Re: Courage, cancer, and chemo

[Guest guest]

I too am firghtened to death of chemo.

I have two lumps in my breast still in diagnosis.

There are many women on the breastcancer forum who are alive and well after

chemo, but I just wonder if they would have been just as fine from alt. methods.

It's scary!

From: nancyjoy12msn (DOT) com(Heartlights)

REFLECTIONS

August 10, 2009

" It is impossible to know courage without experiencing fear for courage

is having faith and trust in the face of fear. "   Bonnie Orgren,

Astrologer   starlight7Lcom (DOT) net

Recently I spoke with a friend diagnosed with stage 4 bone cancer and

she was deciding what treatments she would choose. We both commented how

we always said that we would never choose a long, drawn-out chemo

treatment to prolong life. Now, faced with that as one of her choices on

her journey, she shared her feelings with me. I realized how I could

honestly know what I would choose when faced with the actual situation,

I can only feel what I may choose in facing this fear which is now so

real for her.

As I pondered this realization following our chat, my soul took me on a

journey through my own acts of courage in the face of adversity and

fear. I discovered that I knew in my heart I have the courage to face

fear in my own way, on my own string of consciousness, as my life shifts

from one vibration to a higher one. It gave me comfort to know I have

had great training and many lessons on learning courage and I can see

when I have worked amazingly well with it and when I have side stepped

its challenge. Perhaps, as we head into the shift of 2012, it is a good

Monday to take a moment to take stock of your own journey with courage.

You may be surprised at how far you have come!

[Watch Joy's Video: http://www.youtube.com/user/Heartlights99]

[Guest guest]

,

That is the question, isn't it?

This is why I'm looking forward to more research being done on the biology of

the cancer. Not all cancers have the ability to metastisize. But we treat them

all the same anyway. Research is starting to give us more answers.

ar

>

> I too am firghtened to death of chemo.

> I have two lumps in my breast still in diagnosis.

> There are many women on the breastcancer forum who are alive and well after

chemo, but I just wonder if they would have been just as fine from alt. methods.

It's scary!

[Guest guest]

Do not continue to " wonder " about whether or not some might have done as well

without Chemo because it is fairly well known that in many cases, people do

better without treatment and in other cases do terribly when undergoing 'heroic'

treatments.

Then there is the accepted fact that there are many 'unknown' Spontaneous

Remissions which cannot be accounted for and some professionals are wondering

whether or not a 'watchful waiting' approach might be a better effort.

Many of the statistics used to show benefits are skewed and it is done with

Mathematics and how they calculate those numbers. This has been mentioned

before, however there are always new members that will understand better when

they know the facts. If not already done, explore the difference between

'Absolute' and 'Relative' risk/improvement. Researchers can take a small and

insignificant improvement of a month or two and make it seem there is a gigantic

benefit. They can take a 2% improvement and claim it to be 40% simply by using

a 'Relative' calculation rather than the real one, the 'Absolute'. Sounds

technical but it might be the reason one would not be willing to undergo a

horrendous treatment protocol if the benefit was insignificant but would if they

were led to believe it was a major benefit. Figures don't

lie............except when Conventional Medicine works them.

As for people doing well after Chemo? That assumes, incorrectly, that

patients would die off rapidly if they did not get chemo or that the chemo

actually increased survivability. We read instance after instance where some

new form of Chemo might add as little as a couple of weeks or two to three

months compared to older forms.

Weeks? A couple of Months? That is not survivability in my book.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

Chemo scares me too! I have a mass in my neck (next to my trachea), one in my

right breast and one in my pelvis right now. I went through radiation, but the

nothing happened. I am not sure what they will offer next, so that is why I am

here.

From: Customer Service

I too am firghtened to death of chemo.

I have two lumps in my breast still in diagnosis.

There are many women on the breastcancer forum who are alive and well after

chemo, but I just wonder if they would have been just as fine from alt. methods.

It's scary!

[Guest guest]

Joe,

There is a question on the breastcancer.org forum chemo before and after thread

asking if anyone has survived 6 years chemo. There are many on there that have

which shocked me because I only know one personally and have seen the rest die.

They say chemo saved their life and me on the other hand still lean towards it

poisoning me and don't want it at this point, but would do anything to save my

life if I am faced with that.

Do not continue to " wonder " about whether or not some might have done as well

without Chemo because it is fairly well known that in many cases, people do

better without treatment and in other cases do terribly when undergoing 'heroic'

treatments.

Then there is the accepted fact that there are many 'unknown' Spontaneous

Remissions which cannot be accounted for and some professionals are wondering

whether or not a 'watchful waiting' approach might be a better effort.

Many of the statistics used to show benefits are skewed and it is done with

Mathematics and how they calculate those numbers. This has been mentioned

before, however there are always new members that will understand better when

they know the facts. If not already done, explore the difference between

'Absolute' and 'Relative' risk/improvement. Researchers can take a small and

insignificant improvement of a month or two and make it seem there is a gigantic

benefit. They can take a 2% improvement and claim it to be 40% simply by using a

'Relative' calculation rather than the real one, the 'Absolute'. Sounds

technical but it might be the reason one would not be willing to undergo a

horrendous treatment protocol if the benefit was insignificant but would if they

were led to believe it was a major benefit. Figures don't lie......... ...except

when Conventional Medicine works them.

As for people doing well after Chemo? That assumes, incorrectly, that patients

would die off rapidly if they did not get chemo or that the chemo actually

increased survivability. We read instance after instance where some new form of

Chemo might add as little as a couple of weeks or two to three months compared

to older forms.

Weeks? A couple of Months? That is not survivability in my book.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

,

I belong to the YSC - Young Survival Coalition. It's a great forum for

premenopausal women diagnosed with breast cancer.

For those women who are hormone positive and diagnosed with stage 4, hormonals

have extended life greatly. Herceptin has extended life for those who are Her2

positive. It's the triple negative breast cancer women who have a more horrible

prognosis. There is a woman who is, unfortunately, close to death now, but who

was diagnosed with stage 4 eight years ago.

Bone mets is treated a variety of ways, radiation one of them. Women with bone

mets can live for many years with traditional treatment.

And I know other stage 4 women in the group who have not done chemo at all

because they have only been on hormonals.

So, does traditional treatment extend life? For some, yes. There are many

factors involved.

Some women who were diagnosed at stage 3 are doing great years later. While

some women diagnosed at stage 1 are, unfortunately, gone.

Cancer is unpredictable.

Some people will have no side effects from chemo and they go on with their lives

without incidence. Others will have some trouble. And still others will have

lots of trouble. I know 3 women who died because of the chemo.

Some people will do alternatives only and will survive wonderfully. Others will

not be so lucky.

I like combining methods.

There is more to cancer than just the treatment that you choose.

And above, I am speaking of stage 4 women. Now, imagine all the women who never

go to stage 4. Who have their treatment and move on with their lives. There

are lots of those women in our group. (Though many are moving off the board and

moving onto Facebook now)

It all comes down to personal choice. Personally, I don't think my body can

handle chemo. So, I'm doing what I can now to, hopefully, keep cancer from

coming back.

My cousin is a 25 year survivor of a rare occular melanoma. He had radiation.

ar

>

> Joe,

> There is a question on the breastcancer.org forum chemo before and after

thread asking if anyone has survived 6 years chemo. There are many on there that

have which shocked me because I only know one personally and have seen the rest

die. They say chemo saved their life and me on the other hand still lean towards

it poisoning me and don't want it at this point, but would do anything to save

my life if I am faced with that.

[Guest guest]

Be careful what you wish for. I have always known I will not do chemo to save my

life (my son who is studying to be an onco maybe got a big laugh at this) It has

been brought home to me recently.

My mom has been in the hosp for a month now. Tongue cancer. Did chemo and is now

on a feeding tube antibiotics etc. Her pancreas is now severely damaged. She can

not sit up on her own. She needs to be cleaned (and they are lacking in keeping

her clean)

My son and I (and her mother) are afraid she will die there never coming home. I

can not tell you how bad she looks (she is 58) It kills me to see her as

helpless as a baby but with an adults mind. Relying on people to keep her

dignity as she messes while visitors are there. I try not to cry.

Cheri

>

> Do not continue to " wonder " about whether or not some might have done as well

without Chemo because it is fairly well known that in many cases, people do

better without treatment and in other cases do terribly when undergoing 'heroic'

treatments.

>

> Then there is the accepted fact that there are many 'unknown' Spontaneous

Remissions which cannot be accounted for and some professionals are wondering

whether or not a 'watchful waiting' approach might be a better effort.

>

> Many of the statistics used to show benefits are skewed and it is done with

Mathematics and how they calculate those numbers. This has been mentioned

before, however there are always new members that will understand better when

they know the facts. If not already done, explore the difference between

'Absolute' and 'Relative' risk/improvement. Researchers can take a small and

insignificant improvement of a month or two and make it seem there is a gigantic

benefit. They can take a 2% improvement and claim it to be 40% simply by using a

'Relative' calculation rather than the real one, the 'Absolute'. Sounds

technical but it might be the reason one would not be willing to undergo a

horrendous treatment protocol if the benefit was insignificant but would if they

were led to believe it was a major benefit. Figures don't lie......... ...except

when Conventional Medicine works them.

>

> As for people doing well after Chemo? That assumes, incorrectly, that patients

would die off rapidly if they did not get chemo or that the chemo actually

increased survivability. We read instance after instance where some new form of

Chemo might add as little as a couple of weeks or two to three months compared

to older forms.

>

> Weeks? A couple of Months? That is not survivability in my book.

>

> Joe C.

>

[Guest guest]

Cheryl, I have known two individuals, both of whom had stage IV cancer,

and survived following chemo and radiation. The first fellow, 20+ years

now, has stated he would not do chemo again. The other (former

girlfriend, 8 years now, would do it again. All others I've known with

serious cancers didn't make it. About half of those with brain tumors

survived. None of those with pancreatic cancer survived.

The lady is a director at a research hospital, and it took an act of god

for her to get a new mammogram after she felt the lump; new physical

(nobody on her medical plan's list was accepting new patients, and she

got to do all the calling around). An eventual ultrasound (she had to

get a new primary physician to get the ultrasound, her insurance plan

wouldn't authorize it..) found the cancers, but by this time it was

several months later, the biopsy resulted in her losing both breasts and

going in to the approx 4+ month chemo and lifetime maximum dose

radiation and eventual stem cell replacement. All in all she lost most

of a year of her life due to the insurance system, most likely both

breasts and perhaps 9 lymph nodes, and the fun of high dose chemo and

radiation and reconstructive surgery. I got to visit her clad in the

hospital isolation spacesuit. She still has nerve damage from the chemo

and tingling in her feet, years later. When this all started she could

feel the lumps, but the insurance system told her they were nothing to

worry about and denied ultrasound tests.

Really pissed at the medical system. Has nothing to do with keeping

people well, its all about the money! In her case their delays cost the

insurance system around half a million dollars. She is a fighter, most

people would have just curled up and died, but the insurance company got

their premiums!

Dave

On 8/11/2009 11:07:45 AM, cheryl (cheri607@...) wrote:

> Be careful what you wish for. I have always known I will not do chemo to

> save my life (my son who is studying to be an onco maybe got a big laugh

> at this) It has been brought home to me recently.

>

> My mom has been in the hosp for a month now. Tongue cancer. Did chemo

and

> is now on a feeding tube antibiotics etc. Her pancreas is now severely

> damaged. She can not sit up on her own. She needs to be cleaned (and

they

> are lacking in keeping her clean)

[Guest guest]

I know people that have lived 20 years after being diagnosed with breast cancer

and after being subjected to the full compliment of Chemotherapy and Radiation.

However, that tells me nothing about whether or not the breast cancer would have

killed them or not.

I do not know many, just a couple of people surviving like this and still wonder

about the particulars. One that I know died of breast cancer 20 years after

her first treatments. In fact, her sister was at my home an hour ago.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

Customer Service <customer.help-desk@...> wrote:

> Joe, There is a question on the breastcancer.org forum chemo before and after

thread asking if anyone has survived 6 years chemo. There are many on there that

have which shocked me because I only know one personally and have seen the rest

die. They say chemo saved their life and me on the other hand still lean towards

it poisoning me and don't want it at this point, but would do anything to save

my life if I am faced with that.

>

I have to chime in here. I am NOT a fan of chemo and have declined it for the

past 2.5 years (since being dx with mets). However, my original dx was 10 years

ago last month and I didn't know, then, what I know now. I did chemo ... and

high-dose w/stem cell transplant ... and radiation to BOTH sides of my chest.

Was it fun/easy? NO! And guess what? I still metastasized, so it didn't

really work or I wouldn't be in this position now. That being said, I am still

alive, 10 years post-chemo and have no lingering after-effects that I can tell,

except for the chemo brain that is still there. Of course, the chemo did kill

off my ovaries and perhaps it's the menopause at 40 that did my brain in! LOL

xxoo

[Guest guest]

When the two Australian Research Oncologists wrote that lengthy and very

detailed report ending with words to the effect that " something else must be

done because chemotherapy is not working " .

None of the success stories are applicable to someone else because nobody know

whether or not what they are doing is working and that most likely applies to

alternative practices as well.

Those Australian Oncologists were not kidding, they are concerned and showed the

statistics proving American survivability was not any better than in Australia.

In effect they were yelling as loud as they could that The War On Cancer is a

failure and one of the really sad things is that this report was non-existent in

this country and other than the Internet, it died the death all serious critique

of conventional medicine faces. Silence.

Joe C.