Is cancer chemotherapy useful?

General scientific debates. Presentations of new technologies (not directly related to renewable energies or biofuels or other themes developed in other sub-sectors) forums).
Gébé
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 361
Registration: 08/08/09, 20:02
x 65

Re: Is cancer chemotherapy helpful?




by Gébé » 22/10/19, 07:50

QED
0 x

Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16841
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2273

Re: Is cancer chemotherapy helpful?




by Janic » 22/10/19, 07:57

QED
thanks thanks! I love the demonstrations that go down on the ground the dogmas of BP. : Cheesy:
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: Is cancer chemotherapy helpful?




by Moindreffor » 22/10/19, 09:17

how a treatment that does not act can be the cause of death
the cause of death is cancer that the treatment has not stopped, it's stupid to say that it is the treatment that is involved
to say that it is the treatment that is involved the person should die because of treatment and not cancer
already from a

to say that a better lifestyle would avoid cancers, that's statistics, it's a probability calculation, the risk of having a cancer is a proba where by combining different factors we arrive at a rate risk, diet and lifestyle are limiting factors, but just factors, so yes entering them into the equation we can reach the end at a lower rate and therefore by applying this rate to the population to a number of cancers less but it's statistical it's not real, it's a proba, so we do not talk about real people but virtual, so very different and absolutely not verifiable, it's just a number taken from a calculator

the healthy lifestyle will avoid a certain number of cancers but will not cure cancer, we will have just a few less patients, but we will always have patients who will have to be treated, so the good hygiene of life is not a solution to cure, it is a possibility to avoid

Janic will bring us his suit on the patient who after ... I knew the story before I knew Janic, I had already heard there is more than 20 years from the mouth of a nutritionist doctor, who said he could to cure me by the nutrition, but without suppressing my treatment, which for him was ineffective but that it was necessary to continue because nutrition was not guaranteed either, it absolutely did not convince me, when one treats people one believe in what we do or do not believe, the doctor who advised me this nutritionist and who applied it to the letter lost his wife cancer, was I right. ..

and as any proba, it does not have any real sense, a smoker has 50% risk of dying of a cancer, one can take 10 smokers and none dies, or all, but on the whole of the population we will have 50-50

the question of the current chemotherapy is that of the dose of chemo, not of the chemo itself, it is there also that a certain scientific baggage is necessary to understand the question, without treatment a cancer will not cure, except some rare spontaneous remissions

after cancer has been put into remission, medicine sometimes advocates the continuation of treatment, and that is where the question arises, whether or not the prosecution is beneficial, and with hindsight, because of course decline, it turns out that for some cancer, the benefit is not so important so medicine is asking the question whether to continue treatment and cause new cancer, or stop treatment and cure a possible recurrence is again there is a question of numbers and when in proba we arrive at the 50-50 we do between the human factor of the doctor who will lean on one side or the other, but we must know the context to speak about the subject

and for those who are wondering about chemotherapy know that I am treated regularly with drugs that are part of so-called chemotherapy treatments when we talk about cancer, but that in my case without cancer, I'm given the same but we do not talk about chemotherapy, so it's super effective at home, but I have no cancer so it does not matter : Mrgreen:

for info, I had 15 bolus, then quickly 6, then a new drug and I went to 2 then 5 years after 2 and 6 years later to 0,75 so the treatment evolves very little is the understanding of its evolving use, my recovery time is getting longer and my doses are decreasing

before to diagnose a relapse it took about 3 weeks, now 2j maxi, so with a better diagnosis, a better knowledge of the drug and its action, it is treated differently from where the new questions, but do not see a discount cause of the treatment as we might let you think by a bad reading of doctors' words, it's just that doctors always discuss how to treat by limiting the maximum treatments, so by minimizing the doses, so the need for you give me a dose or two, in my case, I was only injected with 0.75 dose instead of 2 and with better monitoring of the effects of the treatment that is now possible, it turned out that this reduced dose had desired effect, but in case of non efficiency I would obviously have injected a new dose, so yes I was avoided a heavier treatment because precisely it is effective

the doctors are not there to inject you max doses to grow the lobby pharma who naturally pay them handsomely as some might tell you
0 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16841
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2273

Re: Is cancer chemotherapy helpful?




by Janic » 22/10/19, 11:07

how a treatment that does not act can be the cause of death
You have not read well then! It is not the treatment that is THE CAUSE of death, but its inefficiency otherwise there would be no ... dead and that's because it's revealed ineffective that there are deaths. You better understand!
the cause of death is cancer that the treatment has not stopped, it's stupid to say that it is the treatment that is involved
Once again, one more, it is not the treatment that is the cause of death, but its inefficiencyotherwise there would have been no deaths. Do you understand better?
to say that it is the treatment that is involved the person should die because of treatment and not cancer
already from a
and rebelotte say that the treatment did not stop is to recognize his inefficiency.
to say that a better lifestyle would avoid cancers, that's statistics, it's a probability calculation, the risk of having a cancer is a proba where by combining different factors we arrive at a rate risk, diet and lifestyle are limiting factors, but just factors, so yes entering them into the equation we can reach the end at a lower rate and therefore by applying this rate to the population to a number of cancers less but it's statistical it's not real, it's a proba, so we do not talk about real people but virtual, so very different and absolutely not verifiable, it's just a number taken from a calculator
Oh no, not exactly: How can we know if this or that action plays a particular role on populations? Stupidly as it is for drugs! We start with a few cases, to target an isolated product, then we increase to more guinea pigs, and we control compared to a control group, then it is extended to the population concerned and we check its results, always compared to the group witness. Then, and only then do we compile statistics! this is what cancerologists are well aware that their care system can vary between 4% and 98% depending on the case; which gives a statistical average of 51%, which obviously does not mean anything in itself; but which characterizes the overall efficiency of the system. As we give an average age of the populations. So do not burn the steps!
healthy lifestyle will avoid a number of cancers but will not cure cancer,
If you were paying attention to the subject, the article, the articles, speak avoidance, no cure that is one other aspect. So if 120.000 are avoided, there is no cure or cure for a pathology they would not have.
we will have just a few less patients, but we will always have patients who will have to be treated, so the good hygiene of life is not a solution to cure, it is a possibility to avoid
Well, you've understood everything! To my left are the non-cancer patients, on my right the cancer patients who need to be treated. It's moving slowly, but it's moving forward!
Janic will bring us his suit on the patient who after ... I knew the story before I knew Janic, I had already heard there is more than 20 years from the mouth of a nutritionist doctor, who said he could to cure me by the nutrition, but without suppressing my treatment, which for him was ineffective but that it was necessary to continue because nutrition was not guaranteed either, it absolutely did not convince me, when one treats people one believe in what we do or do not believe, the doctor who advised me this nutritionist and who applied it to the letter lost his wife cancer, was I right. ..
You repeat yourself on ONE case ! What statistically has no value and even less on the other cases where it will have worked, it is necessary to proceed by comparison, not by sentimentalism!
and as any proba, it does not have any real sense, a smoker has 50% risk of dying of a cancer, one can take 10 smokers and none dies, or all, but on the whole of the population we will have 50-50.
Bad example! smoking, or alcohol, is not just about cancer, but about all of the interactions across the rest of the body:

SMOKING DISEASES ARE VERY NUMEROUS
> One in three cancers is caused by smoking. The best known is lung cancer, of which 90% of cases are linked to active smoking and 5% to passive smoking. Find out more
But other cancers are also caused by tobacco: throat, mouth, lips, pancreas, kidneys, bladder, uterus. Esophageal cancer is more common in association with tobacco and alcohol.
> Active smoking can also be the cause of cardiovascular disease: smoking is one of the main risk factors for myocardial infarction. Stroke, arteritis of the lower limbs, aneurysms, high blood pressure are also linked, in part, to tobacco smoke. Vascular involvement can also cause erectile dysfunction.
> COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, is mainly due to smoking. It can result in signs of chronic bronchitis (fatty cough for several months in winter), repeated bronchitis, or dyspnea (difficulty in breathing) which sets in gradually. This disease progresses to chronic respiratory failure if smoking is not stopped. Learn more.
> Other pathologies are linked or are aggravated by smoking: gastritis, peptic ulcers, type II diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, hypertriglyceridemia, eczema, psoriasis, lupus, infections ENT (Nose - throat - ears) and dental, cataracts and AMD (Age-related Macular Degeneration) can lead to blindness. Not to mention periodontitis, a gum disease that causes loosening and loss of teeth.
Smoking during pregnancy carries many risks for the pregnancy itself and for the development of the fetus. Learn more.


not to smoke and not to smoke, as a health care, eliminates all these aspects related to this consumption
the question of current chemotherapy is that of the dose of chemo,
like all poisons
no chemo in itself, that's also that some scientific background is needed to understand the question, without treatment cancer will not cure, except for a few rare spontaneous remissions
And crack, the conformist postulate. The scientific baggage in question is held by doctors oncologists or other specialties, does not bring everything to you!
There are indeed so-called spontaneous cures, without the reasons for these being sufficiently studied (which could give the solution of the problem besides). But your chemistry is turned only towards the resolution of the effects and little (except by the global hygiene) towards the causes. It's like watching the effects of a tsunami, a volcanic eruption, etc ... that can be avoided by displacing populations, to avoid the victims. Then there are the cures outside the conventional system, which are not spontaneous, but directed to other means and solutions. But who denied, challenged by those who oppose it, remain confidential and as it is confidential, it remains by obligation.
the doctors are not there to inject you max doses to grow the lobby pharma who naturally pay them handsomely as some might tell you
Oh, the image of Epinal! Physicians are performers according to what they have learned in college and practice in conscience. Would they have learned anything else, as in other countries with different medical cultures, they would apply their knowledge with the same zeal.
We must stop wearing on the backs of these, which is not their responsibility, nor on the backs of farmers who poison soil and plants, but who are not the chemists who have developed these products.
For BP this is another aspect of the problem, they are specialized in a particular sector that is petrochemical as others will be specialized on cluster bombs or anti-personal mines that will cripple children during and after the war. But we are in a type of society based on profit, not on humanism and these industries, like all the others, must ensure the sustainability of their business. on the economic plan (This is why they are not interested in orphan pathologies, without industrial interest and lost-time, since they must make profits, not losses). It is from this angle that the petrochemical lobby, which covers not only pharmacy but almost all aspects of our societies, is questionable. Not in the eyes of financiers who obviously reason in accounting and profitability, and whose powerful financial means provides them with almost impunity. Polluters, but more payers!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 978

Re: Is cancer chemotherapy helpful?




by GuyGadebois » 22/10/19, 12:18

Janic wrote: Once again, one more, it is not the treatment that is the cause of death, but its inefficiencyotherwise there would have been no deaths. Do you understand better?

Ah well! You have cancer, you do not do chemo, you die it's the fault of the disease. You have cancer, you do chemo and you die, it's the fault of the inefficiency of chemo. I understand it ....Image
It's like for the flu: You're vaccinated you die, it's the fault of the vaccine not effective, you m emers and you're not vaccinated, it's the fault of the virus!
0 x
“It is better to mobilize your intelligence on bullshit than to mobilize your bullshit on intelligent things. (J.Rouxel)
"By definition the cause is the product of the effect". (Tryphion)
"360 / 000 / 0,5 is 100 million and not 72 million" (AVC)

Gébé
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 361
Registration: 08/08/09, 20:02
x 65

Re: Is cancer chemotherapy helpful?




by Gébé » 22/10/19, 12:39

Janic wrote:as evidenced by the high number (157.000) of victims of cancer treatments

Janic wrote:It is not the treatment that is THE CAUSE of death, but its inefficiency otherwise there would be no ... dead and that's because it's revealed ineffective that there are deaths. s!

At least you are not subject to lumbago !! You have no problem to contort a shot in one direction, a shot in the other! : Lol:
And frankly, it is the sign of a sick mind to hold the reasonings that you hold; if chemo healed 90% of cancers - this is the case for some forms - you would find a way to say that it killed the remaining 10% : roll: !!!
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 978

Re: Is cancer chemotherapy helpful?




by GuyGadebois » 22/10/19, 12:41

Gébé wrote:if chemo healed 90% of cancers - this is the case for some forms - you would find a way to say that it killed the remaining 10% : roll: !!!

But it's true! The numbers do not lie.
Image
0 x
“It is better to mobilize your intelligence on bullshit than to mobilize your bullshit on intelligent things. (J.Rouxel)
"By definition the cause is the product of the effect". (Tryphion)
"360 / 000 / 0,5 is 100 million and not 72 million" (AVC)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16841
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2273

Re: Is cancer chemotherapy helpful?




by Janic » 22/10/19, 13:25

Gébé wrote:
if chemo cured 90% of cancers - this is also the case for certain forms
and even 98% according to the cited article- or only 4%.
you would find a way to say that she killed the remaining 10% : roll: !!!
you like to distort my words. I pointed out that for these remaining 10%, it would have proved ineffective and as you do not seem to have grasped the meaning of this term:

INEFFICACE, adj.
A. - Which is not effective, that does not produce the desired effect. Synon. helpless, inoperative, useless, sterile, vain;

https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/inefficace

But it's true! The numbers do not lie.
Image
Is this your new avatar? We will win at the change! : Cheesy:
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
pedrodelavega
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3034
Registration: 09/03/13, 21:02
x 613

Re: Is cancer chemotherapy helpful?




by pedrodelavega » 22/10/19, 18:45

Janic wrote:
you would find a way to say that she killed the remaining 10% : roll: !!!
you like to distort my words. I pointed out that for these remaining 10%, it would have proved ineffective and as you do not seem to have grasped the meaning of this term:
Nothing is distorted, that's exactly what you said: : Arrowd:
Janic wrote:as evidenced by the high number (157.000) of victims of cancer treatments
This is dangerous misinformation.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 16841
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 2273

Re: Is cancer chemotherapy helpful?




by Janic » 22/10/19, 19:42

janic wrote:
you would find a way to say that she killed the remaining 10% !!!
you like to say something. I pointed out that for these 10% remaining, she would have revealed ineffective and as you do not seem to have grasped the meaning of this term:
there is nothing wrong, that's exactly what you said:

janic wrote: as evidenced by the high number (157.000) of the victims of the anti-cancer treatments
once and not all of the following specifying that these treatments have proven ineffective which can not be disputed by anyone.
it is dangerous information.
If it had been repeated all the time, that was not the case. Now, as above, I say and repeat that it was indeed due to ineffectiveness of treatments on this portion of the population that still represents 157.000 individuals.
So it becomes you who makes dangerous misinformation by deceiving a possible reader who believes that this unique mention is representative of all other mentions. But if he reads all, he can make his own opinion!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré


Back to "Science and Technology"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 10 guests