural details. Even if estrogen receptor is seen (which it wasn't, if the tumor was Human Estrogen Receptor-2 negative), it doesn't prove that the tumor was 'driven by estrogen'. We take best guesses about the behavior of the tumor based on what we know about how similar-appearing tumors have behaved in the past.
Second: The question is whether or not the mastectomy removed all the cancerous tumor cells, or whether some yet remain in the body. If none remain, that tumor is no threat to you, and so the efficacy of the treatment is not important. If your doctor has recommended chemo and radiation, she believes that there may be cancer cells left in the body.
So, what if only a few scattered cancerous cells remain? Chemo and radiation might kill them all. If they're not all killed, they can spread into other parts of the body and start growing there. Cancer cells grow and divide; that is why they are cancerous. The more cells they are and the longer they have been dividing (and mutating), the harder it is to kill them. Once they spread, surgery's not an option because they are in multiple places; and in general, the longer you wait, the less likely chemo and radiation are to work.
I have changed my diet, added supplements that should change the inside environment that caused the tumor.
If you're so smart about what causes tumors, why did you get cancer in the first place? If you believe that anyone knows how to 'change an environment that causes a tumor', how can you explain the fact that people still get cancer? This is magical thinking. Neither you nor anyone else knows what caused your tumor. If you believe otherwise, you are deluding yourself.
Dr. Duane Townsend says that genisteine from soy is an estrogen blocker, which should do the same thing as the hormone therapy (tamoxifin).
Well, Dr. Amy Lee from USC says that its anti-cancer effects are due to its antioxidant properties. Some epidemiologists think that it accounts for the lower rates of cancer in people who drink a lot of green tea, or eat a lot of soy: a preventative effect. What's pretty clear is that it hasn't been an effective anti-cancer agent in clinical trials. Tamoxifen, on the other hand, improves survival in large groups of women with breast cancer. So, since Dr Duane Townsend says that tamoxifen is the same as genistein, why not use tamoxifen, since it has the added benefit of being proven to be helpful?
Burton Goldberg's Definitive Guide to Cancer says that chemotherapy for breast cancer is only 32% effective, and can often create "super-tumors", and accelerate their growth.
There are many different kinds of chemotherapy. Without knowing what kind was recommended for you, it's impossible to say more. It's also impossible to know how to evaluate Mr Goldberg's statement without knowing what sort of chemotherapy he was referring to, and in which patients. In a group of patients whose 5-year survival rate from metastatic tumor is 0%, a 32% chance of efficacy would be damned good - wouldn't you agree?
Your doctor wants to give her patients their best shot at living a normal life. Your doctor wants to prevent this: a woman lying in bed, wracked with intractable pain because every bone in her body has broken from the cancerous tumors that have eaten them away. If you think this can't happen to you, you're not paying attention to the statistics. And if you think your doctor's not recommending what's best for you, you should seek a second opinion from a cancer specialist, maybe at one of the nation's major cancer centers like the Sloan-Kettering, M.D. Anderson, or the Dana-Farber.
If you think there's a magic cure for cancer out there with no side effects, and that doctors are hushing it up, think again. Doctors are human people just like you, and we don't want to see people suffer needlessly.
Disclaimer: I am a doctor.
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:14 AM on January 22, 2006 [4 favorites]
First of all, pathology can't show an 'estrogen-driven tumor'. Pathology is just slicing up the tumor and looking at it under a microscope, with the benefit of special stains and reactions to illuminate structural details. Even if estrogen receptor is seen (which it wasn't, if the tumor was Human Estrogen Receptor-2 negative), it doesn't prove that the tumor was 'driven by estrogen'. We take best guesses about the behavior of the tumor based on what we know about how similar-appearing tumors have behaved in the past.
Second: The question is whether or not the mastectomy removed all the cancerous tumor cells, or whether some yet remain in the body. If none remain, that tumor is no threat to you, and so the efficacy of the treatment is not important. If your doctor has recommended chemo and radiation, she believes that there may be cancer cells left in the body.
So, what if only a few scattered cancerous cells remain? Chemo and radiation might kill them all. If they're not all killed, they can spread into other parts of the body and start growing there. Cancer cells grow and divide; that is why they are cancerous. The more cells they are and the longer they have been dividing (and mutating), the harder it is to kill them. Once they spread, surgery's not an option because they are in multiple places; and in general, the longer you wait, the less likely chemo and radiation are to work.
I have changed my diet, added supplements that should change the inside environment that caused the tumor.
If you're so smart about what causes tumors, why did you get cancer in the first place? If you believe that anyone knows how to 'change an environment that causes a tumor', how can you explain the fact that people still get cancer? This is magical thinking. Neither you nor anyone else knows what caused your tumor. If you believe otherwise, you are deluding yourself.
Dr. Duane Townsend says that genisteine from soy is an estrogen blocker, which should do the same thing as the hormone therapy (tamoxifin).
Well, Dr. Amy Lee from USC says that its anti-cancer effects are due to its antioxidant properties. Some epidemiologists think that it accounts for the lower rates of cancer in people who drink a lot of green tea, or eat a lot of soy: a preventative effect. What's pretty clear is that it hasn't been an effective anti-cancer agent in clinical trials. Tamoxifen, on the other hand, improves survival in large groups of women with breast cancer. So, since Dr Duane Townsend says that tamoxifen is the same as genistein, why not use tamoxifen, since it has the added benefit of being proven to be helpful?
Burton Goldberg's Definitive Guide to Cancer says that chemotherapy for breast cancer is only 32% effective, and can often create "super-tumors", and accelerate their growth.
There are many different kinds of chemotherapy. Without knowing what kind was recommended for you, it's impossible to say more. It's also impossible to know how to evaluate Mr Goldberg's statement without knowing what sort of chemotherapy he was referring to, and in which patients. In a group of patients whose 5-year survival rate from metastatic tumor is 0%, a 32% chance of efficacy would be damned good - wouldn't you agree?
Your doctor wants to give her patients their best shot at living a normal life. Your doctor wants to prevent this: a woman lying in bed, wracked with intractable pain because every bone in her body has broken from the cancerous tumors that have eaten them away. If you think this can't happen to you, you're not paying attention to the statistics. And if you think your doctor's not recommending what's best for you, you should seek a second opinion from a cancer specialist, maybe at one of the nation's major cancer centers like the Sloan-Kettering, M.D. Anderson, or the Dana-Farber.
If you think there's a magic cure for cancer out there with no side effects, and that doctors are hushing it up, think again. Doctors are human people just like you, and we don't want to see people suffer needlessly.
Disclaimer: I am a doctor.
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:14 AM on January 22, 2006 [4 favorites]
From Dr Fuhrman:
What Should You Do? If you have cancer and are considering chemotherapy, it is wise to do a search on all of the studies done on the recommended therapy (using med-line, for instance), so an informed decision can be made. If this were done, most patients likely would refuse chemotherapy. Doctors generally hide and distort the realities of chemotherapy, talking to patients about “shrinking the cancer” and “killing cancer cells,” not mentioning the fact that the therapy has not been shown to extend life.
Every patient has to make her own decision. But if I were a woman with postmenopausal breast cancer, I would opt for surgery, without radiation and without chemotherapy, and would then pursue an aggressive nutritional protocol. I also would include antiestrogens if the tumor histology showed it to be estrogen receptor- positive.
I don't know what I would do. I have found that Dr Fuhrman knows what he's talking about (unlike practically all alternative health guru's). If you're into nutrional medicine, maybe it's worth calling him. Don't make any decisions without getting a second opinion.
posted by davar at 11:30 AM on January 22, 2006
What Should You Do? If you have cancer and are considering chemotherapy, it is wise to do a search on all of the studies done on the recommended therapy (using med-line, for instance), so an informed decision can be made. If this were done, most patients likely would refuse chemotherapy. Doctors generally hide and distort the realities of chemotherapy, talking to patients about “shrinking the cancer” and “killing cancer cells,” not mentioning the fact that the therapy has not been shown to extend life.
Every patient has to make her own decision. But if I were a woman with postmenopausal breast cancer, I would opt for surgery, without radiation and without chemotherapy, and would then pursue an aggressive nutritional protocol. I also would include antiestrogens if the tumor histology showed it to be estrogen receptor- positive.
I don't know what I would do. I have found that Dr Fuhrman knows what he's talking about (unlike practically all alternative health guru's). If you're into nutrional medicine, maybe it's worth calling him. Don't make any decisions without getting a second opinion.
posted by davar at 11:30 AM on January 22, 2006
Ikkyu2's comment flagged as a fantastic comment. You are as detailed, thorough and compassionate on medical advice as Clay201 is on kink advice. You're a star AskMe poster.
posted by By The Grace of God at 11:32 AM on January 22, 2006
posted by By The Grace of God at 11:32 AM on January 22, 2006
Could you elaborate on how you're found Dr. Fuhrman (who plainly sounds like a nutcase to me, not a doctor but a patient with 4" scars on his back) to be knowlegable? Did your identical twin sisters each pick a different regimen and the one on traditional chemo died? Have you read his peer-reviewed material? Honestly. A second opinion is great but remember not everyone that sounds like they're correct *is*.
posted by kcm at 11:39 AM on January 22, 2006
posted by kcm at 11:39 AM on January 22, 2006
Could you elaborate on how you're found Dr. Fuhrman to be knowlegable?
His track record is impressive. He is not anti-conventional-medicine. He backs up his statements with science. He does not prescribe a one size fits all program for everybody. He does not make wild claims.
Did your identical twin sisters each pick a different regimen and the one on traditional chemo died?
No. Did your identical twin sisters each pick a different regimen and only the one without traditional chemo died? If not, does that mean chemo is worthless?
I'm not saying Dr Fuhrman can cure cancer. He says that cancer is not always curable. He promises no magic cures. I just say that if you are interested in nutritional medicine, I would consider calling him, and then report what he says back to your physicican/oncologist and see what they say.
posted by davar at 12:24 PM on January 22, 2006
His track record is impressive. He is not anti-conventional-medicine. He backs up his statements with science. He does not prescribe a one size fits all program for everybody. He does not make wild claims.
Did your identical twin sisters each pick a different regimen and the one on traditional chemo died?
No. Did your identical twin sisters each pick a different regimen and only the one without traditional chemo died? If not, does that mean chemo is worthless?
I'm not saying Dr Fuhrman can cure cancer. He says that cancer is not always curable. He promises no magic cures. I just say that if you are interested in nutritional medicine, I would consider calling him, and then report what he says back to your physicican/oncologist and see what they say.
posted by davar at 12:24 PM on January 22, 2006
FWIW, my mother went the route of alternative healing with vitamins, homeopathy, body work, meditation, diet, supplements, crazy tea from Brazil. She had a mastectomy, took her Tamoxifen, but said no to chemotherapy and radiation.
She died 4 years after she was diagnosed.
That said, those 4 years were spent travelling to Thailand, Hawaii, Montana, having a string of wild boyfriends, dancing, rocking out with her support group friends, riding her bike around the neighborhood, and generally, living an awesome life. Aside from recovering from surgery, she was never very sick until the end.
The end was short, and it was bad.
What you do with your time here is up to you. If you plan to stick around, I'd suggest you listen to a doctor or a whole team of them.
posted by cior at 12:36 PM on January 22, 2006
She died 4 years after she was diagnosed.
That said, those 4 years were spent travelling to Thailand, Hawaii, Montana, having a string of wild boyfriends, dancing, rocking out with her support group friends, riding her bike around the neighborhood, and generally, living an awesome life. Aside from recovering from surgery, she was never very sick until the end.
The end was short, and it was bad.
What you do with your time here is up to you. If you plan to stick around, I'd suggest you listen to a doctor or a whole team of them.
posted by cior at 12:36 PM on January 22, 2006
I don't know what I would do. I have found that Dr Fuhrman knows what he's talking about (unlike practically all alternative health guru's). If you're into nutrional medicine, maybe it's worth calling him. Don't make any decisions without getting a second opinion.
posted by davar at 11:30 AM PST on January 22
From your link: "Because they do not know that adults lived much longer centuries ago, they accept the myth that we are living healthier and longer today."
Bullshit.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:51 PM on January 22, 2006
posted by davar at 11:30 AM PST on January 22
From your link: "Because they do not know that adults lived much longer centuries ago, they accept the myth that we are living healthier and longer today."
Bullshit.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:51 PM on January 22, 2006
I think a little more discussion of 'chemotherapy' is in order.
Chemotherapy isn't one thing; it's a word doctors use to refer to a group of anti-cancer treatments. The treatments have the following things in common:
When my own father was diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer, the doctor sat down and said to us, "Here's some chemo you could have. It might prolong your life by a year. It would have the following side effects." I sat down and discussed it with him, and I was able to discern that these side effects were not things he was willing to have happen to himself, at least not in trade for another year of life. He did, however, take directed brain radiation, to shrink a tumor that had spread into his brain. This particular tumor shrank and its negative neurological effects went away; other tumors elsewhere in his body were not affected. He eventually died, of cancer, not having had any chemo, and everyone was OK with that.
Your relative's case is more complicated, because with clear nodes you want to offer a woman the best chance of cure - of getting rid of the cancer and never having it come back. In my opinion, fully understanding someone's individual case and being able to offer the counseling that you are asking for can be done best by a trained oncologist working in the accepted medical tradition.
posted by ikkyu2 at 12:52 PM on January 22, 2006
Chemotherapy isn't one thing; it's a word doctors use to refer to a group of anti-cancer treatments. The treatments have the following things in common:
- They bring about the death of cancer cells.
- They are generally dissolved in water or saline and infused intravenously.
- They are generally treatments with significant negative side effects: side effects that would not be acceptable if the consequences of the disease they treat were not so terrible.
When my own father was diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer, the doctor sat down and said to us, "Here's some chemo you could have. It might prolong your life by a year. It would have the following side effects." I sat down and discussed it with him, and I was able to discern that these side effects were not things he was willing to have happen to himself, at least not in trade for another year of life. He did, however, take directed brain radiation, to shrink a tumor that had spread into his brain. This particular tumor shrank and its negative neurological effects went away; other tumors elsewhere in his body were not affected. He eventually died, of cancer, not having had any chemo, and everyone was OK with that.
Your relative's case is more complicated, because with clear nodes you want to offer a woman the best chance of cure - of getting rid of the cancer and never having it come back. In my opinion, fully understanding someone's individual case and being able to offer the counseling that you are asking for can be done best by a trained oncologist working in the accepted medical tradition.
posted by ikkyu2 at 12:52 PM on January 22, 2006
My anecdotal response? With one exception, everyone I know who survived breast cancer or other cancers (myself included) for more than 5 years did it with conventional treatment (though sometimes in conjunction with certain alternative therapies). There are oncologists out there who are indeed open to blending conventional treatment and complementary alternative therapies in order to create a treatment plan that will best address your needs or quality of life issues (which, for example, might mean accepting radiation but not chemo). You can take charge of your treatment without abandoning conventional treatment wholesale.
And please, please, listen to ikkyu2.
posted by scody at 1:51 PM on January 22, 2006
And please, please, listen to ikkyu2.
posted by scody at 1:51 PM on January 22, 2006
Optimus Chyme: You want to look at age adjusted life expectancy. It is true that centuries ago life expectancy was not that great, but that was mostly because so many people died at birth, during childbirth, in a war, etc. But if you lived to be fifty, your remaining life expectancy was good. But that's off topic here.
ikkyu2: It's reasonable to learn about what particular specific chemotherapeutic agents are being offered, learn about their side effects and their chance of cure, and then make a more informed decision.
That's great advice.
posted by davar at 1:56 PM on January 22, 2006
ikkyu2: It's reasonable to learn about what particular specific chemotherapeutic agents are being offered, learn about their side effects and their chance of cure, and then make a more informed decision.
That's great advice.
posted by davar at 1:56 PM on January 22, 2006
Oh, and also:
Burton Goldberg's Definitive Guide to Cancer says that chemotherapy for breast cancer is only 32% effective
...seems to be an unusual claim, given that the overall 5-year survival rate for breast cancer is about 80%.
posted by scody at 2:00 PM on January 22, 2006
Burton Goldberg's Definitive Guide to Cancer says that chemotherapy for breast cancer is only 32% effective
...seems to be an unusual claim, given that the overall 5-year survival rate for breast cancer is about 80%.
posted by scody at 2:00 PM on January 22, 2006
The author of this book had experience of cancer, albeit not breast cancer, and gives good insight into alternative medicine. Unfortunately, he lost his battle, but it's definitely worth reading if you're considering not following conventional (that is, properly tested) treatments.
posted by edd at 2:15 PM on January 22, 2006
posted by edd at 2:15 PM on January 22, 2006
Response by poster: Ikkyu2 and others, thanks for your replies. My relative has, of course, learned all about the specific chemotherapies being recommended, and their side effects. I probably should have included them in the [more inside], but I was trying to keep it brief. Her oncologist wants her to take Cytoxan, which apparenly has a 10% chance of causing leukemia, and Adriamycin, which apparently has a 10% or greater chance of causing heart disease, in addition to a chance of causing leukemia.
posted by agropyron at 2:27 PM on January 22, 2006
posted by agropyron at 2:27 PM on January 22, 2006
raw numbers alone still don't mean much, and this is why you should talk to professionals in person about this. it's important to find the right group that will work with you, if you don't feel comfortable with your current group.
for instance, a 10% incidence of a side-effect may mean that 10% of the population were already predisposed in some manner to the condition. correlation and causation aren't the same. they can help you examine this sort of thing.
honestly, in the end, it sounds more like your relative needs a support group and help with emotional issues more than medical advice. it sounds like you're in the stages where you feel immense pressure to make every single correct decision OR DIE - believe me, I've been there - and as a result you may feel overly pressured to crunch numbers and alternatives. still - I would warn against online support groups, since 1) the population is self-selecting, 2) in my experience, the people there tend to be on the worrysome and/or IANAD-but side, and this can lead to both bad advice and a very negative outlook on things.
posted by kcm at 2:35 PM on January 22, 2006
for instance, a 10% incidence of a side-effect may mean that 10% of the population were already predisposed in some manner to the condition. correlation and causation aren't the same. they can help you examine this sort of thing.
honestly, in the end, it sounds more like your relative needs a support group and help with emotional issues more than medical advice. it sounds like you're in the stages where you feel immense pressure to make every single correct decision OR DIE - believe me, I've been there - and as a result you may feel overly pressured to crunch numbers and alternatives. still - I would warn against online support groups, since 1) the population is self-selecting, 2) in my experience, the people there tend to be on the worrysome and/or IANAD-but side, and this can lead to both bad advice and a very negative outlook on things.
posted by kcm at 2:35 PM on January 22, 2006
Response by poster: Excellent point about the numbers, kcm. I don't know if she has looked into support groups, but I will suggest it. Based on the suggestions in this thread, I'm also going to suggest that she get a second opinion from another oncologist.
I personally would like to do more reading on the side effects of these specific chemotherapy drugs and their effectiveness. Can anyone recommend some reputable resources? (As we've seen, in the realm of cancer treatments it's very difficult to know who to trust.)
posted by agropyron at 2:43 PM on January 22, 2006
I personally would like to do more reading on the side effects of these specific chemotherapy drugs and their effectiveness. Can anyone recommend some reputable resources? (As we've seen, in the realm of cancer treatments it's very difficult to know who to trust.)
posted by agropyron at 2:43 PM on January 22, 2006
My friend that died of cancer back in 2002 decided on alternative treatment seeing as his diagnosis was stage 4 lung cancer.
In my opinion he made the wrong decision. He went thru hell, spent copious amounts of money (the treatment was not covered by insurance) and his quality of life was crap. He died five months after diagnosis. He (barring a miracle) would have died anyway but at least he would have had his pain treated! (A long story but it is too upsetting for me to go into it.)
OTOH a fellow choir member just completed conventional chemo and radiation for breast cancer. She did have some lymph node involvement. During her treatment she was able to work and also still able to participate in choir. She did lose her hair (got a great wig which looked just like her usual style) and other than having to take it easy at times, continued to live her life as usual. AFAIK her prognosis is excellent.
Second opinions are fine. Alternative treatments are by and large ripoffs, and the people who make money off them are evil in my opinion.
posted by konolia at 2:44 PM on January 22, 2006
In my opinion he made the wrong decision. He went thru hell, spent copious amounts of money (the treatment was not covered by insurance) and his quality of life was crap. He died five months after diagnosis. He (barring a miracle) would have died anyway but at least he would have had his pain treated! (A long story but it is too upsetting for me to go into it.)
OTOH a fellow choir member just completed conventional chemo and radiation for breast cancer. She did have some lymph node involvement. During her treatment she was able to work and also still able to participate in choir. She did lose her hair (got a great wig which looked just like her usual style) and other than having to take it easy at times, continued to live her life as usual. AFAIK her prognosis is excellent.
Second opinions are fine. Alternative treatments are by and large ripoffs, and the people who make money off them are evil in my opinion.
posted by konolia at 2:44 PM on January 22, 2006
If I may, I'd like to draw out one of ikkyu's comments and add a little to it.
Some epidemiologists think that it accounts for the lower rates of cancer in people who drink a lot of green tea, or eat a lot of soy: a preventative effect. What's pretty clear is that it hasn't been an effective anti-cancer agent in clinical trials.
This is a huge point to think about when evaluating any nutritional/alternative approach to your cancer. Preventing something need not bear any relationship at all to undoing that thing once it's happened.
If a million studies show conclusively that doing X prevents cancer in every single person who does X, that does *NOT* suggest that doing X can reverse/slow/alleviate/cure cancer.
The difference between preventing and curing is obvious with respect to things we (lay people) understand better (e.g. Putting in a diaphragm won't abort a pregnancy, waterproofing the foundation after a flood won't get the water out of your basement or fix the water damage), But with things we know less about, it can be easy to confuse "preventing" with "fixing".
Do not allow pseudo doctors to tell you that eating Y will make you better by citing studies that show that Y prevents cancer. Make them show you studies (in peer reviewed journals, of course) that show that it treats cancer, not just that it prevents it.
Now this is the part where you should ask a real doctor about the details, but: It's my understanding that there's plenty of evidence that anti-oxidents can prevent cancer. BUT when I was receiving radiation treatment I was told specically to avoid anti-oxident supplements and try not to get too much. Why? (remember, run this by a real doctor, but my understanding is:) What anti-oxidents do is prevent mutations. But if you have cancer, you *want* mutations. You want the cancer cells to mutate because that will make them less viable. Radiation makes the cancer cells mutate. If you're taking anti-oxidents you're protecting your tumour from the radiation. In this case, the thing that prevents cancer could actually also hinder the treatment of cancer.
In other comments:
Doctors generally hide and distort the realities of chemotherapy, talking to patients about “shrinking the cancer” and “killing cancer cells,” not mentioning the fact that the therapy has not been shown to extend life.
Psuedo-doctors distort the realities of chemotherapy by neglecting to mention that killing cancer cells and shrinking the cancer can contribute to quality of life and pain management, not just life extension.
No. Did your identical twin sisters each pick a different regimen and only the one without traditional chemo died? If not, does that mean chemo is worthless?
No, better than that. You see, an identical twin would never be completely identical since they would have lived different lives, and they would really only have been truly biologically and genetically identical for a few minutes after conception. So it's not possible to have two otherwise identical people go through different treatments.
But don't worry, as I said, there's a method better than having identical twins go through different treatments. See, you can take people and randomly assign them to different receive each treatment. Now this doesn't eliminate the possibility that people in one treatment group did better than in the other group because of something having nothing to do with the treatment. What it does do is allow us to calculate the probability that the group who did better did better because of nothing to do with the treatment. Then we only consider the treatment to "work" if that probability is very low.
--
Note that just like there are different chemotherapies, there are different kinds of radiation treatment, at least 2. I can't explain them or the difference, but they were explained to me so I know that there are distinctions. And of course there are different radiation doses. Be sure to find out about your options there, as well.
Finally, if you do decide to engage in treatments that are not the ones recommended by your oncologist, be sure to make sure your oncologist does know exactly what you're doing. If your oncologist is so opposed to this that you don't feel like you can tell them, get a new oncologist. Seriously, while I obviously support the scientically-supported route, I support your right to make whatever decision you choose and your doctor should support it, at least enough to do the best he can for you given the decisions that you're making.
posted by duck at 3:02 PM on January 22, 2006
Some epidemiologists think that it accounts for the lower rates of cancer in people who drink a lot of green tea, or eat a lot of soy: a preventative effect. What's pretty clear is that it hasn't been an effective anti-cancer agent in clinical trials.
This is a huge point to think about when evaluating any nutritional/alternative approach to your cancer. Preventing something need not bear any relationship at all to undoing that thing once it's happened.
If a million studies show conclusively that doing X prevents cancer in every single person who does X, that does *NOT* suggest that doing X can reverse/slow/alleviate/cure cancer.
The difference between preventing and curing is obvious with respect to things we (lay people) understand better (e.g. Putting in a diaphragm won't abort a pregnancy, waterproofing the foundation after a flood won't get the water out of your basement or fix the water damage), But with things we know less about, it can be easy to confuse "preventing" with "fixing".
Do not allow pseudo doctors to tell you that eating Y will make you better by citing studies that show that Y prevents cancer. Make them show you studies (in peer reviewed journals, of course) that show that it treats cancer, not just that it prevents it.
Now this is the part where you should ask a real doctor about the details, but: It's my understanding that there's plenty of evidence that anti-oxidents can prevent cancer. BUT when I was receiving radiation treatment I was told specically to avoid anti-oxident supplements and try not to get too much. Why? (remember, run this by a real doctor, but my understanding is:) What anti-oxidents do is prevent mutations. But if you have cancer, you *want* mutations. You want the cancer cells to mutate because that will make them less viable. Radiation makes the cancer cells mutate. If you're taking anti-oxidents you're protecting your tumour from the radiation. In this case, the thing that prevents cancer could actually also hinder the treatment of cancer.
In other comments:
Doctors generally hide and distort the realities of chemotherapy, talking to patients about “shrinking the cancer” and “killing cancer cells,” not mentioning the fact that the therapy has not been shown to extend life.
Psuedo-doctors distort the realities of chemotherapy by neglecting to mention that killing cancer cells and shrinking the cancer can contribute to quality of life and pain management, not just life extension.
No. Did your identical twin sisters each pick a different regimen and only the one without traditional chemo died? If not, does that mean chemo is worthless?
No, better than that. You see, an identical twin would never be completely identical since they would have lived different lives, and they would really only have been truly biologically and genetically identical for a few minutes after conception. So it's not possible to have two otherwise identical people go through different treatments.
But don't worry, as I said, there's a method better than having identical twins go through different treatments. See, you can take people and randomly assign them to different receive each treatment. Now this doesn't eliminate the possibility that people in one treatment group did better than in the other group because of something having nothing to do with the treatment. What it does do is allow us to calculate the probability that the group who did better did better because of nothing to do with the treatment. Then we only consider the treatment to "work" if that probability is very low.
--
Note that just like there are different chemotherapies, there are different kinds of radiation treatment, at least 2. I can't explain them or the difference, but they were explained to me so I know that there are distinctions. And of course there are different radiation doses. Be sure to find out about your options there, as well.
Finally, if you do decide to engage in treatments that are not the ones recommended by your oncologist, be sure to make sure your oncologist does know exactly what you're doing. If your oncologist is so opposed to this that you don't feel like you can tell them, get a new oncologist. Seriously, while I obviously support the scientically-supported route, I support your right to make whatever decision you choose and your doctor should support it, at least enough to do the best he can for you given the decisions that you're making.
posted by duck at 3:02 PM on January 22, 2006
Oh, and in case I haven't already overstayed my welcome in this post.. Cancer is a terrible topic for which to rely on anecdotes.
Asking people what helps them cure the hiccoughs or a cold is one thing because you can get that whether or not a person has had a cold, and whether or not holding their breath helped cure the hiccoughts has no bearing on their probability of reading AskMe. But rememeber that dead people don't make a lot of internet postings. If 1000 people posted on here saying that chemo cured them or that 1000 people posted on hear saying that eating raw duck liver cured them, that wouldn't tell you what you need to know. How many people ate raw duck liver and weren't cured? (those people don't post here). How many of them would have lived/died anyway?
Look to the clinical trial...if you really like anecdotes, think of them as a few thousand anecdotes already nicely classified.
posted by duck at 3:07 PM on January 22, 2006
Asking people what helps them cure the hiccoughs or a cold is one thing because you can get that whether or not a person has had a cold, and whether or not holding their breath helped cure the hiccoughts has no bearing on their probability of reading AskMe. But rememeber that dead people don't make a lot of internet postings. If 1000 people posted on here saying that chemo cured them or that 1000 people posted on hear saying that eating raw duck liver cured them, that wouldn't tell you what you need to know. How many people ate raw duck liver and weren't cured? (those people don't post here). How many of them would have lived/died anyway?
Look to the clinical trial...if you really like anecdotes, think of them as a few thousand anecdotes already nicely classified.
posted by duck at 3:07 PM on January 22, 2006
Response by poster: Thank you all for some excellent responses to an admittedly ill-defined question on a topic that's not really suited to AskMe. You've helped me get something of a handle on what I can recommend to my relative, and given me some ideas on how to proceed with personal research. (Perhaps that should have been my question in the first place..)
posted by agropyron at 3:22 PM on January 22, 2006
posted by agropyron at 3:22 PM on January 22, 2006
agropyron: Cytoxan (cyclophosphamide) and Adriamycin (doxorubicin) are scary drugs. They are certainly what I think of as "heavy artillery," because of their potent negative side effects. If an oncologist suggested I take them, I'd be pretty scared.
I think that, at that point, I probably wouldn't base my opinion on things that I was reading at that point. Instead, I would probably try to find an oncologist whom I really trusted. That doctor would have to have impeccable credentials and a decent ability to explain her recommendations in a way that I felt I could understand and agree with.
But these things are so personal. Other things that help some folks are reading on the Internet and support groups. Pages on the National Cancer Institute's website, like this page on 'chemotherapy and you', are generally reliable.
You might also consider having your relative visit with a breast cancer survivor's support group. She could chat with folks who might have had the same treatments that her doctor wants her to take. I have to tell you that I believe that some patients who have taken therapies may be more reliable in terms of being able to describe what that experience means, than even the doctors who prescribe those therapies daily.
On the other hand, those support groups can be frightening and unpleasant - there's no guarantee that the environment is going to be nurturing or supportive.
posted by ikkyu2 at 3:22 PM on January 22, 2006
I think that, at that point, I probably wouldn't base my opinion on things that I was reading at that point. Instead, I would probably try to find an oncologist whom I really trusted. That doctor would have to have impeccable credentials and a decent ability to explain her recommendations in a way that I felt I could understand and agree with.
But these things are so personal. Other things that help some folks are reading on the Internet and support groups. Pages on the National Cancer Institute's website, like this page on 'chemotherapy and you', are generally reliable.
You might also consider having your relative visit with a breast cancer survivor's support group. She could chat with folks who might have had the same treatments that her doctor wants her to take. I have to tell you that I believe that some patients who have taken therapies may be more reliable in terms of being able to describe what that experience means, than even the doctors who prescribe those therapies daily.
On the other hand, those support groups can be frightening and unpleasant - there's no guarantee that the environment is going to be nurturing or supportive.
posted by ikkyu2 at 3:22 PM on January 22, 2006
duck: This is a huge point to think about when evaluating any nutritional/alternative approach to your cancer. Preventing something need not bear any relationship at all to undoing that thing once it's happened.
Of course. That's obvious, isn't it? That's why you go to a doctor who has read and understand the studies and can advise you about your specific case.
Another problem: maybe you read that foodA is very good when you have diseaseA. So you eat lots of foodA. DiseaseA cured. (it worked!). And then you get diseaseB, and die. It turns out that increased intake of foodA can cause diseaseB. You should not drastically change your
diet when you're ill because you read something.
On preview: just listen to ikkyu2.
posted by davar at 3:33 PM on January 22, 2006
Of course. That's obvious, isn't it? That's why you go to a doctor who has read and understand the studies and can advise you about your specific case.
Another problem: maybe you read that foodA is very good when you have diseaseA. So you eat lots of foodA. DiseaseA cured. (it worked!). And then you get diseaseB, and die. It turns out that increased intake of foodA can cause diseaseB. You should not drastically change your
diet when you're ill because you read something.
On preview: just listen to ikkyu2.
posted by davar at 3:33 PM on January 22, 2006
Optimus Chyme: You want to look at age adjusted life expectancy. It is true that centuries ago life expectancy was not that great, but that was mostly because so many people died at birth, during childbirth, in a war, etc. But if you lived to be fifty, your remaining life expectancy was good. But that's off topic here.
You left out polio, typhoid, cholera, influenza, bronchitis, tuberculosis, bacterial infections, etc. Yes, if you avoided getting any diseases or accidents you could live till 80 and die of a stroke just like today. And keep in mind a lot of children did die due to disease. To the extent that even wealthy families would often lose at least one kid before they became adults.
posted by delmoi at 5:01 PM on January 22, 2006
You left out polio, typhoid, cholera, influenza, bronchitis, tuberculosis, bacterial infections, etc. Yes, if you avoided getting any diseases or accidents you could live till 80 and die of a stroke just like today. And keep in mind a lot of children did die due to disease. To the extent that even wealthy families would often lose at least one kid before they became adults.
posted by delmoi at 5:01 PM on January 22, 2006
duck: This is a huge point to think about when evaluating any nutritional/alternative approach to your cancer.
Preventing something need not bear any relationship at all to undoing that thing once it's happened.
Davar: Of course. That's obvious, isn't it?
This from the OP would suggest that it isn't always obvious: "should change the inside environment that caused the tumor."
But yes, see and talk to a real scientific-method-loving doctor.
posted by duck at 5:34 PM on January 22, 2006
Preventing something need not bear any relationship at all to undoing that thing once it's happened.
Davar: Of course. That's obvious, isn't it?
This from the OP would suggest that it isn't always obvious: "should change the inside environment that caused the tumor."
But yes, see and talk to a real scientific-method-loving doctor.
posted by duck at 5:34 PM on January 22, 2006
agropyron: Burton Goldberg's Definitive Guide to Cancer says that chemotherapy for breast cancer is only 32% effective
scody: ...seems to be an unusual claim, given that the overall 5-year survival rate for breast cancer is about 80%.
Okay... It seems to me that the two numbers above could be completely consistent, so I want to understand and clarify what the rates mean.
With a little back of the envelope calculation I come up with the following:
posted by Chuckles at 5:55 PM on January 22, 2006
scody: ...seems to be an unusual claim, given that the overall 5-year survival rate for breast cancer is about 80%.
Okay... It seems to me that the two numbers above could be completely consistent, so I want to understand and clarify what the rates mean.
With a little back of the envelope calculation I come up with the following:
Total Survival Rate = Untreated Survival Rate + Efficacy x Treatment RateIt is not at all unreasonable for the efficacy to be 32% while the overall survival rate is 80%. For example, the equation balances for an untreated survival rate of 50% and a treatment rate of 94%.
posted by Chuckles at 5:55 PM on January 22, 2006
Optimus Chyme: You want to look at age adjusted life expectancy. It is true that centuries ago life expectancy was not that great, but that was mostly because so many people died at birth, during childbirth, in a war, etc. But if you lived to be fifty, your remaining life expectancy was good. But that's off topic here.
posted by davar at 1:56 PM PST on January 22
Your link said "Because they do not know that adults lived much longer centuries ago, they accept the myth that we are living healthier and longer today." If you have evidence that age-adjusted lifespans were much greater two hundred years ago, I would be thrilled to see it.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:39 PM on January 22, 2006
posted by davar at 1:56 PM PST on January 22
Your link said "Because they do not know that adults lived much longer centuries ago, they accept the myth that we are living healthier and longer today." If you have evidence that age-adjusted lifespans were much greater two hundred years ago, I would be thrilled to see it.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:39 PM on January 22, 2006
About the life expectancy: I don't know. I'm not the doctor. I think that he does not mean that centuries ago people got much older than now, but that many people did get much older than 50, even though the official life expectancy at that time was 50 or even less. Or he might mean that the healthy life expectancy of people who did not die from diseases we have now eradicated was higher. Even though I respect Dr Fuhrman, I would agree that he is not a great writer (his books could really use a better editor). I do think it is a little unfair to attack someone based on one factoid, that has little to do with his overall advice. The nutritional advice the doctor gives is sound and based in science. It is not that different from proven diets such as the DASH diet. He recommends the same things every doctor recommends: eat more vegetables. He is just more specific and expects more drastic lifestyle changes from his patients.
But, for factoid lovers, in my country, healthy life expectancies are declining. See for example "For females the healthy life percentage appears to decline" and "a decline in disability-free life expectancy [was] observed."
I think the general point of the doctor is that it is such a shame that, thanks to modern medicine, we now have the best possible chance to a healthy life. We have almost eradicated childhood diseases (thanks to vaccines), childbirth is very safe now. We have antibiotics etc. We have access to lots of varied healthy foods. But we do not live much longer (while being healthy) than before. 1 in 3 people die of heart disease/stroke, and a large part of those deaths are preventable (this is not even controverisal).
I am sorry for the off topic derail. And of course, I am not the doctor. If you want to know his answer, I suggest e-mailing him.
posted by davar at 5:38 AM on January 23, 2006
But, for factoid lovers, in my country, healthy life expectancies are declining. See for example "For females the healthy life percentage appears to decline" and "a decline in disability-free life expectancy [was] observed."
I think the general point of the doctor is that it is such a shame that, thanks to modern medicine, we now have the best possible chance to a healthy life. We have almost eradicated childhood diseases (thanks to vaccines), childbirth is very safe now. We have antibiotics etc. We have access to lots of varied healthy foods. But we do not live much longer (while being healthy) than before. 1 in 3 people die of heart disease/stroke, and a large part of those deaths are preventable (this is not even controverisal).
I am sorry for the off topic derail. And of course, I am not the doctor. If you want to know his answer, I suggest e-mailing him.
posted by davar at 5:38 AM on January 23, 2006
Here are some resources that may be helpful:
National Cancer Institute
This is one of the most authoratitive and informative medical sites on the web. There is information for patients and information for health professionals (available for patients if they want to read it). It also lists clinical trials.
Doctor Susan Love's Breast Book - probably the best book for information and explanations. Dr. Love is a surgeon (I trained with her years ago) but not afraid to criticize traditional medical therapies if she thinks they are useless.
QuackWatch
a non-profit organization dedicated to exposing scammers by detailing the results of their "treatments" and their financial connections.
Your relative faces a difficult situation. As others have mentioned, she should seek a second opinion (and even a third if she is not satisfied). Fortunately, new and improved treatments are being introduced almost every day.
As regards alternative health practitioners, I'll leave you with a couple of thoughts:
Every legitimate health care provider offers free care to indigent patients. If there is no way to get an "alternative" therapy for free, it's because it doesn't work and it exists purely to make money.
Medical care (drugs especially) are billion dollar businesses. If someone discovered a cure for cancer, they could become a billionaire AND win the Nobel Prize. If that's the case, why are they advertising on a second rate personal website?
posted by DrAmy at 7:57 PM on January 23, 2006
National Cancer Institute
This is one of the most authoratitive and informative medical sites on the web. There is information for patients and information for health professionals (available for patients if they want to read it). It also lists clinical trials.
Doctor Susan Love's Breast Book - probably the best book for information and explanations. Dr. Love is a surgeon (I trained with her years ago) but not afraid to criticize traditional medical therapies if she thinks they are useless.
QuackWatch
a non-profit organization dedicated to exposing scammers by detailing the results of their "treatments" and their financial connections.
Your relative faces a difficult situation. As others have mentioned, she should seek a second opinion (and even a third if she is not satisfied). Fortunately, new and improved treatments are being introduced almost every day.
As regards alternative health practitioners, I'll leave you with a couple of thoughts:
Every legitimate health care provider offers free care to indigent patients. If there is no way to get an "alternative" therapy for free, it's because it doesn't work and it exists purely to make money.
Medical care (drugs especially) are billion dollar businesses. If someone discovered a cure for cancer, they could become a billionaire AND win the Nobel Prize. If that's the case, why are they advertising on a second rate personal website?
posted by DrAmy at 7:57 PM on January 23, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
There's a world of difference between "should do the same thing" and "has been clinically shown in double-blind studies to do the same thing." Sometimes things just don't do in the body what you would expect them to do based on their chemical properties or based on what they do in in test tubes and beakers. If they did, there would be no need for clinical testing, we could just do trials based on computer simulations of how chemicals and cells "should" bond.
You're being asked to take one drug which is not clinically proven instead of another drug that is. The fact that one of those drugs comes from soy is irrelevant.
See another oncologist. And note that there's no reason you can't combine nutrition and lifestyle changes (not herbal drugs) with chemo or radiation.
posted by duck at 10:20 AM on January 22, 2006