Guest guest Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I am sorry to hear that. What did she die of? Just letting you know that passed away. She befriended me when I first joined the group, and I will miss her. ar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 May she be blessed with peace. I really liked her view on life and her path was very inspiring. Thanks for sharing arlyn Li 2009/8/21 Customer Service wrote: > I am sorry to hear that. What did she die of? > > > Just letting you know that passed away. She befriended me when I > first joined the group, and I will miss her. > > ar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 > > I am sorry to hear that. What did she die of? Well, cancer of course! I believe she had breast cancer. ar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 Sad news. Was she doing conventional treatment, alternative treatment, or a combination? People often die from complications of chemo, radiation and surgery, such as cardiomyopathy (heart failure), liver disease etc, which may be a result of the treatment rather than cancer, unfortunately. I'm not even sure if they count these " other " causes of death in the 5 year relative survival data. Does anyone know? There are lots of ways they skew the survival data to make it look better than it is for conventional therapy. > > > > I am sorry to hear that. What did she die of? > > Well, cancer of course! I believe she had breast cancer. > > ar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 Interesting, algarve7, how you immediately talk about how chemo and radiation and surgery complications are often the cause of cancer deaths that then are not presented as such. It's interesting because you didn't know what treatments had done, yet felt comfortable making this leap of assumption. had a lumpectomy in 2006. She refused all chemo and all radiation and did not do any further conventional treatment. She used a few different alternative methods, but she didn't document what she was using in the group, so I don't have the details. Yes, people do die from complications of conventional treatments. People also die from complications of alternative treatments. But mostly, it is the cancer that is at fault for the death. ar > > Sad news. Was she doing conventional treatment, alternative treatment, > or a combination? People often die from complications of chemo, > radiation and surgery, such as cardiomyopathy (heart failure), liver > disease etc, which may be a result of the treatment rather than cancer, > unfortunately. I'm not even sure if they count these " other " causes of > death in the 5 year relative survival data. Does anyone know? There are > lots of ways they skew the survival data to make it look better than it > is for conventional therapy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 23, 2009 Report Share Posted August 23, 2009 You wrote: > It's interesting because you didn't know what treatments had done, yet felt comfortable making this leap of assumption. > Actually I didn't leap to this assumption. I did ask " Was she doing conventional treatment, alternative treatment, or a combination? " It's important to know I think. And I said " *People* often die from complications of chemo, radiation and surgery... " because this is what's been documented. I didn't say anything about . The problem is there's a lack of transparency and clarity in the conventional treatment system, and too much mucking around with the data etc, which doesn't help patients at all. So on a forum like this is the only place to discuss all the treatments openly and get feedback of the success or otherwise of alternative therapies, which aren't being explored by mainstream medicine. There is lots of data, experiments and clinical work that suggests that surgery can actually promote recurrence. Such as this: http://www.gordonresearch.com/articles_cancer/probing_surgery_link_cance\ r_recurrence.html " In studying the relapse patterns of the 1,173 women, who were treated at the Milan Cancer Institute in Italy only with surgery and then followed for 16-20 years, the researchers determined that younger women are the hardest hit by surgery-induced angiogenesis. According to the analysis, 20% of premenopausal women whose cancer had spread to their lymph nodes at the time of diagnosis relapsed within the first 10 months after surgery. This relapse rate was twice as high as that of women after menopause whose cancer had spread to the lymph nodes, indicating that surgery-induced angiogenesis may be regulated in some way by hormones. " Here is research about Taxol. The oncologist never mentioned anything about this to us. " Paclitaxel (taxol) produces the greatest degree of tumor shrinkage but also the greatest release of circulating tumor cells. In three different paclitaxel-containing regimens, circulating cell numbers massively increased, whereas tumor size decreased. These cells remained in the circulation for at least five months after surgery. The tumor shrinks, but more cells are found in the circulation. This corresponds with a high pathologic complete response during paclitaxel treatment, but in the end, this is not reflected in improved survival. These cells are alive in the circulation. What this study has shown, so far, that in three different paclitaxel (taxol) containing regimens, as the tumor collapses (a clinical response, not cure), it produces the greatest release of circulating tumor cells. The study has not looked at any other combination regimens. (5) The results of these kinds of studies are coming out slowly and quietly (now that Taxol is off-patent) and indicate that taxol containing regimens didn't prolong survival over other more conventional and less expensive cytotoxic drugs. " http://cancerfocus.org/forum/showthread.php?t=648 I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the facts, to try to make an informed decision about treatment here. And it's not a simple matter. > Mostly, it is the cancer that is at fault for the death. Mostly people have conventional treatments. How do we know cancer is at fault for the death? Well more importantly I think, when. We don't know if it will be faster or slower with conventional therapy. I guess it depends on the type of cancer too. Chemo for example tends to be most effective in very fast aggressive cancers. If the cancer is slow growing (or slows over time), chemo is much less effective, and normal fast dividing cells get hit more than the cancer cells. By " complications of conventional treatments " I really should have said the " side effects " of conventional treatments. So I guess we need to get all the details of people's experiences as much as they are willing to share, to help everyone. I don't think saying " of course she died of cancer " is necessarily accurate or particularly helpful, I'm sorry to say. Peace. " arlynsg " <arlynsg@...> wrote: > Interesting, algarve7, how you immediately talk about how chemo and radiation and surgery complications are often the cause of cancer deaths that then are not presented as such. It's interesting because you didn't know what treatments had done, yet felt comfortable making this leap of assumption. > > had a lumpectomy in 2006. She refused all chemo and all radiation and did not do any further conventional treatment. She used a few different alternative methods, but she didn't document what she was using in the group, so I don't have the details. > > Yes, people do die from complications of conventional treatments. People also die from complications of alternative treatments. But mostly, it is the cancer that is at fault for the death. > > ar > > > > > > Sad news. Was she doing conventional treatment, alternative treatment, > > or a combination? People often die from complications of chemo, > > radiation and surgery, such as cardiomyopathy (heart failure), liver disease etc, which may be a result of the treatment rather than cancer, unfortunately. I'm not even sure if they count these " other " causes of death in the 5 year relative survival data. Does anyone know? There are lots of ways they skew the survival data to make it look better than it is for conventional therapy. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.