 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2005Chemotherapy in early breast cancer
I confess to having a suspicion that chemotherapy was being used too readily in early breast cancer in some quarters, especially the US. I was wrong. A recently published meta-analysis of fifteen year results in the Lancet shows that - "Allocation to about 6 months of anthracycline-based polychemotherapy (eg, with FAC or FEC) reduces the annual breast cancer death rate by about 38% (SE 5) for women younger than 50 years of age when diagnosed and by about 20% (SE 4) for those of age 50-69 years when diagnosed, largely irrespective of the use of tamoxifen and of oestrogen receptor (ER) status, nodal status, or other tumour characteristics." Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials M Clarke, R Collins, S Darby, C Davies, et al. The Lancet. London: May 14-May 20, 2005.Vol.365, Iss. 9472; pg. 1687 Kinda demolishes the alt.med canard that chemotherapy makes it harder to deal with the cancer through immune system impairment. Peter Moran >I confess to having a suspicion that chemotherapy was being used too >readily in early breast cancer in some quarters, especially the US. I was [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Peter Moran Yeah, chemo is very good for the immune system, it hardly kills anything. Sure thing, Peter. LL/Jan >>I confess to having a suspicion that chemotherapy was being used too >>readily in early breast cancer in some quarters, especially the US. I [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > LL/Jan And your point? Jan, in what way does dying earlier or more often from breast cancer if you *don't* have chemotherapy demonstrate a more robust immune system? Peter Moran . > Jan, in what way does dying earlier or more often from breast cancer if you > *don't* have chemotherapy demonstrate a more robust immune system? Maybe women who don't have chemotherapy will live longer since their immune system is not damaged by it. George Lagergren wrote: >>Jan, in what way does dying earlier or more often from breast cancer if > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe women who don't have chemotherapy will live longer since > their immune system is not damaged by it. Maybe if you read Peter's original post you would see that you are wrong. >> Jan, in what way does dying earlier or more often from breast cancer if >you >> *don't* have chemotherapy demonstrate a more robust immune system? > > Maybe women who don't have chemotherapy will live longer since >their immune system is not damaged by it. Ah, George -- you're so unhobbled by reading comprehension. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor George Lagergren wrote: >>Jan, in what way does dying earlier or more often from breast cancer if > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe women who don't have chemotherapy will live longer since > their immune system is not damaged by it. Maybe indeed. If you go back to the thread root, PM harbored that same suspicion. Facts came along an proved him wrong: chemotherapy for breast cancer increases survival across the board, as measured by actual survival in a prospective study.  Signaturebegin signature.exe A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet? >>I confess to having a suspicion that chemotherapy was being used too >>readily in early breast cancer in some quarters, especially the US. I was [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Sure thing, Peter. Another excellent example of Jan not reading what Peter posted. Clearly, the study, which is scientific and not ilde speculation, demonstrates that chemo before surgery prolongs life. Jan does not want any part of prolonging life. BTW, Jan, does all chemo affect the immune system? >Kinda demolishes the alt.med canard that chemotherapy makes it harder to deal with the cancer through immune system impairment. >Peter Moran I suggest that you study the report in more detail. Giving poison A may reduce the recurrance of cancer relative to poison B but this data is confounded by too many patients dying is what I see. The above referenced meta analysis in no wise alters the obvious results of chemo. As a scientist and chemist, I tend to trust the data published by the ACS, the American Chemical Society. As a nutritionist, I look at the published nutritional data with some scepticism. I still view medical journals as a published lie especially when the spin is put on the results that one can poison the sick into getting well, and that some of the most poisonus chemicals can be beneficial to humans as far as the death rate is concerned. DrC PhD >>Kinda demolishes the alt.med canard that chemotherapy makes it harder >>to deal with the cancer through immune system impairment. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Giving poison A may reduce the recurrance of cancer relative to poison >B but this data is confounded by too many patients dying is what I see. You see what you want to see, due to your own severe biases. >The above referenced meta analysis in no wise alters the obvious >results of chemo. Sure it does. You just don't like the conclusions, so you'll pull your usual trick of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming that there's no good evidence. >As a scientist and chemist, I tend to trust the data published by the >ACS, the American Chemical Society. I doubt you're much of a chemist. You're definitely no scientist. Scientists go where the data sends them, whether they like the destination or not. You are simply a religious fanatic who will reject any data that fails to fit your weltanschauung. >As a nutritionist, I look at the published nutritional data with some >scepticism. As a nutritionist, you make a good religious fanatic. The only data you accept are from orthopaths who've been dead for a century. >I still view medical journals as a published lie especially when the >spin is put on the results that one can poison the sick into getting >well, and that some of the most poisonus chemicals can be beneficial >to humans as far as the death rate is concerned. Unless, of course, the medical journal happens to publish an article that you agree with. Then it's OK. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "I don't need someone to tell me that George W. Bush is a deceitful, corrupt, clever and destructive man--that's pretty clear on the face of it." -- Garrison Keillor |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.