Medical Industrial Complex

1Athena1

and Messianic stubborn-ness, to some extent.

BarbaraA

Deanna, this part of the article you posted is so apropos for this thread.

"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."

Anonymous

I think that one of the issues on this thread is that the following statement is incomplete:

"When I pop up and say "yoo-hoo, node positive and alive 7 years later because of chemo, and feeling good,"

How do you know that it was the chemo, and not the surgery, and/or the radiation, and/or the hormonal treatment, and/or the lifestyle changes you made that are responsible for your good outcome? 

This is not strictly an either/or proposition.

Every treatment choice has potential benefits and risks and we should be willing to share what we know, but then respect others when they make decisions that are different than the ones we would have made.

Some people do die as a result of the effects of conventional treatment.  Some people do die as a result of a lack of treatment.  To ignore either of those realities is to do yourself a great disservice.  The key is finding the balance that is right for you, and supporting our sisters who make different choices.

Member_of_the_Club

Of course I don't know if it was the chemo or radiation or hormonals -- most likely it was a combo of them all.  It was definitely NOT lifestyle changes as I didn't make any.  I was a vegetarian and an athlete before I had breast cancer and I still am.

And of course all of these treatments have side effects and in rare cases fatal side effects.  Thats why they have to be worth the risk.  If you have a low grade, early stage cancer, you shouldn't have chemo.

I'm not arguing against any of these realities.  Just pointing out the absurdity of lines like CHEMO KILLS (all caps with exclamation marks) not to mention the idea that all medicines kill. 

Anonymous

I have to give thanks to the brave and very smart women whose perspicacity I admire, we embrace you That,s Life.



OTOH, I can very well dispense with the amateur candy psychoanalysis, the paranoia and hysteria also found on this thread.

Anonymous

"Just pointing out the absurdity of lines like CHEMO KILLS"

But that's not absurd.  Sometimes, chemo does kill.  It always does damage.  Sometimes that damage is temporary, and sometimes it is not.

You have every right to believe that in your case, it was helpful, but frequently, it is not.

Anonymous

BC.org is a Public Forum.  Many women, newly diagnosed with bc will be told they can find good information here.  I think it is more than irresponsible to try to use this Alternative, Complementary Forum as a soap box to condemn the medical community and/or chemotherapy. 

This was posted earlier in the thread:"

So, who belongs here, and who doesn't?  I think Susan, Luan, Leia and I can carry on without you.  Please respect our opinions.

It is not a matter of respecting opinions, what some people seem to be suggesting is that this thread should be treated as a "chat room" - private, no one who disagrees with the condemnation of the medical community, or scare stories about chemotherapy should be allowed to post here. That is not possible.  Not when even one woman, newly diagnosed, may find this thread on the top of the "Active List."

Petjunkie - I am so sorry to hear of your experience. My first cousin was diagnosed at age 35, and even with chemotherapy, and the best treatment offered by  major New York city cancer center, has a reoccurance.  Further treatment, much treatment, and she is now, many years later, fine.  I hope you might find valuable information on BC.org threads, and also, suggest you check into the information available at the Young Survival Coalition website.  I wish you well, and hope you are posting here for years, and years, and more years....

apple

Chemo seems to be more helpful than not, according to statistics. One important thing to consider, especially in patients with advanced cancers and thankfully many of you do not seem 'advanced', is that cancer patients die.. of whatever.  Response rates are most helpful in seeing whether chemotherapy is helpful.

Before 1940, 90% of cancer patients regardless of stage died within 5 years..  Now only 34% die within 5 years with surgery, chemo and radiaton... and many go on to die years later of noncancer reasons.. like old age.

It would be interesting is alternatives would take the time and expend the monies necessary to measure 'success rates'.    It seems they prey on the fearful.

Sometimes staying alive is just as important to those who are doomed to die anyway... they are as likely to grasp onto the hopes of cheloidal gold therapy, marjoram origanum majorana or cottage cheese mixed with flax seed oil.... (not to discount the importance of diet in any way)  they take chemo for the few extra years it gives them with their kids or just life.

Just rambling.

Peace.

Wabbit

I've stayed out of this but IMO it is the absolute nature of some of the statements made here that set off the firestorms. 

Chemo kills ... implies it always does.  Chemo can kill  would be accurate.  Which is more likely to kill you ... the chemo or your particular cancer ... then can become a valid question for debate. 

Chemo destroys your immune system ... again no acknowledgement that in the vast vast majority of cases it is a temporary thing.  In my case with AC 3 weeks apart my immune system was trashed during week 2 but by the end of week 3 my counts were back to normal ... and that was without Neulasta. 

"Chemotherapy, with a dubious 3% success rate and horrible side effects does not cure cancer or extend life beyond 5-7 years, with a totally destroyed quality of life."  

    Again this is an absolute statement which ignores the fact that the vast majority of women who have had chemo do not have a totally destroyed quality of life.  Many of us ... me included ... do not have any lasting effects from the chemo.  Even during chemo my quality of life was pretty normal except for some fatigue during weeks 2 and 3. 

"the fact remains that only alternate medicine is known to cure breast cancer with success for close to a century now." 

   This is just plain not true ... there is no documented evidence that alternate medicine has any cure for breast cancer.  You can make a case that conventional medicine does not have a sure cure either and for picking whether conventional or alternative best fits your situation and wishes without resorting to mistruths.

I think everybody has a right to choose - or not choose - whatever treatment suits them.  But using such absolute statements as though they are fact when they are not is the problem. 

And this is a public forum ... seen by many and sponsored by a medical doctor.   Which leads to a danger that somebody newly diagnosed reading some of this stuff might believe that because it is allowed to remain here that it is endorsed by BCO.  Thus, other members feel compelled to speak out and refute some of the claims being made .... and the game is on once again.

  

 

Anonymous

Despite their psycho 101 verbiage, what some don,t realize is that the bigotry exhibited on this thread and others actually offend and rebuff women. One realizes that if this is the outcome to be obtained from chemo, radio, hormonal, meds for se,s, anti-depressants, anti- psychotics, sleep aids, pain pills, et., etc. one will want to protect one,s brain from any further damage at all costs

Anonymous

Bigotry?  I think many people have tried to explain why the "absolute statements" condeming the medical community in its' entirety and chemotherapy specifically are being refutted.  If the information so many people are posting in this thread, is available on other websites, then why repeat it here?

Wabbit

Luan ... that really wasn't very nice.  Would it surprise you that I am not a great fan of the medical establishment or prescription drugs?  That I did in fact turn down some of the treatment suggested for my breast cancer? 

I can agree with some of what you have said on this thread.  But just because something applies to my particular case ... or your particular case ...  it does not mean that our risk vs benefit decision would be a wise one for others.  Thus I am never going to state 'don't do that' or 'do that' as an absolute ... it could cause great harm to somebody else in different circumstances. 

The fact is that I don't take any prescription drugs so if you think I'm brain dead you will need to find another reason.    Peace.

Anonymous

Susan, Tamoxifen falls into that category, and God knows what else
. Edited to add - my chemo cocktail was administered with nurses wearing gloves and masks. My son could only accompany me once, he was sick in the bathroom the whole time

AnnNYC

Leia, I do know who Thomas Sowell is.  As his doctorate from the University of Chicago is in Economics, I think it's a little misleading to say "Dr. Thomas Sowell" on this thread without specifying that he is an economist, because otherwise it seems to imply he might be a physician or medical researcher (which he is not).

His thoughts on "constrained" and "unconstrained" visions are very interesting -- my main disagreement with him on that score is that he ascribes "constrained" only to the political right and "unconstrained" only to the political left.  That in itself seems the type of "sweeping generalization" he finds characteristic of the "unconstrained" vision.

Personally, I strongly believe in "heavy reliance on solid empirical evidence and on time-tested structures and processes" -- in other words, the "constrained vision" advocated by Sowell.

And much of the verbiage of the "Alternative" movement as copied and pasted here strikes me as "sweeping theories and grand assumptions" promulgated by "the self-anointed" -- in other words, the "unconstrained vision" that Sowell condemns.

AnnNYC

I'm sorry Susan, was that addressed to me? ("running off your mouth"?)

I was responding to an earlier comment by Leia, originator of this thread.  I hadn't been here for two days, and was responding to something that came up "next" from the last time I had viewed this thread.

AnnNYC

As for the Seattle Times article, I think we all agree that workplaces should be safe and that health care workers should not be poisoned in the course of doing their jobs.

Anonymous

White Rabbit, there are no excuses for bigotry and only very few conclusions one can come up with to explain this unacceptable behaviour

Anonymous

Since I have been out of town for several days and away from the internet, I may be repeating what others have said.  I agree that this is in the Alternative Forum and I usually avoid all such topics.  But why would you have called this "Medical Industrial Complex" and only expect to get replies from "holistic types".

1Athena1

Don't know whether to laugh or cry at some of the posts here. The mods are the latest to get a scold.

Misunderstood geniuses are always welcome to found their own web site.

BarbaraA

Beating my head against the wall.  Agree with AnnNYC, I think we can all agree that workplaces should be safe and that health care workers should not be poisoned in the course of doing their jobs.

Anonymous

"go to your homeroom"??????

really - that's right up there with "breast cancer groupies" -  and yes, it is a bit strange to even hear Moderators getting scolded.

I think the thread the poster is referring to as "your homeroom" is one in the Forum : Growing our Friendships..." - so I wouldn't expect it would be based on only bc.  Notice that commenter has also posted there, and accused those of ignoring her as "bullying" - this is really getting strange.

Anonymous

Athena, you and your followers by all accounts appear to have appropriated this site for yourselves. Policing the threads. Claiming and trashing the house. Denigrating and snickering at those who don't subscribe to your "little club".  Hopefully, there is a price to pay for such behaviour.

You accused someone of lying yesterday and I'm still waiting for the name of the person you called out.  Show some bravery, now

1Athena1

Oh, my goodness. I'd better turn myself in and get arrested, then.

motheroffoursons

This is the most surreal thread I have ever seen.  It is just strange, and I read it just to see what new absurdities and accusations are being traded.  Is there a full moon or something?

 By the way, what is the definition of a sock puppet?  I do not know that one.  (Please do ot interpret my question as some hidden attack on someone).

Anonymous

"Athena and her followers" - now this has gone beyond ridiculous.

How many times do different people have to say, when there is information being presented as "ABSOLUTE TRUTHS" that might be harmful to women who are newly diagnosed with bc, coming to these boards, and finding a thread in the ACTIVE COLUMN - many individuals feel a responsibility to state their own POINT OF VIEW about the contents of that thread.  I don't call that "appropriating" I call it being RESPONSIBLE for our communication to women with bc.

There is not a "little club" - unless you want to count a small number of people who mostly post "Cut & Paste" items on a thread - and that, at least, isn't harmful to new women diagnosed with bc.  I can't remember who does all that posting, because the posters keep changing their names, or adding new ones, hence the word "sock puppets."

This is not a thread in the "Growing our Friendships" Forum.

BarbaraA

Mother-here is the difinition of a sock puppet:

sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person,^[1] like a ventriloquist manipulating a hand puppet.

Anonymous

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person,^[1] like a ventriloquist manipulating a hand puppet.

In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum or blog to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a New York Times article claims that "sockpuppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one's self, allies or company."^[2]

The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym (sometimes termed an "alt" which is short for alternate, as in alternate identity) is the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer or acting under their control for their benefit. The earliest known^[1] usage of the term was on July 9, 1993 by Dana Rollins in a posting to bit.listserv.fnord-l,^[3] but the term was not in common usage in USENET groups until 1996.

Anonymous

Sharon,

a "sock puppet" is when one person, assumes several identies, and keeps posting using those idenities - as if many people are "supporting" her point of view.  There has also been a time when one person wrote a post to her other "aliases" as if they were all in agreement, and the postersaid she regrets they have never met.  Almost funny, if not so sad.

So, someone, can't remember who, started the expression "sock puppet" to refer to the poster when she was using one, or two, or three of her sign on names.  Yes, stranger than fiction, but true.

Anonymous

Interesting Article

notice you didn't add the comment BEFORE the one you posted:

Why have chemotherapy after you've just had surgery to remove the tumour?

Cancers are made up of billions of cells that can travel from one part of the body to the other. Cancers that develop away from the original tumour are known as metastases. When only a few cancer cells have traveled away from the original tumour, doctors may be unable to detect them even with sophisticated scans and blood tests. These tiny metastatic deposits can grow and ultimately cause incurable disease.

Because we cannot detect these tiny metastases we need to learn from the experience of other women over years of research, which patients may be at a high risk of recurrent disease at some time in the future and which patients may be cured with surgery alone.

The goal of chemotherapy is to reduce the number of recurrences and to increase the number of women who are cured after a diagnosis of breast cancer. Research has shown that both premenopausal and postmenopausal women benefit from chemotherapy, and that chemotherapy given at the time of diagnosis can significantly reduce the risk of the cancer recurring.

AH, statistics out of context...no value... We are not statistics, we are individuals, which is why it is so important not to try to GENERALIZE about a medical option that does save lives...

Wonder why it's so difficult to get some people to understand this?  Makes me wonder if that person made a choice which can not be undone, and regrets that choice.  So sorry if that is the case.

Anonymous

the "solid counter argument" is in the paragraph above the one YOU POSTED:

AND I QUOTE:

Research has shown that both premenopausal and postmenopausal women benefit from chemotherapy, and that chemotherapy given at the time of diagnosis can significantly reduce the risk of the cancer recurring.

FROM THE VERY ARTICLE YOU, SusanK8, posted.