So she gave up the doctor and continued with the seeds? How's she doing?Sorry.
For my cousin they gave her an ultimatum of stop taking them or find a new Dr. To order blood test. If I had cancer I wouldn't need a Dr for blood tests cause I know many since I work in a hospital. I could just get a Dr. To order it I wouldn't need to see a cancer Dr.
She is cancer free and living a normal life. She still takes it every day cause she doesn't want her cancer to come back. I'm just really happy for her. As for the Drs they had already gave up on her because she was in hospice.So she gave up the doctor and continued with the seeds? How's she doing?
That ain’t trolling. There are plenty of people who distrust conventional doctors, big pharma, etc. in favor of snake oil salesmen. Especially if they’re touting something natural, like good old fashioned cyanide.Mrs. Rannous said:Yeah. Good luck with that.
Epic level trolling, by the way.
I've read this a dozen times and it is hurting my brain. You wouldn't need a doctor for blood tests but you would get a doctor you know to order it?bucksoh said:If I had cancer I wouldn't need a Dr for blood tests cause I know many since I work in a hospital. I could just get a Dr. To order it I wouldn't need to see a cancer Dr.
I sell products whose primary function is to deliver chemo.Do a little research. What is bat chit crazy, is telling people u know nothing about and have been helped. That you don't know anything on the subject for what you are talking about, that is bat chit crazy.
If you are actually advising people to go this route you are being horribly, batchit crazy irresponsible.The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk–benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative.
You work in a hospital.bucksoh said:Sorry.
For my cousin they gave her an ultimatum of stop taking them or find a new Dr. To order blood test. If I had cancer I wouldn't need a Dr for blood tests cause I know many since I work in a hospital. I could just get a Dr. To order it I wouldn't need to see a cancer Dr.
Judging by his/er understanding of the practice of medicine, I’m gonna guess hospital CEO.You work in a hospital.
May I ask what your role is?
I'm sorry your cousin had or has cancer, and I can see how emotions in that scenario would lead you to believe unsupported claims about a chance to cure cancer... but this ain't the way pard.
2019 is not the best year. But we have determined the worst.You guys are all nuts. Not sure why 2019 sucks.
Do it don't do it I don't care. I just am putting it out there for the people that are not helped by chemo, it is much safer than chemo and you saying otherwise is bat chit crazy. If it doesn't help don't take it but being stupid about something that is ridiculously cheap and safe compared to chemo is down right dangerous. It's helped me and several other people it saved their lives. Chemo is bad for you. But keep beating that drum.I sell products whose primary function is to deliver chemo.
My favorite part of my 5 minutes "researching" it: Cochrane Library Systematic Review
If you are actually advising people to go this route you are being horribly, batchit crazy irresponsible.
The level of stupid in this thread is the reason I usually pm people. Let her die I could care less. There is plenty of people that it has helped. Just trying to help people out. It is much safer than chemo.So one way to make 2019 better... I should tell me friend to give her 13yo daughter cyanide. Sounds like a plan!! I’m on it!!! Thanks for the tip!!!
The only people trolling is the ones like yourself in this thread. I just offered a different alternative which has been quite effective for a number of people.Mrs. Rannous said:Yeah. Good luck with that.
Epic level trolling, by the way.
I don't think you even appreciate the irony here.The level of stupid in this thread is the reason I usually pm people. Let her die I could care less. There is plenty of people that it has helped. Just trying to help people out. It is much safer than chemo.
Wow u should sell snake oil because your so good!This is how people come to believe vaccines are dangerous.
Chemo is awful.Do it don't do it I don't care. I just am putting it out there for the people that are not helped by chemo, it is much safer than chemo and you saying otherwise is bat chit crazy. If it doesn't help don't take it but being stupid about something that is ridiculously cheap and safe compared to chemo is down right dangerous. It's helped me and several other people it saved their lives. Chemo is bad for you. But keep beating that drum.
Obviously not clinical.Judging by his/er understanding of the practice of medicine, I’m gonna guess hospital CEO.
I can't support my claim because big pharma doesn't want to do studies. Why do you think that is? Apricot seeds are safer then chemo fact. There will never be a study because like marijuana big pharma will not allow it.Chemo is awful.
But it it is the standard of care, it is WELL understood... you can drown in studies on any chemotherapeutic agents. It helps people beat cancer daily.
This is like having a debate with an anti-vaxxer.. you can't support your position, rely heavily on defensive arguments, refuse to acknowledge "the facts" (your words). It is unfortunate.
This is again just ridiculous, as any person or company who discovers a cure for cancer would make more money than god.I can't support my claim because big pharma doesn't want to do studies. Why do you think that is? Apricot seeds are safer then chemo fact. There will never be a study because like marijuana big pharma will not allow it.
Because apricot seeds and Laetrile have shown to be an ineffective treatment. Perhaps in a handful of anecdotal reports. But not in clinical trials or peer-reviewed studies. Just stop.I can't support my claim because big pharma doesn't want to do studies. Why do you think that is? Apricot seeds are safer then chemo fact. There will never be a study because like marijuana big pharma will not allow it.
Once again you're being ridiculous I don't work for big pharma you do. Chemo is a billion and billions dollar industry. Taking seeds are cheap. They stand to lose billions. If you want I could get my cousins blood work. But I know this wouldn't be good enough for you. For facts. Show me where chemo is safer than seeds still waiting for the 1000000th time. You can't.This is again just ridiculous, as any person or company who discovers a cure for cancer would make more money than god.
So rather than "big pharma won't"... big pharma totally would.
For the 10000th time, please post clinical evidence of your "f acts".
Later tator!Because apricot seeds and Laetrile have shown to be an ineffective treatment. Perhaps in a handful of anecdotal reports. But not in clinical trials or peer-reviewed studies. Just stop.
I was joking. Truthfully, I suspect he is a nurse.Obviously not clinical.
If your daughter’s friend is interested in getting a consult and/or treatment at Texas Children’s Hospital or MD Anderson in Houston (two of the best cancer hospitals in the country), let me know. Our Foundation can assist with housing for her and her family.Update:
Daughter’s friend (let’s call her Amy) was given the all-clear by the oncologist back in January. The original lesion first appeared last November, biopsied and diagnosed in December, and then finally given the “all-clear” mid-to-late January.
Fast forward to July, and Amy is having back pain, abdominal pain, fatigue, and weight loss. Mom gives Amy ibuprofen for pain. Doesn’t seem to help. Mom calls oncologist who says to go to her pediatrician, and that she probably overdosed Amy on ibuprofen. Pediatrician palpates the upper abdomen and Amy winces in pain.
Two days later, Amy is admitted into the local Children’s hospital with an 8cm abdominal mass that is diagnosed as the same tumor from December.
I personally know people who are conducting cancer research, and our Foundation funds that research. We are not big pharma. And we are just one of many such organizations. If there was a simple cure for cancer, there would be plenty of funding for research, studies and trials. And the people I know have dedicated their lives to finding a cure. Your suggestion upthread that they (the doctors) care about making money and not finding a cure is repugnant. That said, I am so happy that your sister is cancer free. I hope she is living her best life.I can't support my claim because big pharma doesn't want to do studies. Why do you think that is? Apricot seeds are safer then chemo fact. There will never be a study because like marijuana big pharma will not allow it.
Much of the cancer research being undertaken today if successful would effectively replace chemo as the standard treatment protocol.Once again you're being ridiculous I don't work for big pharma you do. Chemo is a billion and billions dollar industry. Taking seeds are cheap. They stand to lose billions.
Where on earth did you get the idea I work for big pharma?Once again you're being ridiculous I don't work for big pharma you do. Chemo is a billion and billions dollar industry. Taking seeds are cheap. They stand to lose billions. If you want I could get my cousins blood work. But I know this wouldn't be good enough for you. For facts. Show me where chemo is safer than seeds still waiting for the 1000000th time. You can't.
To continue on with this particular line:A landmark study supporting specific patients foregoing chemo... BUT BUT BIG BAD PHARMA. @bucksoh
"With results of this groundbreaking study, we now can safely avoid chemotherapy in about 70 percent of patients who are diagnosed with the most common form of breast cancer," Dr. Albain said. "For countless women and their doctors, the days of uncertainty are over."
One of my son Chance’s best friend’s dad is a big time researcher at MD Anderson and his research focuses on using an engineered cold virus to attack recurrent glioblastoma (one of the deadliest forms of brain cancer).To continue on with this particular line:
This doc, discussing the evidence within a subset of cancer patients (based on recurrence scores) that there may not be a benefit to chemoendocrine therapy over endocrine therapy alone.
He seems like he is really pushing his patients into chemo and is just a money grubbing guy ignorant of the "facts" around... apricot seeds of course. @bucksoh
MD Anderson is full of amazing people.One of my son Chance’s best friend’s dad is a big time researcher at MD Anderson and his research focuses on using an engineered cold virus to attack recurrent glioblastoma (one of the deadliest forms of brain cancer).
True, but most of it is immunotherapy, which is even more pricey than chemo.Much of the cancer research being undertaken today if successful would effectively replace chemo as the standard treatment protocol.
Yes, immunotherapy is a big focus. But even assuming that immunotherapy will ultimately be more expensive than chemotherapy as a treatment protocol (I don’t know that that will be the case, particularly once you factor in the costs of all the ancillary treatment resulting from chemo, including treatment of secondary cancers), there is still tons of ongoing cancer research being funded in a host of other areas that would effectively replace chemo with other less costly options (several examples have already been cited in this thread). The point that bucksoh was making with which we were taking issue is that big pharma wouldn’t allow that research to happen. That’s demonstrably untrue.True, but most of it is immunotherapy, which is even more pricey than chemo.
And... immunotherapy has similar side effects as chemo. Eventually, gene editing will will replace most diseases, including cancer. In fact, US doctors have recently used CRISPR to treat a patient with sickle cell disease.Yes, immunotherapy is a big focus. But even assuming that immunotherapy will ultimately be more expensive than chemotherapy as a treatment protocol (I don’t know that that will be the case, particularly once you factor in the costs of all the ancillary treatment resulting from chemo, including treatment of secondary cancers), there is still tons of ongoing cancer research being funded in a host of other areas that would effectively replace chemo with other less costly options (several examples have already been cited in this thread). The point that bucksoh was making with which we were taking issue is that big pharma wouldn’t allow that research to happen. That’s demonstrably untrue.
For the study, doctors are using cells taken from patients' own bone marrow that have been genetically modified with CRISPR to make them produce a protein that is usually only made by fetuses and by babies for a short time following birth.
The hope is this protein will compensate for the defective protein that causes sickle cell disease and will enable patients to live normally for the rest of their lives.
But it probably will take months, if not years, of careful monitoring of Gray and other patients before doctors know whether the treatment is safe and how well it might be helping patients.
I don't pretend to know the entirety of cancer research, but most of the recent cutting edge stuff is immunotherapy - this includes cancer vaccines, check point inhibitors, immune modulators (including stuff like the cold virus research you mentioned) and monoclonal antibodies. And it's all expensive.bigbottom said:Yes, immunotherapy is a big focus. But even assuming that immunotherapy will ultimately be more expensive than chemotherapy as a treatment protocol (I don’t know that that will be the case, particularly once you factor in the costs of all the ancillary treatment resulting from chemo, including treatment of secondary cancers), there is still tons of ongoing cancer research being funded in a host of other areas that would effectively replace chemo with other less costly options (several examples have already been cited in this thread). The point that bucksoh was making with which we were taking issue is that big pharma wouldn’t allow that research to happen. That’s demonstrably untrue.
In general, immunotherapy seem better tolerated than conventional chemo, though it certainly has potential side effects.Tom Skerritt said:And... immunotherapy has similar side effects as chemo. Eventually, gene editing will will replace most diseases, including cancer. In fact, US doctors have recently used CRISPR to treat a patient with sickle cell disease.
I think you’re missing my point.I don't pretend to know the entirety of cancer research, but most of the recent cutting edge stuff is immunotherapy - this includes cancer vaccines, check point inhibitors, immune modulators (including stuff like the cold virus research you mentioned) and monoclonal antibodies. And it's all expensive.
Granted I'd rather expensive immunotherapy than cyanide poisoning...
Yeah, I know bucksoh is off-base wrt the evil Pharma rhetoric. And I know there is a ton of cancer research on non-chemo modalities. I just disagree regarding the cost of new and potential therapies - look up the most expensive drugs and you'll see many of them are monoclonal Ab, for example.I think you’re missing my point.
I’m not sure anyone has disagreed with you on the cost of immunotherapy.Yeah, I know bucksoh is off-base wrt the evil Pharma rhetoric. And I know there is a ton of cancer research on non-chemo modalities. I just disagree regarding the cost of new and potential therapies - look up the most expensive drugs and you'll see many of them are monoclonal Ab, for example.
You've made a couple posts suggesting cancer care may become more affordable. With the current modalities, that doesn't appear to be the case. While neither of us can predict the future, I think it is a reasonable to assume new treatments will continue on the same trajectory.I’m not sure anyone has disagreed with you on the cost of immunotherapy.
Update:####...that sucks. No way you should waiving "all clear" signals after 2 months for most any type of cancer. Steer clear of that oncologist, IMO. And not to hijack your thread, but I think my 2019 kicks your 2019's ### for suck so far, but I'll spare you the grim details.
It's tough. The chemo can take a greater and greater toll on the body as you progress through treatments. They have a lot of techniques these days to help mitigate some of the side effects, but it just sucks. Good to hear that she is in a better place moving forward (hopefully).I’m worried that Amy is in pain, is depressed, and physically unable to tolerate 5 more rounds of chemo after this one. But I have to remain vigilant and hopeful... which is what I will do.
We are living some parallel lives...My friend and neighbor suffered the old widow-maker back in May just before his son's HS graduation. He died alone in a hotel room while away on a business trip, and I just laid my uncle to rest on Monday.Oh yeah, and my good friend and neighbor died early this morning from a ruptured aorta. He collapsed at work yesterday. Was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery. He was stabilized initially, but he was unable to make it through the night. My wife called me at work early this morning to break the news.
2019 is still the suck!
Sorry to hear. My friend was in his early 40’s and had a congenital heart defect. Had open heart surgery a few months ago to explore and repair some things. Seemed to recover well. Then experienced leg pain shortly after. Discovered an aneurysm in his femoral artery. Returned to surgery a month ago to repair that. And now this.We are living some parallel lives...My friend and neighbor suffered the old widow-maker back in May just before his son's HS graduation. He died alone in a hotel room while away on a business trip, and I just laid my uncle to rest on Monday.