If you are diagnosed with cancer, it is invariably said to be undergoing surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormone therapy, etc. This seemed the only so-called "proven" trails. Other routes - the alternative and complementary therapies, as the doctors are suspicious, "unfounded" and just hocus pocus. This is also the kind of message is always bombarded with the means of mass communication. All over the world - could be thedeveloped or developing - the same observation has grown and "sold" to the general public. Dr. David Brownstein, in the preface of the book: How to avoid breast cancer, said: "The pharmaceutical companies want us to believe that a cure for cancer is found by a" magic bullet "action of the drug is never. It will be this ".
Reading through numerous books and research articles on the treatment of cancer, I could not help but be disappointed. Many arewritten on a combination of different toxins better than any other combination of a number of other toxins. The data were presented - but massaged for "statistically significant" results that do not mean much in terms of healing, survival and maintenance of quality of life pose. Unfortunately, most of these "educated" people play their games under the same rules to the status quo and safe guard their interests. Their views are as dogmatic and firmly set asconcrete. Differences of opinion and the roads are often not tolerated and even punished by the loss of the right to practice.
Fortunately, despite this, the sky is gray, do not stay all the time. Sometimes, in a corner of this world, there are honest and courageous individuals who stood up, do and say things that others would not dare say or do. Ask your doctor: "what is the contribution of chemotherapy to treat your cancer? What kind of answers you get?
"Oh,you have a 50/50 chance. If you do not go for chemotherapy, you have three months and then you die. "
Or, "If you have chemotherapy you a 90% chance."
Do not be misled and wrong. Ask them what is the significance of the event? The ability to cure cancer or the risk of dying from the treatment? Do not be afraid to ask, even if this occurs the risk that you can get ejected from the office of the doctor (some patients have told me that something has happened to them).It 'better to be chased out of his office and kicked out of this world!
If you are looking for a simple, pre-box the answer, getting the doctor. Unfortunately, "instant noodles" type of responses would lead to disappointment later. In life, I always believe that everything is never easy. You need a hard and serious work to do to learn to do better.
Want to know what is the exact role or contribution of chemotherapy to treat your cancer?
IfTo know the truth, read this article: "The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in tumors of adults." The report of this study is exactly what cancer patients are looking for. We've been waiting for an answer - what exactly is the contribution of chemotherapy to overall survival in cancer?
The three authors of the paper are: (1) Graeme Morgan, associate professor and radiation oncologist at Royal North Shore HospitalSydney. (2) Robyn Ward, a senior specialist in Medical Oncology and Associate Professor of Medicine at St Vincent's Hospital in Sydney. She is also a member of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (3) Michael Barton, associate director of research collaboration results in cancer research and evaluation, Liverpool Health Service, Sydney.
Without doubt, these researchers are professionals of great renown. They know what they say. Their advice is only worth it, if notworth more than what you have consulted doctors for cancer.
Publish their work in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Volume 16, Number 8, December 2004, p. 549-560. It is a respected peer-reviewed medical journal. Their paper was submitted for publication 18 August 2003. E 'was revised and finally accepted for publication June 3, 2004. This means that the paper is examined by doctors and colleagues underwent the normal process of peer review. It is nota back door, such as tug of war in the pages of medical journal. Accordingly, you and me (and even doctors!) There is no doubt that the credibility and validity of what they say in their research paper.
Why publish such a paper?
I can not give the answer, but I can only imagine. In a radio interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), Dr. Morgan was asked this question: "And 'this, I wondered, in a house of battle, the revenge of the? Radio Therapist "Dr. Morgan said:" Well, you can cynically say that, but the reason I did was that we were tired of hearing about these new drugs and was not really the cement around. And the reason why I make that paper was to show that in fact there is no improvement in survival, or improving very, very small, despite all these new drugs and new combinations and bone marrow transplants. "
Albert Einstein said: "The world is a dangerous place,not for those who do evil, but because those who watch and do nothing. "This world is happy, people such as Professor Morgan and his colleagues to speak their minds. We salute them.
Is there something wrong with the paper?
There is nothing wrong with the paper and the evidence presented. Their study was based on data from randomized controlled trials (RCT - the gold standard of medical evidence), published from 01/01/1990 to 01/01/2004. Data were also obtainedof cancer in Australia and the United States. The contribution of chemotherapy to the survival of these more than 20 years and has suffered from 22 major cancers were studied.
If something is wrong at all with this card, it is because it tells the whole truth about chemotherapy. And the truth hurts. The authors do not "sing" the same tune as most of the herd. This is the difference (or wrong!).
What did they say?
The data of real life absoluteThis article, the most shocking: "The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant chemotherapy for 5-year survival in adults was estimated from 2.3% in the U.S. and Australia by 2.1% in it." In short, they said that the contribution of chemotherapy more than 3%.
Can that be true?
Well, they are the experts. And they said so - loud and clear. In fact a number of doctors in Australia were angry. People said that the paper was "misleading and unhelpful."The editors of the Australian doctor (The emperor's new clothes - can survive thermotherapy 2006 29:2-3.?) Cited Professor Michael Boyer, director of Medical Oncology at the Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, saying: " The fact is that from the perspective of a patient that are not really interested in how much chemotherapy contributes to the care of all patients ... I do not think that this document will help the prospect of a patient. "
Medical experts, such assay that they are more patients than patients themselves to understand. So give an authoritative statement of patient accounts. I beg to differ. I think the patients to know yourself. Do you agree that you are not interested in knowing how much your contribution is chemotherapy to treat cancer? To me, this is the answer every patient wants to know before undergoing chemotherapy. Unfortunately, no response ever since. EIf patients too many questions, they will be abused or driven from their doctors offices'.
In the same interview with ABC radio, Professor Michael Boyer was once quoted as saying: "It 's a fact that if you start saying ... ... How to chemotherapy the numbers start creeping up ... When you pull whatever the number is probably 5% or 6%. I think what is important is that it is not as high as 50% or 60%. "This is really puzzling. The figure of 2.3%been challenged. According to Professor de Boer, 5% to 6%.
We need to split hairs? What is so different between 2.3% and 6% - a difference that is big enough or meaningful at all? If you ask any cancer patient what is the difference between a 3% chance of recovery and a 6% chance of recovery, most of them can only say that this is "peanuts". If I tell you the chemotherapy of cancer is only contributing 3% or 6% of their course - I would say that the majority of patientswould just disappear and not tell their oncologists never!
But at a certain "tunnel vision in" statistics and research, 2.3% and 6% is a big difference "statistics" and the difference is significant (the scientific jargon). You can 'massage' the data say that. If you are chemo-X, you get 2%, if you get chemo-Y% 4. You can rotate the picture and say chemo-Y is 100% better than chemo-X. This is how "educated people" massage their datamake it look and sound good.
So what's your opinion?
Want to go for chemotherapy to know that the benefit is only about 3%. Humans differ in our perspective. So, be your own judge.
What about some truth?
It seems a little hoo-hah in Australia, because the relevant work in Australia. But for the rest of the world - the United States, United Kingdom, Europe, etc., no one cares to know or comment. This new truth has no importance or consequence. L 'Indeed, as often happens, as it collides with the device should only be given a quick burial. Nothing is said, even the so-called "independent media".
Visit : Welcome to Cream Care Store.
No comments:
Post a Comment