(Sometimes) To Do Nothing As Cancer Treatment Is Also Good Medicine

Discussion in 'Scientific Studies' started by haidut, Aug 5, 2019.

  1. haidut

    haidut Member

    Mar 18, 2013
    USA / Europe
    Just a week ago I made post about a book calling for all but the abolition of the medical system. The evidence for any systemic benefit are just not there, while the evidence for iatrogenic harm and death, as well as astounding financial costs, is abundant.
    Now, an opinion in the WSJ, written by an esteemed oncologist makes a call not too dissimilar than the one in the book above. In fact, the doctor states that EVERY oncologist has one or more patients who simply live with their cancer. And invariably, those are patients that have refused treatment. It is those patients that apparently outlive the aggressively treated ones by many years and some are even in 10-year remission periods, officially known as "cures". Furthermore, the doctor writes, given how long it takes for cancer to develop to the point of being diagnosable, most cancer patients have unknowingly been living with their cancer for most of their lives without it causing major issues. Why bother treating ALL of them when they are finally diagnosed? Clearly, if they have been living with their cancer for so long, then it is not something that likely warrants attention unless the tumor is affecting vital organs. Despite the anecdotal nature of those cases, they are still evidence and that evidence points to "doing nothing" being vastly better as therapy when it comes to cancer. I consider editorials/opinions like this a good development. If even mainstream media is making calls for a change in a discipline that has seen little progress over the last 100 years, then the end of this carnage/genocide is in sight.

    Opinion | Every Cancer Patient Is One in a Billion

    "...Cancer physicians for more than a century have followed the simple dictum that more is better—more surgery, more radiation, more chemotherapy and, most recently, more immunotherapy. But how much is enough? Do we escalate doses to the point of lethality, as those engaged in bone-marrow transplantation are forced to do regularly? Is this struggle to eliminate every patient’s cancer achievable or even warranted? These questions have taken on a new urgency because oncology has lost sight of a basic principle: Every patient is a uniquely complex person with different medical needs requiring different treatments. Every oncologist has patients who simply “live” with their cancers. After I told one patient with advanced lung cancer that she was unlikely to respond to conventional therapy, she declined intervention and proceeded to outlive all of her “treated” counterparts by several years. I describe her to my medical students as “my best response I never treated.”

    "...We now know that cancer is a disease of altered cell survival, not excessive proliferation. That is, cancer doesn’t grow too much, it dies too little. Applying cell kinetics, we can trace a newly diagnosed colon cancer back to its first cell. This reveals that a cancer that has spread to the liver by the time it’s diagnosed may have its origins some 30 years earlier yet remain undetectable with current diagnostic techniques for well over two decades. The same holds true for pancreatic, lung and other tumors. By the time many patients are diagnosed, they have unknowingly lived more of their lives with cancer than without."

    "...A newly diagnosed patient with lung cancer and metastases to the brain once arrived in my office and told me that her first oncologist was so pessimistic that she was told to “get my affairs in order.” Her studies revealed a simple two-drug combination that provided a remission that has now lasted more than 10 years. When we met shortly after her diagnosis to discuss the recommended treatment, she blurted out, “You mean I’m not going to die?” “No” I said, “you’re not sick. You just have cancer.”
  2. burtlancast

    burtlancast Member

    Jan 1, 2013
    I posted a thread sometimes ago that medicine has absolutely no scientific proof treated cancer patients live longer or have a better quality of life than untreated ones.

    There just isn't any studies comparing treated vs totally untreated.

    If one digs deeper, there are some rare testimonies of doctors admitting treated patients live less than untreated.

    If one digs even deeper, he realizes deaths due to the treatment are recorded as due to the cancer in dissection university locals. And for those lucky enough to reach 5 years or more, the induced cancers deaths years later due to chemo/radio get unreported while they were initially being recorded as cured.

    The worst of all is the way cancer scientific clinical trials are conducted, where those treated dying before the completion of the treatment period aren't counted against the new drug, contrary to the non treated arm.

    And thus the truth is medicine is fooling the whole society by claiming they can cure cancer when the whole circus is based on empty air.

    But since people are desperate, you want to hear that, so you go along with the treatment, especially since nothing else is covered monetarily, and the traces of natural cancer cures are being covered up, sometimes even by the very people administering them .

    Anyway, now there's the internet, youtube, cannabis, etc.

    And especially, there's this 2018 report were chemotherapy with raw vegetable juices like garlic cures every cancer.

    They aren't going to stop that one.
  3. ecstatichamster

    ecstatichamster Member

    Nov 21, 2015
    There are a few studies where people are really terminal and refuse treatment and sometimes they do quite well.

    It is considered inhumane and unethical to do double blind studies on cancer patients for testing chemo etc. The studies that are there are rubbish. New chemo drugs can come on the market for huge amounts of money and do not have to prove efficacy at all.
  4. Amazoniac

    Amazoniac Member

    Sep 10, 2014
    Not Uganda
  5. Oraganic4me

    Oraganic4me Member

    Jun 21, 2019
    When my colon cancer metastasized to my liver and gallbladder, I jumped from stage 2 to stage 4 in less than two years. After re-section surgery I was started on infusion of oxaliplatin... I didn’t tolerate well .. got so sick they started slow dripping it over 8 hours. When it got close to the infusion center closing they dripped it quicker so they could leave....standard drip is 2-3 hours.
    I showed signs of allergies like rashes etc then when my tongue swelled and I almost stopped breathing the oncologist decided it’s best to stop at #4 and not go to 12 infusion cycles as planned.
    I always had regret that my body wasn’t strong enough to finish chemotherapy. Now, after reading this I feel better.
    Thanks guys and dolls.
  6. Blossom

    Blossom Moderator

    Nov 23, 2013
    Cancer screening is big business too. It’s debatable if all the screenings are truly necessary in asymptotic people. I have my doubts.

    I’ve been shocked by how difficult it’s been over the past several years to decline a routine mammogram. From the responses I’ve gotten I guess most people just go along with it similar to paying taxes. I see no reason to waste time and resources on screening when I wouldn’t take the treatment anyway.