Is cancer chemotherapy useful?

[Janic]

Not content with having the wires touching, you're ignoble ... Bravo!

what seems to me disgraceful is to have individuals who prefer to support a system which causes 157.000 deaths, rather than another which would allow 40% of them not to die and it is proven. But it's your choice ... despicable, of course!

[GuyGadebois]

We already told you, it's not the system that kills, it's cancer.
What are the administrators of this site doing ???

[Janic]

We already told you, it's not the system that kills, it's cancer.

We! it is nobody well defined and therefore you mean that you have already said, or rather that you repeat like a parrot, what someone else said and which represents only himself. And if you had learned to read well at school: "So these are the ineffective treatments which are involved, which generates 157.000 victims per year in France. "it is the ineffective treatments that are affected, not the individuals who are already cancerous. Now in medicine, we are looking for treatments that limit or reduce failures! So where are they? And if there are others like improving the hygiene of life which would save the life of 40% of the individuals concerned, (130.000 men, women and children [*]), it is from this side there that he must focus your efforts

What are the administrators of this site doing ???

they do their job without being intolerant, them, otherwise they would have already fired you for insults and profanity repeatedly, which says the status that you accepted by intervening here and which seems to have escaped you.

[*] are you not going to let believe that you are indifferent to the fate of all these people? Yes? Is that so!

[GuyGadebois]

First you suggest that chemo is ineffective, but this is TOTALLY wrong *. Then you imply that if 40% of patients have cancer, it is their fault because they have a poor lifestyle, this is also false. Your comments are indeed awful, because in addition to stigmatizing cancer patients, you try to make them feel guilty.
Go talk as you dare to do here to moms who have lost their kids, say this to those who suffer from this disease when they have never smoked or smoked, say this to the families of those who have lost a loved one who, however, did sports and ate organic food ... You're foul!

* chemotherapy is the most effective treatment, in particular (against) myeloid leukemia in children (complete remission of more than 90%, after chemotherapy), Hodgkin's disease (complete remission in 60 to 95% of cases, depending on the stage at which it is diagnosed), non-Hodgkin's lymphomas (5-year survival rate of 53 to 91% depending on the stage) or testicular cancer (survival of 48 to 92% depending on the stage and the presence or absence metastases).
https://www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/actuali ... ans-plutot

[Janic]

First you suggest that chemo is ineffective, but this is TOTALLY wrong *.

JE I don't have to say that this or that prevention or care system is this or that. It belongs to professionals to give their opinion on this subject. Hence the references to these! that you didn't listen to.

Then you imply that if 41% of patients have cancer, it is their fault because they have a poor lifestyle, this is also false.

Always to fantasize. The quote does not come from me to say that 40% of patients HAVE cancer, but from you, but on the other hand that a good lifestyle would AVOID it and it is proven. So instead of accusing in a vacuum, reread the opinions cited.

Your comments are indeed awful, because in addition to stigmatizing cancer patients, you try to make them feel guilty.

Here we go again ! What criticism could be made of these 40% who will then have no cancer. For those who are struck, they know that whatever they do, it's the official figures that say, their chance of survival is only 1 in 2. Which is hardly reassuring! So they are not just guilty, but worried about the possible result.

[pedrodelavega]

So these are good ineffective treatments which are involved, which generates 157.000 victims per year in France.

No, it's manipulation: The remaining 157000 victims are cancer victims.
There are approximately 380000 new cases of cancer per year: The current (constantly evolving) "system" cures approximately 220000.
If the cause of the remaining 157000 victims was the treatment or if the chemo was death to the rat as TC says, the mortality rate would increase. This is not the case:
"The death rate is constantly decreasing since 25 years. This is explained by theimproved treatments and diagnostic methods that allow cancer to be detected at an earlier stage and therefore easier to manage. "
Example: Between 1989 and 2005, survival went from 80 to 87% for breast cancer, from 72 to 94% for prostate cancer, from 54 to 63% for colorectal cancer but only from 13 to 17% for lung cancer.
https://www.fondation-arc.org/le-cancer-en-chiffres

First you suggest that chemo is ineffective, but this is TOTALLY wrong *.

I do not have to say that this or that prevention or care system is this or that.

And yet you said it ...

[GuyGadebois]

First you suggest that chemo is ineffective, but this is TOTALLY wrong *.

I do not have to say that this or that prevention or care system is this or that.

And yet you said it ...

This lost guy doesn't even know what he's drooling ...

[Janic]

janic wrote: So these are good ineffective treatments which are involved, which generates 157.000 victims per year in France.

No, it's manipulation: The remaining 157000 victims are cancer victims.

Who could not be cured by the treatments that others have successfully undergone.
If a mechanic successfully repairs only one in two vehicles and the second ones accidentally break, he would end up in jail and guys like you would accuse the car, not the mechanic.

There are approximately 380000 new cases of cancer per year: The current (constantly evolving) "system" cures approximately 220000.
If the cause of the remaining 157000 victims was the treatment or if the chemo was death to the rat as TC says, the mortality rate would increase. This is not the case:

Already in these 380.000 in question, a part is non-evolving and yet detected therefore counted, others are minor like moles easily treatable without chemo or radius, sufficient surgery
When it does not reach 1 mm, more than 90% of patients are permanently cured by surgical removal.

“The death rate has been steadily decreasing for 25 years.
More:
https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article ... 50684.html
New cancer cases on the rise in France
A report shows a 45% increase in incidence in women and 6% in men since 1990, excluding the increase in the population and its aging. Mortality has registered a relative decline.


It decreases slightly in percentage at 5 years, not beyond.
As a head nurse from Villejuif told me, "if we see them again before 5 years old, it's a sign that the treatment hasn't worked and afterwards if we don't see them again, we also know what that means. "
this is explained by the improvement of treatments and diagnostic methods which make it possible to detect cancers at an earlier stage and therefore easier to manage. "
Example: Between 1989 and 2005, survival went from 80 to 87% for breast cancer, from 72 to 94% for prostate cancer, from 54 to 63% for colorectal cancer but only from 13 to 17% for lung cancer.

https://www.fondation-arc.org/le-cancer-en-chiffres

You should also have read:

The survival of people with cancer varies considerably depending on the cancer location: 5-year survival varies as well de 4 % water content à 98 % water content. Cancers with a poor prognosis at 5 years (5-year survival less than 33%) represent 31 % water content cancers in humans and 17 % water content in women. Cancers with a good prognosis at 5 years (5-year survival greater than or equal to 66%) represent 57 % water content cancers in women and only 44 % water content at men's. Over the period 1989-2010, we observed an improvement in standardized net survival at 5 years for most cancers.

In general, they insist on the high number, not the low. Therefore no survival at 5: 43% and 56%. No glop!

Janic wrote:

First you suggest that chemo is ineffective, but this is TOTALLY wrong *.

I do not have to say that this or that prevention or care system is this or that.

And yet you said it ...

No, I indicate sources, it is enough to consult them. That I repeat does not engage me more than when you do the same.

[Gébé]

janic wrote: So these are good ineffective treatments which are involved, which generates 157.000 victims per year in France.

No, it's manipulation: The remaining 157000 victims are cancer victims.

Who could not be cured by the treatments that others have successfully undergone.
If a mechanic successfully repairs only one in two vehicles and the second ones accidentally break, he would end up in jail and guys like you would accuse the car, not the mechanic.

It is not even worth explaining to him the inconsistency of this comparison. This poor janic is completely upset.
Besides, I wonder if some time ago, he did not do a little "internship" to heal himself. Did the weather really have something to do with his absence ....?
If yes, strongly the next storm ..... !!


Health-pollution-prevention / vaccination-and-health-for-or-against-t11411-720.html # p331269

[Janic]

This poor janic is completely upset.

like the whistleblowing doctors that I quote and then, it's normal I am hyper vaccinated! It drives you crazy!

Besides, I wonder if some time ago, he did not do a little "internship" to heal himself.

Hush, don't say it! It can damage my reputation!

The weather may not have had much to do with his absence ....?

Damn then, I have an absence on this point there!

Deeply the next ...... thunderstorm .....?!

No ! Roll on the next garage…. ! and then better is worth a computer failure than a computer failure for the 120.000 cancer patients who might not have been and only 4% who survived 5 years due to ineffective treatments.