Not Buying Into It

Pompeed · November 2010

Flash: we have a hall to ride in. And with very little water, we can keep the footing in excellent shape through the winter without dust. The outdoor is another matter for schooling. Had to give in and put a light sheet on The Boy. He doesn't grow much coat and there was frost on the ground here this AM.

"Hole" is still draining. Which is good. No sign of infection, temperature and all other vital signs normal. Couldn't drive unless I gave up the narcotics. So I gave them up. About the same time as the non-functioning drain went into the trash.

Luckylis · November 2010

good luck....not wasting my time or energy on your posts. Ciao.

AMP47 · November 2010

Just read this thread. Must be "gang up on pompeed day" I recommend that the ladies would have chosen to "jump on" Pompeed personal opinion should realize that everyone is entitled to their opinion, or is this not a democracy anymore?

This is a site of support, and at the end of the day all of us sisters need to remain friends. Also, just a footnote, you might have to retain Pompeed to defend your malpractice suit against your doctor after following to the letter his advise on treatment that ends up inexplicably altering your way of life or ending your life, prematurely, and lining his pocket.

By the way, as I watched my father die of cancer, all his wealth could not buy one more minute of life. Wealth, silver spoon or riches, mean spirited terms I have seen used to describe Pompeed has nothing to do with longevity or the promise of a care-free life when faced with breast cancer. Very narcissistic verbage: all you critics of Pompeed should apologise to her for announcing to the rest of you 'there is a hole in the boat'.

lago · November 2010

AMP47 I too over the past several days on this thread have thought I would want Pompeed as my lawyer. She must really be very good at what she does.

Bukki · November 2010

Love the passion shown in the posts on this thread.

Lowrider54 · November 2010

Thanks worldwatcher...wishing you well as well...Hugs...LowRider

Anonymous · November 2010

http://www.oncologystat.com/news/Patients_Lukewarm_on_Cosmetic_Outcomes_After_Breast-Conserving_Surgery_US.html

No real surprises here but still of interest to some perhaps.

Mazy1959 · December 2010

Being a positive person does not generally mean you are living in a world of denial, although I am aware some people believe it is. To me being positive is giving medicine half a chance to work and believing its possible. Being positive means that I think my treatment options thru and with as clear a mind as I can. It does not mean that I don't believe I have cancer. It does not mean that I don't take my MRI etc seriously. After chemo, rads and buckets of pills I would say that I truly believe I have cancer and that I may die of it. How can I have hope if I don't believe I have a chance? If I had no hope, there would be no use in me taking treatments and drugs, scans and blood tests.

On Dec 21, 2006 I made the decision to live. If I had refused the treatments offered, I wouldve surely died in a short time ( onc said 6 months with no treatment). Over night, I could no longer walk unasissted, work, bathe myself, dress myself or tie my shoes because of a big nasty tumor growing in my spine. It was inoperable and my only chances were Aromatase Inhibiters & Zometa or chemo. Aromasin and Zometa shrunk my tumor til its no longer visible. After 3 months I didnt have to use the wheelchair just to get from the car to my front door. I could walk with a cane and could dress myself etc. After 9 months we knew what I was stuck with as far as nerve damage etc. I have chronic pain and neuropathy from my experience. I cant run , work or lift much weight. And I can handle it this way. I take care of myself. I do some housework but not all of it. I have a hard time vacuuming, mopping etc. Being a positive person makes me feel grateful that I got better and that the tumor shrunk. IF I had thought there was no use and that it was a waste of valuable time and money........I would be dead.

I dont think Pompeed is being picked on. I think we are a group of caring ladies who wants to make sure that our decisions are well thought thru. There are ladies who didnt do treatment and they are fine. There are others who were not so lucky and are no longer with us.We have to do what we feel is best for ourselves. When Pompeed first posted, I took it as she was looking for responses to her post....whether we agreed with her or not. Surely when you post such a strong message under "Help Me Get Thru Treatment" you would expect strong responses. I think I was wrong because it seems that all she wanted was for people who felt the same as she does to respond. Thats ok but I wish she wouldve made that clear up front.

Pompeed, I will move on out of your arena and wish you the best. As long as you are happy with your well thought out decision, thats all that matters. Good luck, Mazy

hopefortomorrow · December 2010

Mazy, have said what I was trying to very eloquently. I am not at the same place in my cancer journey as you are, but I am totally in sync with your way of thinking. Love your post.

Pompeed, I too, totally wish you the best. I have read the posts wondering how you are doing, and smiled about wanting to drive and the narcotics, so you threw those in the trash at about the same time as the trash. Totally can appreciate that.

FireKracker · December 2010

AMP47...wow you said a mouth full.

POMPEED...If i ever need a lawyer YOU ARE IT SISTA....

Pompeed · December 2010

We know that medicine is part art and part science and that the proportions of art and science shift over time with technology. Which is to say with knowledge. With very few exceptions -- the vaccines for polio are as near to 100% certainity of avoiding the disease as medicine can get -- most of medicine has nothing to do with certainity. "Giving medicine half a chance to work" may be close to futile in some circumstances: if the probability that the offered technology is 10% beneficial and 90% ineffective, then chances are very good that undergoing the treatment isn't going to lead to improvement much less significant improvement. Generally speaking, if those are the odds, the treatment isn't even offered and it's only used in experimental situations where the patient's survival odds are already dire and the intention of using it is to learn from the use as the chances of saving a life are slim to none.

There are plenty of therapies where the probabilities are 50-50 or 60-40. Oncotype being one. It's clear that those in the high risk category are very likely to profit from chemo. It's a reliable test for this purpose. It's clear that those in the low risk category are not very likely to profit from chemo. It's a reliable test for that situation. But if chemo is suggested even though one is in the low risk category, should the patient undergo the treatment because it just might be better than not taking it? And how would the patient ever know whether the theapy was beneficial or not? Impossible to prove a negative: "I would have been worse if I hadn't."

Then there's the unknown group in the middle. For which the argument rages. If one ends up in this category it's a crap shoot. One oncologist I've seen is insisting that chemo, on the basis of oncotype alone, is necessary if one ends up in the middle group "just to be sure." Well, sure of exactly what? Sure that I won't have a recurrence? How's that going to be proven? Maybe I won't take the chemo and I won't have a recurrance because I'll get run over by a bus tomorrow and I won't live long enough for more cancer to rise to the level of detection. Or I'll die next year of a heart attack. Maybe I won't take the chemo and I will have cancer cells -- like we all do -- in my body for the rest of my life but they will not rise to the level of detection and I'll die of something else. Maybe I'll take the chemo and it will all be wasted -- along with the misery of taking it -- because it will turn out people with my oncotype don't really benefit from chemo.

The study which just closed with 10K women in it won't publish the results for another two years. And the results may well be 50-50 or they will be beneficial for some kinds of chemo but not others and the kind I take tomorrow -- if I let myself be talked into that deal -- will turn out to be the variety which isn't beneficial. It may well be that one takes chemo today, of whatever variety and for whatever length of time is recommended, and then finds out two years down the road when the study results are published that the PROBABILITY that it did the patient any good at all was negligible or even damaging. And all we are ever talking about is probabilities. Not certainities or guarantees.

So does "give medicine half a chance" really mean anything other than do whatever seems to be best at the moment given the state of the art AND the state of one's own life, including refusing treatment? I don't think so.

I got word today that the husband of a friend of mine has pancreatic cancer. And it's already all over the body in other places. He got early onset Alzheimer's about ten years ago and he has little relationship to or understanding of his surroundings. No wonder he has no relationship to his own body and said nothing so that it's already very, very late in the process. On the day after a dire diagnosis, hospice is already involved. Which means treatment, other than palliative care, is what's in his future and he will, for sure, be a cancer statistic. It's only a question of when. So what's "give medicine half a chance" mean in his circumstances? Would it be "better" for my friend to insist that her husband have all kinds of surgery and chemo and radiation and other procedures that have been suggested -- because the medical profession must suggest them --procedures he cannot even understand? Or is it "better" to care for him as best he can be cared for as his life ends from a cancer which is known to be fatal?

There are women who have elected to be treated to every possible therapy and are still alive. There are others who elected not to do so and are no longer here. They were not "unlucky" at all. They are entitled to the benefit of the doubt: they knew as much about their disease as they could know at the time and given the technology available and they elected to forego offered treatments because of their own circumstances. I agree with the statement: "we have to do what we feel is best for ourselves" and that, to me, means no one has the luxury of saying someone else's choices were "unlucky" or "wrong" or "bad." Those are words of chance and moral choice and even arrogance which do not fit the dialogue and, in my view, shouldn't be used in conversations about existential matters. We are all going to die. That's the only certainity we all share. There are -- in my view and in many circumstances -- fates which are worse than death. Having watched my father watch himself dying every day over an 18 month period (his brain was as sharp as had always been but the cancer was eating his body up and he was fully aware every day of what was happening to him), it was clear to me that he learned this himself. And would have most certainly chosen the quality of his time over the quantity of his time if he had the luxury of doing it over.

Finally, as I have now said about a zillion times, I speak for myself. Only myself. And only for my point of view. From where I stand in my own shoes. Which fit no one else in the world. What others have done for themselves -- and almost every responding note is a narrative of personal past experience from shoes which fit no one else in the world -- is up to them.

"Help me get through treatment" as a topic invites a discussion along the lines of "I have elected not to undergo treatment. Perhaps there are others here who have come to that decision for themselves." There is a topic about hospice and palliative care so there are some people who have elected to forego treatment. And perhaps there is not only some compassion for that decision on this board but perhaps there is also some comprehension of it because it is a decision that people may have to face in their own lives. My view: it should be possible to have a civil discussion about the realities of cancer because, like it or not: some people are going to die from it.

otter · December 2010

[I've deleted my post, because Pompeed made the same point much more convincingly.]

mollynminnie · December 2010

Gosh- enough already!

If Pompeed can (some feel irresponsibly) post that she is "not buying into" treatment- and not worry that a fragile, vulnerable, newly diagnosed woman will see her post and question if what she is doing as treatment, or what her doctor's have told her is incorrect- then no one else here should feel like they need to "take back" or apologize for anything they've said to Pompeed. We can't have it both ways people.

Either everyone can freely post what they want and not worry about repercussions, or we sugar coat everything and endlessly worry how we are being perceived.

Which is it? If Pompeed can say what she feels here, then so can everyone else. No apologies needed. Period.

Molly

1Athena1 · December 2010

I'm with you on this one, Pompeed. It's not so much "give medicine half a chance" with our bc choices as it is give the House in the casino half a chance.

I understand and appreciate the mystery of cancer, the efforts of scientists and doctors, the difficulty in answering so many questions and the uncertainties. What I do not understand or even have much patience with is those who think there are absolutes with early stage bc, easy choices, even best choices, black and whites, and that life is always, always, always best and that what applied to them should apply to everyone. And that treatment can't possibly be worse than no treatment - for everyone. And that chemo is next to Godliness - for everyone. And that all of this can be preached and preached, and that anyone who disagrees with these Absolute Truths is crazy, a troll or both.

Oh, and that statistics can be used for individual cases. I am going to make fun of that scaremongering tactic until I'm blue in the face.

And the oncotype score predictions? The jury is still out on whether they are proven correct, as the test is still too new.

So, as Pompeed says, everyone, choose your treatment and Godspeed, but don't defend it as a position - let alone as a moral stance. It's just your personal choice. Like too much about bc, it can't be relied upon scientifically.

We can compare treatments only as we can compare how happy we feel in marriages, with new houses or with the schools our family members go to. All are big decisions in which there are a few knowns, much analysis, but alas, no firm answers, and the possibility for much disappointment and heartbreak despite our most careful consideration.

I know I'm going to get a trillion disagreements. But I speak only for myself -again, as Pompeed says.

otter · December 2010

"And all we are ever ta[l]king about is probabilities. Not certainities or guarantees. So does "give medicine half a chance" really mean other than do whatever seems to be best at the moment given the state of the art AND the state of one's life? I don't think so."

I think what baffles me is that people have such high expectations of medical care. Why is it so difficult to accept that a doctor cannot provide us with "guarantees" or "certainties"?

A veterinarian cannot guarantee that the treatment she is recommending will "cure" a horse's lameness. A lawyer cannot guarantee that he will be able to defend a client successfully against a charge of attempted assault (or that he will win the case on appeal). A mechanic cannot guarantee that the engine component he replaced was the one that was causing the noise the car owner reported. A dentist cannot guarantee that the root canal she just performed will eliminate the tooth pain a patient has been suffering. A fire fighter cannot guarantee that his engine company will be able to put the fire out before it destroys a person's home. A police officer cannot guarantee that a city street will be safe from drugs or violence just because he patrols there. An airline pilot cannot guarantee that a cross-country flight will be free of turbulence and the passengers will arrive at the destination on time.

So, why does it bother some of us so much -- why do we think it is so unjust -- if a doctor gives us a probability, rather than a guarantee, when a probability represents the best information available at the time? If a doctor says, "You have an 85% chance of surviving for the next 10 years without a recurrence of your cancer," why do we insist that's not good enough, and we should be getting a guarantee instead of a "crap shoot"? What makes us think there should be certainties in medicine, when there is nothing certain about biology?

"We know that medicine is part art and part science and that the proportions of art and science shift over time with technology. Which is to say with knowledge."

BINGO.

otter

1Athena1 · December 2010

I like how this conversation is evolving. Very refreshing.

tabby · December 2010

Pompeed: Thanks for the post. I hear your anger and frustration. We have all been there, I think (or are there now). Each of our cancer diagnoses and treatment decisions are as varied as we are as individuals. As for me and me only, I have been blessed to be able to have some time in between each decision. I have weighed each decision with every piece of info I can find from physicians, web sites and discussions such as this, and from personal friends/family, then prayed for answers on what to do. Like I said, that's how I did it. I realize and acknowledge that everyone is different and has every right to do it THEIR way. I understand feeling JUDGED about my decisions. I removed both breasts and made that decision when my diagnosis was LCIS (later we found the invasive). As an adult I learned a long time ago that I had to do what I felt was right no matter what else was going on, but it is very hard when your own support group doesn't understand. No one really understands this until they experience it themselves and even then there are many variables. This is one place I feel I belong and at least some people understand. So, long story short, I care regardless of what you decide and support your decisions and pray for your well-being. I hope others are also doing that as well. Tabby

hopefortomorrow · December 2010

We all know there are no guarnatees in life.

I had a cousin that fought in Nam and returned home to be killed in a freak accident.

I know a young woman 39 that didn't die of her throat cancer, but an infection that spread through her body to quickly.

There have been numerous studies, this is good for you, that is bad for you. One year they say eat margarine not butter, the next they say eat butter not margarine.

Being in the middle group, I realize I might take the treatment that is proven 2 years down the line that is viewed as totally ineffective. At the same time, I have heard some women say chemo was not as bad as they expected. For others it is a terrible experience.

I stand the chance that it will be all for naught. My heart muscle may deteriorate faster and Cancer might return. I could not have treatment at all and run the same risk. I have to weigh out the odds. Should I be viewed as foolish for taking treatment that is not guaranteed?

I have two children 15 and 13. In two years if I end up with cancer everywhere in my body and the study comes back that the treatment is shown to be 85% effective (just throwing a number out there) I have to decide if I can live with making the decison to not take treatment.

Pompeed · December 2010

Otter wrote:

"So, why does it bother some of us so much -- why do we think it is so unjust -- if a doctor gives us a probability, rather than a guarantee, when a probability represents the best information available at the time? If a doctor says, "You have an 85% chance of surviving for the next 10 years without a recurrence of your cancer," why do we insist that's not good enough, and we should be getting a guarantee instead of a "crap shoot"? What makes us think there should be certainties in medicine, when there is nothing certain about biology?"

I think there are a couple of things going on. One is certainly personal mortality. The medical profession is committed to keeping people alive and it's easy for patients to come to think of a doctor as THE person who stands between them death and can save them from death.

The next thing I think is at play is related: "If there's an 85% chance, then I increase my odds if I do MORE, i.e., I buy the "insurance" of treatment regardless of the miseries of that treatment or the permanant damage or the fact that I might only improve my risk by 1%." This is the thinking which drove breast cancer therapy for years: "I'm a surgeon, my patient is a woman who has breast cancer, surgery is the only thing which stands between her and death so I should take off every bit of tissue which could have any involvement in cancer regardless of the who much she is mained. She will be alive without her chest muscles and her collar bone and her shoulder joint and her arm and her lymph nodes. But all of that is justified: I'm a surgeon, she can live without an arm and shoulder and chest muscles and collar bone and breast. Saving her life is the highest value."

I've heard this thinking from one oncologist. The doc said:

"Your invasive tumor was XYZ size and that by itself triggers chemo as necessary."

"Wait a second: you just told me that if the oncotype comes back and puts me in the low risk category that chemo is unlikely to be of any benefit in terms of increasing survival."

"I know that but I'm trying to save your life and your tumor size indicates that you should have chemo."

"Well, if tumor size is THE factor which counts in therapy decisions more than anything else, why are you recommending the oncotype test? It's very expensive but as I understand it, the purpose is to sort out the biology of MY tumor cells, see how they behave and make a decision based on that as a far better predictor of future risk than tumor size."

"Well, that's right. But taking chemo is like buying insurance. If you've got an 85% chance of survival for five years without chemo, taking chemo may bump it up to 95%, Wouldn't you feel better with that insurance?"

It's easy to be a patient and "buy" the insurance -- regardless of the risk of the insurance itself because it's not a paper contract, it's a kind of poison deliberately taken internally -- because it's all part of the thinking that the MD is the person who stands between us and death.

Pompeed · December 2010

"Should I be viewed as foolish for taking treatment that is not guaranteed?"

No more than I should be viewed as foolish for refusing treatment that is not guaranteed.

calamtykel · December 2010

I'm so sorry you have to go thru this. Having just finished chemo and watching the effects it had on my body, as my naturopath did testing on my organs, etc., I can testify that it's not easy. HOWEVER chemo is not a death sentence - I did very well through it - I was able to go running on my off weeks and lived a totally normal life on my "non" chemo weeks. How is it to live without a breast? For me, it hasn't been an issue. In fact, I love going bra-less and being able to go running without my "breastfed four kids now DD cups" getting in the way. I didn't have reconstruction - I'm sort of the same mindset as you are with the chemo in that respect - enough is enough, we're done. I know I'm in the minority, and I'm pretty strange but that's just me.

Chemo scared the heck out of me. It still does. Having a naturopath tell me what it was going to do to my body didn't help. But I also had the inspiration of others who had gone before me. I had two cousins. Both got breast cancer around 1988-89. One opted for no chemo even though it was strongly advised by her doctors - STRONGLY. She was dead in three years of liver mets. Having seen that, I wanted to do whatever I could to knock this out. You only get ONE chance with breast cancer! And yes, it's a "chance" and not a guarantee. Another cousin also got BC with node involvement about a year or so later. She had chemo - did the whole thing and she has been totally fine since then - no recurrance in 20 years. That's pretty good.

Cancer scares me. Not being here for my four children scares me. If this buys me time? Then that's worth it for me. Time to raise them and get them on their way. I'm terrified of the cardio effects, but I decided I would rather die of heart failure than cancer. It's a personal choice.

There are things you can do to help your body through chemo. I researched stuff up the behind. Because my naturopath had me on three different forms of B vitamins from whole foods, I never developed any neuropathy from the Taxol. None at all. Not to say that there are things that are guaranteed to help, but you CAN still do stuff to help your body. Exercise is a big one.

I understand where you are mentally and emotionally. I felt like I was there after my second chemo blew a vein and I had to have a port placed. I felt like I was done - my spirit was broken. It took me a long time to pull out of that funk, but I did.

You have to do what is right for you-- read and research. I'm not saying my decision to have chemo was correct. It was based on my own personal world - and what I believed I was being led to do.

But you're right - there are no guarantees and that is what is truly horrific about this disease. Go with what you have peace with......

1Athena1 · December 2010

Pompeed, part of the way I interpret the sort of conversation between doctor and patient that you narrate is FEAR. Doctors feel the pressure of the patients' fear, they project it back on, and so on.

To me, the biggest obstacle that explains why we are losing our Forty Years' War on cancer is not collusion between polluters and the American Cancer Society (although that exists, because polluters fund them), not that pharma makes more money when there is not a cure than when there is (true as that is), nor a lack of money to fund studies that are expensive, have a high probability of failure but if successful could yield breakthroughs (although that is very true), but fear.

Fear is what enables a cancer industry to thrive despite nearly useless or marginally effective drugs. Trembling patients eat them up by the gallon. After all, pharma can hardly expect to sell a chemo agent that prolongs life by 28 days compared to chemo agent number 2 if fear-drenched patients and doctors don't ask for it. Nor can the mammogram industry expect to thrive despite growing evidence that mammograms do nothing to improve breast cancer survival if nervous people aren't demanding it.

I have always thought that fear is one of the most dangerous and destructive emotions that a human being can have.

Disclaimer: I am not saying that everyone who has chemo does it out of fear, and my opinion only applies to early stage bc.

1Athena1 · December 2010

calamtykel: Sorry, we crossposted and I didn't see your post until mine came on. I hope you don't think I'm jumping on your observation that cancer is scary.

Anonymous · December 2010

Personally, I am one who does not blindly follow a doctor's advice just because he/she wears a white coat. The advice has to make sense (for me). Additionally, the deciding factor for most of us (probably) is, "Can I live with my decision, whatever it may be?"

Yes, fear factors in, but so does the "No regrets" mindset. I don't want to exit this world thinking I might not be had I made other choices. Each of us must live with the consequences of our decision (and be comfortable with it) regardless of outcome.

JMHO FWIW

1Athena1 · December 2010

Yes, fear factors in, but so does the "No regrets" mindset.

I agree, Heidi.

In fact, if I had to pick the one "no regrets" decision I made in my cancer treatment - but which also comes with no guarantees - it was my choice to get rid of the other breast. Yes, I can still get a new cancer with the tiny amount of tissue left behind, but I KNOW that if I had kept that breast and later got a second cancer I would never forgive myself.

hopefortomorrow · December 2010

That's very true about "buying insurance".

I think the big 'C' word scares people.

We are bombarded with so much information in such a short time.

Is the use of chemo as 'high' in other countries?

misfit · December 2010

My onc actually used the term "insurance" at my first appointment. I think they say insurance because they can't say cure. They really try hard to sell it to you, and it's difficult to "buy into it" sometimes. That's partly the doctors' fault because they seem to try to keep you from looking too closely at the fine print and hidden costs. I think this can undermine the amount of trust a patient has. It's awful to feel like you are being decieved. I know that doctors are people too, but maybe that's actually part of the problem. They aren't machines who will give us the facts and statistics and truths without hesitation. Instead they sometimes try to scare us, sometimes try not to scare us, and sometimes give us only best-case scenarios in order to avoid an emotional scene. It's all so frustrating.

Lowrider54 · December 2010

Ok, I was given an 87% chance of survival after removal of the infected breast and nodes positive if I subjected myself to chemo - this was a good bet over doing nothing as the uncertainty would have left me in a state of fear forever and statistically, the odds were in favor of a recurrence or death. I had other fears, doubts, questions - I had hair down to my ass. This chemo would have certainly cost me my hair. Vanity? It was my identity. We, my treatment team and I, searched for a possible alternative. One was found. A chemo cocktail over a longer period that would reduce my chance of survival to 85% but give me a 30% chance that I would not lose all my hair as opposed to a 100% loss of my hair on the other one suggested. Humm. What to do. 2% less chance of survival and 30% chance of keeping most of my hair vs. a guarantee I was going to be bald. This was almost 12 years ago. We were looking at statistics, not the real people in the treatment center - statistics. The only guarantee was with most chemo, you will lose your hair. Statiscally, survival was considered no recurrence in 5 years. It was even stated that if you made that mark, you could consider yourself cured (of course, I now know that was an untruth) and live on to an old age or get run over by a bus.

I rolled the dice, opted for the 2% lesser chance of survival and did not lose all my hair and hit the 5 year mark without a recurrence. I became a statistic at that point. From there, I was no longer part of the statistical community. I paid with a year of hell of my life and a little bit more to recoup what chemo took away but I was alive and confident that I had made a good choice. I was diligent throughout all the years to watch for signs from my body, did the regular testing and for 10 1/2 years lived a pretty normal, healthy, active, and satisfying life - had many accomplishments, traveled, lots of wonderful experiences and was very happy. I was so happy that I scheduled my 10 year mark full testing on my birthday (I had delayed it as my military son was home and I wanted to wait until he was gone). Keep in mind, I am now out of the statistical status. I was counted at the 5 year mark. I was already a success statistically. An anonmally appeared and prompted further testing - metstatic recurrence in the spine. 10 1/2 years later, I have bone mets. I don't count in the survival statistics for 10 years as I was counted at 5 years but now I count in a new set of statistics, survival with mets.

The point here is statistics, percentages and guarantees. Any physician that offers a guarantee, is one I would run from. They can only make recommendations based on the information available to them, information we, as the patient, should be able to access as well. But, we would all be looking at statistics, not at real people. When diagnosed with mets, I looked at the statistics - dire was an understatement - with or without treatment, the odds were horrid. With treatment, there was a 2% chance that I could ever hope to acheive NED, 22% that I would be alive in 5 years and as each year past 5 clicked off, the percentages fell. The statistical life expectency was 12 to 36 months - with or without treatment. Again, what to do.

I found real people. F*** the statistics, I found real people living with this crap. I found this site and with it, hope. Hope isn't going to cure me, it won't keep me alive any longer, and no amount of positive attitude will change my diagnosis. However - becoming aquainted with real live people, in various stages of treatment and condition that are living their lives - pretty darn good lives helped me to decide that I was NOT a statistic anymore and it is not out of desperation that I treat my cancer, I treat because there is a chance I can continue living and a pretty darn good life it is - I already beat the odds the first time around - damn skippy if I ain't gonna try and do it again! Why not?

Suzybelle · December 2010

Lowrider, you are so awesome for so many reasons...thanks for the post.

gutsy · December 2010

calamtykel

I am with you on this one. I have three children, one little one, and I am going doing everything to be around for these loves of my life. I am doing chemo as well as complimentary therapy. The complimentary therapy, I started from day one and I really believe that it has helped me through chemo. I have severe nausea after chemo, but otherwise I am doing well. The centre I go to is run by MD"s who specialize in cancer care and have 20 yrs experience. It helps physically and mentally. Nothing hocus pocus granola about it, based on extensive research. In my mind it makes no sense to think it is all for nothing and that there is a conspiracy of white coats out there who don't really care about their patients and feed us poison. As far as I know, I only have one life to live and I am not done with it. Positive thinking does not cure cancer, however, I do believe that significant stress has a negative impact on our immune system and indirectly causes inflamation which helps cancer cells grow. I feel strongly that we have to take care of our body, mind, and spirit and that all the pieces are important in dealing with this crap disease. I am not looking for guarantees, would be nice, but I do want to give it my best shot which includes chemo, mastectomy, significant diet changes, exercise, etc.

Not Buying Into It

Comments

Categories