Anth 2007-09-27 17:44:25
Least harmful. Sometimes a life saving, stop-gap measure. No evidence that
patients who receive radical or extensive surgical options live any longer
than those who receive the most conservative options, or, for that matter,
those who receive none at all.
After metastasis, the statistical chances for long term survival are close
Very harmful in many ways. Spreads the cancer and weakens the patients
resistance to other diseases. Serious and painful side effects, including
heart failure. No evidence that treated patients live any longer, on the
average, than those not treated. Statistical rate of long term survival
after metastasis is close to zero.
Also spreads the cancer through weakening of the immunological defence
mechanism plus general toxicity. Leaves patient susceptible to other
diseases and infections, often leading to death from these causes. Extremely
serious side effects. No evidence that treated patients live any longer, on
average, than untreated patients.
Statistical rate of long term survival after metastasis is close to zero.
Any thoughts on the accuracy these statements?
Auntie_biotic 2007-09-27 17:45:10
Good questions here is my personal answer.
Was placed on 20 oral chemotherapy tabs per day made me very ill indeed.
Had over 15 x-rays and two ct scans. Each x-ray or scan always went missing
and not available for next consultation with doctor.
Was told initially portion of lung needed to be removed, then right lung
completely, then disease is inoperable.
Got second opinion. NOTHING WAS EVER WRONG WITH ME. I am sure I don’t have
to express my views on your subject any further. Except to say something
good came out of it. My website to try and help others find information.
Anth 2007-09-27 17:45:14
Can you post your website url?
Steph 2007-09-27 17:46:02
Which type of cancer are you talking about?
For some, they are accurate, for some they are nonsensical