• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Landmark Study: Half of Cancer Patients Killed by Chemo

Krag

Planet earth
Platinum Bling
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
4,905
Likes
4,025
#1
Landmark Study Shows Half of Cancer Patients are Killed by Chemo — NOT Cancer

No matter how much doctors push the treatment, chemotherapy might not be the best option in the fight against cancer, as a new study shows up to 50 percent of patients are killed by the drugs — not the disease, itself.

Researchers from Public Health England and Cancer Research UK performed a groundbreaking study examining for the first time the numbers of cancer patients who died within 30 days of beginning chemotherapy — indicating the treatment, not the cancer, was the cause of death.

Looking at those death rates in hospitals across the U.K., researchers found an alarming mortality rate associated with chemotherapy.

Across “England around 8.4 per cent of patients with lung cancer, and 2.4 per cent of breast cancer patients died within a month,” the Telegraph reported.
“But in some hospitals the figure was far higher. In Milton Keynes the death rate for lung cancer treatment was 50.9 per cent, although it was based on a very small number of patients.”

Alarmingly, the one-month mortality rate at Lancashire Teaching Hospitals for those undergoing palliative, rather than curative, chemotherapy for lung cancer was a full 28 percent. One in five breast cancer patients receiving palliative care at Cambridge University Hospitals died from treatment.

In certain areas — Blackpool, Coventry, Derby, South Tyneside, and Surrey and Sussex — deaths of lung cancer patients by chemotherapy were ‘far higher’ than the national average.

Dr. Jem Rashbass, Cancer Lead for Public Health England — the national health care service, which requested the study — said, as quoted by the Telegraph:
“Chemotherapy is a vital part of cancer treatment and is a large reason behind the improved survival rates over the last four decades.
“However, it is powerful medication with significant side effects and often getting the balance right on which patients to treat aggressively can be hard.
“Those hospitals whose death rates are outside the expected range have had the findings shared with them and we have asked them to review their practice and data.”

For the analysis, researchers “included all women with breast cancer and all men and women with lung cancer residing in England, who were 24 years or older and who started a cycle” of chemotherapy in 2014.

Long the mainstay for treating various cancers, chemotherapy has finally drawn criticism in recent years, as the medicine does not differentiate between healthy and cancerous cells. Now, this study — published in the Lancet — shows how that powerful cell-destroying property can mean the demise for patients as well.
Researchers have advised physicians to exercise more caution in vetting which patients should ideally receive chemotherapy. Older and more infirm patients, in particular, might be better off without receiving palliative care, which is designed to offer relief instead of curing the disease.
“The statistics don’t suggest bad practice overall but there are some outliers,” noted Professor David Dodwell of the Institute of Oncology at St. James Hospital in Leeds.


https://thefreethoughtproject.com/c...IqMQ1-bloPp8Jv_hnXuMMGCvrBoSJiUQYXeF2-u-1UqJU
 

hoarder

Dis Member
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
12,044
Likes
13,070
Location
Montana
#2
Not that I believe studies, 3/4 is probably more like it. Killed my dad.
 

Aurumag

Ag mirror of truth Aurum purity of mind
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,666
Likes
11,931
Location
State of Jefferson
#3
Doctor to the family members:

"The good news is we cured the cancer.

The bad news is we lost the patient."

Chemo is a death sentence.
 

Silver

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,313
Likes
8,378
#4
A guy who worked for me for a while has been going through lung cancer treatment. They found spots on his lungs and they were malignant (long time smoker).

They have been doing radiation treatment directly on the spots (4 days a week) and then giving him chemo once a week to kill cancer cells released into his bloodstream from the radiation.

It makes some sense to me. I doubt there is an easy way to get rid of lung cancer from 40 years of smoking.
 

anywoundedduck

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,668
Likes
5,092
Location
Kentucky
#5

hoarder

Dis Member
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
12,044
Likes
13,070
Location
Montana
#6
It makes some sense to me. I doubt there is an easy way to get rid of lung cancer from 40 years of smoking.
Eat foods that have cancer fighting ingredients. Your body usually heals itself if given a chance.
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
14,292
Likes
25,195
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#7

Silver

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,313
Likes
8,378
#9
Eat foods that have cancer fighting ingredients. Your body usually heals itself if given a chance.
No way this guy would understand the concept - he drank Mountain Dew and smoked Marlborough's. Ate whatever (and no teeth). Wasn't the kind of person to follow that kind of regime.
 
Last edited:

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
11,231
Likes
13,685
#10
I lost a fellow coach and friend that coached my kids up into high school. I believe the Chemo is what got him, NOT the cancer.
 

Merlin

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
2,740
Likes
3,683
#11
All lung cancers are not created equal. There is "non-small cell lung cancer" and there is "small cell lung cancer." I know of people with the former who underwent radiation treatment and went into remission without the use of chemo. My David had the "small cell lung cancer" and his chemo nurses shook their heads and admitted that it was a killer with no cure. With David's cancer the survival rate from the date of diagnosis, without treatment was six months. With chemo, David lived for nine months. But the chemo was murderous. I'm not sure what killed him at the end; but I am sure the chemo played a role.
 

Krag

Planet earth
Platinum Bling
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
4,905
Likes
4,025
#12
Yeah, it killed my wife's father and my uncle.
If I get cancer, I will drink colloidal silver by the quart. Screw this chemo.
I am beginning to believe colloidal silver will cure just about everything.
Google has nothing but disinformation about this.
Use Ducduckgo.com.
Here:
https://www.lifeandhealthresearchgroup.com/colloidal-silver-and-cancer-a-surprising-look/
Or you could try colloidal cesium:

Cesium therapy in cancer patients.
Sartori HE.
Abstract
The effect of cesium therapy on various cancers is reported. A total of 50 patients were treated over a 3 year period with CsCl. The majority of the patients have been unresponsive to previous maximal modalities of cancer treatment and were considered terminal cases. The Cs-treatment consisted of CsCl in addition to some vitamins, minerals, chelating agents and salts of selenium, potassium and magnesium. In addition, a special diet was also instituted. There was an impressive 50% recovery of various cancers, i.e., cancer of unknown primary, breast, colon, prostate, pancrease, lung, liver, lymphoma, ewing sarcoma of the pelvis and adeno-cancer of the gallbladder, by the Cs-therapy employed. There was a 26% and 24% death within the initial 2 weeks and 12 months of treatment, respectively. A consistent finding in these patients was the disappearance of pain within the initial 3 days of Cs-treatment. The small number of autopsies made showed the absence of cancer cells in most cases and the clinical impression indicates a remarkably successful outcome of treatment.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6522427

You would have to do a rigorous study on any given patient to find the best remedy.

Personally I would sock my system with a lot of organic herbs and whole grains like macrobiotics teaches.
 

hoarder

Dis Member
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
12,044
Likes
13,070
Location
Montana
#13
No way this guy would understand the concept - he drank Mountain Dew and smoked Marlborough's. Ate whatever (and no teeth). Wasn't the kind of person to follow that kind of regime.
Yet he submits to a regime of chemo and radiation. Never underestimate the power of brainwashing.
 

<SLV>

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,234
Likes
5,629
#14
Fasting. Water only for 30 days. Your body will "digest" the cancer.
 

Someone_else

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,651
Likes
3,579
#15
Fasting. Water only for 30 days. Your body will "digest" the cancer.
I think that has merit. I have mentioned before the idea of MTOR, the Mammalian Target Of Rapamycin. This is a body response to the protein intake. What I understand is that there is a neutral protein demand, so many grams per day, based on body weight.

Adding more protein pushes the body into anabolic mode, promoting growth. This might be muscle growth, if there is exercise to show a need for it. Or it might just be general growth... somewhere... And maybe not in a useful way.

Reducing protein pushes the body into a catabolic mode. In this mode, "crap" that has been left around is harvested to be turned into things that are useful. This idea gives credence to those who say that fasting helps detoxifying. A toxin does not have to be a chemical, maybe it is an unhealthy food additive.

Reducing carbs is no problem. Fats are a pure energy source, but no problem reducing them too.

Last point is that most versions of cancer feed on glucose. Get off the carbs and that will help. Ascorbic acid competes (blocks) with the cancer cell's receptors. If your cells are getting energy from fat (ketones), blocking the glucose receptors should not be a problem.

I agree with SLV on fasting.
 

Uncle

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
1,618
Likes
1,952
Location
SA
#16

Krag

Planet earth
Platinum Bling
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
4,905
Likes
4,025
#17
Fasting. Water only for 30 days. Your body will "digest" the cancer.
I have thought that is the 'everyman' solution too. Or you could add fresh squeezed lemon juice and fiber to flush out the toxins.

"The curse causeless shall not come". If you looked at habits, diet, lifestyle before the major disease developed you could ascertain how the subject was their own worst enemy. You reap what you sow, nature is always right, self pity and pointing fingers does not work in an orderly universe.

Of course all cancers are not necessarily linked; some are simply toxin build up; some are largely caused by blocked emotions, feeling trapped with no way out but death. But there is usually a local solution, no need to subject yourself to medical torture of surgery, radiation and chemo usually with all the other meds.. And Christians all follow the doctors and tell one another to do as the doctor says....My mother finally went down to a Gerson clinic in Mexico but it was too late then.
 

Zed

Intergalactic Chart Arse
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
14,930
Likes
13,620
Location
Just behind you.
#18
Fasting. Water only for 30 days. Your body will "digest" the cancer.
Autophagy, yes there is some truth to that. Depends on how much fat you have etc. May take more time, repeated attempts etc.
 

<SLV>

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,234
Likes
5,629
#19
It is important to have zero calorie intake when fasting. You must complete the transition into ketosis and through ketoacidosis (about 8 days). The healing begins in the second week and autophagy starts in earnest in week three. Any form of calorie added to water is NOT a fast... it is a diet.
 

Thecrensh

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
7,031
Likes
9,501
#20
It is important to have zero calorie intake when fasting. You must complete the transition into ketosis and through ketoacidosis (about 8 days). The healing begins in the second week and autophagy starts in earnest in week three. Any form of calorie added to water is NOT a fast... it is a diet.
I've done a 7-day fast before...after a couple of days, it wasn't that bad. I ran 3.5 miles on day four without much effort. Really feels good after you get over the initial detox (hunger shakes) period.
 

Krag

Planet earth
Platinum Bling
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
4,905
Likes
4,025
#21

Krag

Planet earth
Platinum Bling
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
4,905
Likes
4,025
#22