Cancer, various tissues

Home
Cancer, Classification of cell types
HRT following breast cancer has positive outcomes
Lung cancer types and treatments
OBESITY increases cancer risk
Prostate cancer overview
PSA screening not recommended
Prostate conditions and examination
ELEVEN THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT PROSTATE CANCER
Hyperplasias and breast cancer risk
Gauging Breast Cancer Risk
Cervical Cancer

Victor Vaseraley
vaseraley-2-tigers.jpg

INTERNAL SITE SEARCH ENGINE by Google

2016 December British Medical Journal article confirms my dismal assessment of 90% of chemotherapies reproduced at http://healthfully.org/cat/id6.html 


 

THIS ANALYSIS IS APPLICABLE TO CHEMOTHERAPIES WHICH DON’T CURE CANCERS—ABOUT 90% OF THE VARIOUS CHEMOTHERAPIES DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO CURE TERMINAL PATIENTS.  Over-and-over again in reviewing the trade news there were articles covering NICE (UK drug regulatory agency) refusal to approve a new chemotherapy for their formulary, though they were approved for the US market.  NICE’s reason is that their price does not justifying the modest life extension in terminal patients (normally average under 3 months in the trial on terminal patients):  there are better allocations of budget dollars.  This is very trouble, since the trials are on terminal patients, but for most cancers the majority of patients when treatment is started are not terminal.  There is good reason to believe that 1) the chemotherapy will not reduce the number of patient who will progress from stages 1-3 cancers who will subsequently within the next 5 years be diagnosed with stage 4 (metastatic) cancer.  Secondly there is good reason to believe that those who will live more than 3 years, the poisonous chemical given will not just reduce the quality of their lives but also shorten their lives.  If diagnosed with metastatic cancer, I would at most have it removed or radiated.  The combination of minor extension and reduced quality of life entail that I would refuse chemotherapy. If not metastatic I would refuse the poisonous treatment.  In either cancer, the prudent course is to deny chemo. 


 


I have taken a long-hard look how pharma runs clinical trials and how regulatory agencies review the stage 3 clinical trials.  Simply put the trials are marketing tools, for confirmation click on link.   Reading the material I have posted you will understand why I would not follow the sincere recommendation of an oncologist.  After radiation or excision further treatment is not in the patient’s interest—with a few exceptions.  Oncologists are very good at selling their product.


 

The best treatment for a cancer is excision, or if not possible X-ray treatment.  For 90% of cancers aspirin is the best chemotherapy.  It stimulates the body’s necrosis factor for destruction of abnormal cells.  And in so doing it very significantly lowers the risk of undetected colonies of cancerous tissue becoming metastatic. It is well supported by dozens of journal articles, yet it has not entered into treatment protocols—such is the power of pharma.  There are 2 articles written by me on cancer a shorter and a long version; they educate and explain my thumbs 90% of chemotherapies.  Aspirin also in high dose reduces by about 50% the conversion of precancerous cells into cancer.  For this reason I have been taking one-to-two 325 mg aspirin tables since 1991.     

 

 

A major rewrite on the science of cancer is in process.  Cancer makes us on anaerobic, inefficient route for the production of the energy molecule ATP.  In most cases it involves the mutation of the mitochondria is that they cannot use oxygen cycle to produce ATP from glucose, and if metastatic a infusion of essential properties of marcophages has occurred.  The dependence on glucose in large quantities permits a ketogenic diet to starve the cancer cells and produce remission, and sometimes cure of metastatic or inoperable cancers. 



Looking for a topic, use Google Internal Search Engine

MEDICAL LINKS

This site is one of 3 sites maintained by California Skeptics

All with cool art and informative articles   11/27/16

 

#31 TABLE OF CONTENTS healthfully, over 1,200 pages downloaded per day.

 

#7  TABLE OF CONTENTS skeptically, over 8,000 pages downloaded per day.

 

#201 TABLE OF CONTENTS CURRENT NEWS , over 900 pages downloaded per day

 

#209 THE ARTISTS

 

# 220 POD CASTS & U-TUBE, for those who like the visual on skeptical issues

 

#158   RECOMMENDED GATEWAY PAGE  Gateway to the research on pharma and health

 

#152 RECOMMENDATIONS--CONCISE Bad drugs, good drugs, contra pharma

 

#161  RECOMMENDED HEALTHFUL Improving health including diet and nutritional science

 

#157 Video documentaries, mostly YouTube Healthful diet, bad pharma, GMOs etc. with description

 

 

 BUSINESS PROBLEMS:

#158   RECOMMENDED GATEWAY PAGE

#152  RECOMMENDATIONS--CONCISE Drugs to avoid and take

#159  RECOMMENDATIONS--LONG Topics developed

#160  RECOMMENDED EXPOSIING PHARMA Profits before people

#161  RECOMMENDED HEALTHFUL Nutrition in depth, diet myths, plus diets

#156  RECOMMENDATIONS NON-TECHNICAL SUMMATIONS  Simple info

#157  RECOMMENDED MORE BAD PHARMA More profits before people

#166  RECOMMENDED CRITICS

#175  RECOMMENDED DIETARY TOPICS BY JK  Concise non-technical

#167  RECOMMENDED ARTICLES ON DIET AND FOODS

#168  RECOMMENDED ARTICLES ON DIETARY ISSUES

#174  RECOMMENDED DIET TESTIMONIALS

#169 RECOMMENDED JOURNAL ARTICLES

#170 RECOMMENDED MORE JOURNAL ARTICLES

#172  RECOMMENDED DIET JOURNAL ARTICLES

#173  RECOMMENDED HEART ISSUES

#17    QUACKERY  (at skeptically.org)

#135  NSAIDS

#102  QUACK THEORIES & PRACTICES (at skeptically.org)

#41   MEDICAL CRAP

#130  MEDICAL CRAP MORE,

#132  IMAGINARY CONDITIONS

#134  ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE

#136  ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH

#137  DRUG NEWS--DISAPPOINTING

#141  BIG PHARMA AT WORK

#145  MANAGED HEALTH CARE

#146  FDA  Exposing the fašade of regulation

#147  FOR THE CHILDREN

#162  CORPORATE DRUGS

#150  BLOOD THINNERS AND ACETAMINOPHEN

#152 INDIGESTION DRUGS

#151  FAILED DRUGS

#159  CRITICS

                    

 

GENERAL INFORMATION:

#31 INDEX  

#35   HEALTH

#36   WOMEN'S MEDICAL ISSUES

#45   MALE HORMONE REPLACEMENT

#148  FEMALE HORMONE REPLACEMENT

#171  SEX

#154  FOOD

#50   ASPIRIN THE BEST NSAID

#133  THE HEART

#144  HEART MEDICATIONS & TREATMENTS  

#44    ON CANCER

#139  CANCER VARIOUS TISSUES 

#155 CANCER TREATMENTS

#165. CONDITIONS & TREATMENTS

#49    TOBACCO

#131   LONGEVITY

#143  OBESITY

#46    MEDICAL SCIENCE

#47    MEDICAL NEWS

#48    DRUGS AND CONDITIONS

#140   HEALTH & BODY

#138   DISEASES

#142   GERIATRIC PROBLEMS

#149  PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS

#163 NATURALISTIC TREATMENTS (positive)

#153 EFFECTIVE DRUGS

 

MISCELLANEOUS:   

#1 ENLIGHTENMENT

#32 HOME 

#37   BIOGRAPHICAL

#38   LINKS ELSEWHERE

#33  PROSE SATIRE

#34  RHYMED POEMS

#39  RHYMED POEMS ROMANTIC

#40  RHYMED POEMS MELONCHOLY

#42  RHYMED POEMS SOCIAL MESSAGE

#43  RHYMED POEMS SATIRE

#209 THE ARTISTS

#210 SHORT STORY, ETC.

 

 

 

e-mail to thinker@skeptically.org

 

There is grass root revulsion to the current corporate health industry, with pharma doing the most harm.  The best account of bad pharma is by Danish Prof. Peter Gotzsche in his 2013 book Deadly Medicine and Organised Crime:  How big pharma has corrupted healthcare.  Prof. Gotzsche’s book has won the British Medical Book Award given by the BMA (British Medical Association which is comparable to our AMA).  Further endorsement comes from the Richard Smith former Editor-in-Chief of the BMJ (British Medical Journal) and Drummond Rennie, Deputy Editor of JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association) which are 2 of the 4 leading English medical journal.   The President’s Lecture on YouTube by Harvard Professor Marcia Angell confirms Prof. Gotzsche’s book. Pharma is worse than you can imagine.       

Harvard Prof. Marcia Angell, MD. wrote:  We certainly are in a health care crisis, ... If we had set out to design the worst system that we could imagine, we couldn't have imagined one as bad as we have.”  Author of the Truth About Drug Companies, and former Editor in Chief of NEJM.  Her excellent lecture on YouTube presenting the evidence

iq-bell-curve.jpg

CHEMO THAT CAN’T CURE METASTATIC CANCER, THUS IT CAN’T CURE INDOLENT CANCER.  They are essentially the same but for the ability to fool the immune system. There is not an atypical positive response for a subgroup; those terminal patients have an indolent form of the cancer.  The term “Survival” applied to chemo means “delays death” a few months.  Like soldiers, doctors are believers, thus they sell their faith in chemo.

 

There is a sales pitch for chemotherapy based upon bad logic.  An example will make it clear.  The 2 year survival for untreated small cell lung cancer average is 9 month, with 95 dying within 2 years.  Chemo therapy adds to the bell curve 2 months.  Thus average survival is 11 months, and 95% die within 2 years 2 months.   Gertrude has small cell breast cancer, and would untreated live average of 9 months.  If she elects treatment, she will be dead in the 11th month.  Treatment doesn’t place Gertrude in the fortunate group of living over 2 years. 

If, for example a  stage 3 breast cancer (65% chance that it is metastatic) turns out to be metastatic  the results is the same with chemo, only now that person lives 2 months longer.  Chemo doesn’t convert doesn’t change the course of events.  Metastatic cancer is like a time bomb, set to kill its host after so many months.  For those who have an indolent non-metastatic cancer, the operation entails they are a cancer survivor.  If she is a survivor without chemo, electing chemotherapy, she shortened her life by years.  I estimate at least 4.5 years. Millions of people undergo pointless chemo that shortens their lives, and most of them falsely believe they are a survivor because of the chemo.     

For a in depth discussion of cancer basics without the spin of pharma including “hope’s hypothesis”

gonzalez-andrew-union-mystica.jpg


Much of the healthfully website has been devoted to who our healthcare system scams people.  Consider your doctor a sales person, and the literature and advice often not in your best interest.   We recommend a long hard look at the evidence in support of chemotherapy.  Remember that journal articles are positive biased--average over 30%.  Secondly the doctor and his employer have a financial incentive to push chemotherapy.  Third that most chemotherapy extend life only a few weeks and do not appreciable increase survival--jk.   Another British Medical Journal article estimates that only 10% of cancer cures can be attributed to chemotherapy, and most of that is in the few were the drug can actually destroy, rather than rest, the cancer’s growth, such as for a few types of  leukemia and testicular cancer. Finally in the push for the drug, the positive biased studies do not list absolute mortality only that from the treated cancer.  Balanced assessments are rare.  Good sources are Worstpill.org and Wikipedia.org.  If you want to make an informed decision, don’t rely upon those who have a vested interest.   

 

An example of the real costs of treatment:  The widely used breast cancer treatment trastuzumab have shown that it is necessary to treat 100 patients to prevent a single death.  But of those 100 patients 25 will develop heart disease because of the treatment.  The excess heart disease explains why it is necessary to treat 100 patients to save one life.  Is 1 life worth 25 cases of heart disease?  And what of those who will die after the 4 year study from heart disease?    

Enter secondary content here

lb-mudramandala.jpg

 “Drug companies have turned into marketing machines. They’ve kind of lost sight of the fact that they’re actually doing something which involves your health. You’ve got to take away the key components of the trials from drug companies.”  Thomas Marciniak MD, FDA Administrator at http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6980?etoc=

EACH PAGE HAS SEARCH ENGINE FOR THESE SITES supplied by Google BELOW

INTERNAL SITE SEARCH ENGINE by Google

Disclaimer:  The information, facts, and opinions provided here is not a substitute for professional advice.  It only indicates what JK believes, does, or would do.  Always consult your primary care physician for medical advice, diagnosis, and treatment. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^