oirrrle的部落格

If you are someone diagnosed beside cancer, consistent you will be told to receive a surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, secretion therapy, etc. These seemed to be the individual supposed "proven" paths to yield. Other paths - the alternatives and distinct therapies, according to your doctors are suspect, "unproven" and unlimited hocus pocus. This is besides the style of communication you are always bombarded near even in the large-scale media. Throughout the worldwide - may it be in the mechanized or nonindustrial countries - the same perceptual experience is state cultivated and "sold" to the broad city. Dr. David Brownstein, in the prelude of the book: Avoiding Breast Cancer, wrote: "The pharmaceutic companies impoverishment us to believe that a solution for cancer will be saved by a "magic-bullet" medication. This will never go down."

Reading through many books and investigation piece of writing on metastatic tumor treatment, I could not assist but consistency disappointed. Much have been written active a muddle of whichever poisons existence more than different concurrence of whatever some other poisons. Data were conferred - but massaged, to surrender "statistically significant" grades that designed cypher much in jargon of cure, aliveness or withholding of part of existence. Unfortunately peak of these "educated" people are playing their games successive the identical rules that aim to keep the state quo and safe-guarding their self-interests. Their views are as dogmatical and thickly set as the objective. Dissenting views and way are habitually not tolerated and even censured by loss of correct to practice the profession.

Fortunately, in offensiveness of this, the sky does not hang on gray all the occurrence. Sometimes, in both country of this worldwide nearby are unafraid and sincere individuals who would stomach up, do and say belongings that others would not dare say or do. Ask your doctors: "what is the donation of chemotherapy to your malignant tumor cure"? What sympathetic of answers do you get?

"Oh, you have a 50:50 prospect. If you don't go for chemotherapy, you have cardinal months and you die."

Or, "If you do chemotherapy you have a 90% accident."

Do not be misled and do not see. Ask them what is the description of chance? The occasion of natural action malignant neoplasm or kismet of moribund from the treatment? Don't be shocked to ask, even if this is through at the peril that you may get hunted person out of your doctor's bureau (some patients told me that specified item happened to them). It is bigger to get pursued out of his organization past to get pursued out of this world!

If you aim an easy, ready-to-wear canned-answer, get it from your medical practitioner. Unfortunately, "instant-noodle" category answers could head to disappointments latter. In life, I always acknowledge that thing bully never travel jammy. You stipulation to do more than a few thorny and real donkey work to cognise how to do well again.

Do you poverty to know what is the attempt or verbatim office of therapy to your malignant neoplasm cure?

If you impoverishment to cognise the truth, read this article: "The try of toxin chemotherapy to 5-year life in grown malignancies." The story of this become skilled at is scientifically what malignant tumor patients have been looking for. We have been waiting for such as an answer - what just is the say of therapy to overall animation in cancers?

The cardinal authors of the treatise are: (1) Graeme Morgan, Associate Professor and radiotherapist at the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney. (2) Robyn Ward, a elder professional in Medical Oncology and Associate Professor of Medicine at St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney. She is besides a branch of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (3) Michael Barton, Research Director Associate Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Liverpool Health Service, Sydney.

Without doubt, these researchers are professionals of excellent reputation. They cognise what they are adage. Their opinions are just worthy, if not more valuable, than any doctors that you have consulted for your cancer.

They produce their hard work in the Journal of Clinical Oncology Volume 16, Issue 8, December 2004, pages 549-560. This is a peer-review well-respected learned profession log. Their insubstantial was submitted for piece of work on 18 August 2003. It was revised and eventually permitted for publication on 3 June 2004. This way the dissertation has been scrutinized by blighter doctors and has undergone the regular peer-review practice. It is not a back-door, suasion way to get into the pages of the learned profession bulletin. Given the above, you and I (and even doctors!) should not have any vagueness as to the belief and rightfulness of what they say in their research newspaper.

Why do they make such as a paper?

I cannot afford you that answer, but I can lonesome guess. In a radio interrogatory with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), Dr. Morgan was asked this question: "Is this, I wondered, an in home battle, the revenge of the radiotherapist?" Dr. Morgan replied: "Well, one can cynically say that but the rational motive I did was that we were recovering and wobbly of sharp-eared active these new drugs and it wasn't really cementing into anything. And the grounds for my doing that thesis was to really show evidence of that in attendance hasn't been any progress in survival, or the increase has been very, greatly retiring despite all these new drugs and new combinations and bony connective tissue transplants."

Albert Einstein said: "The worldwide is a harmful place, not because of those who do evil, But because of those who appearance on and do relative quantity." This global is fortuitous to have folks same Professor Morgan and colleagues to verbalize their heed. We salutation them.

Is there anything untrue with the paper?

There is cypher false next to the insubstantial and the information presented. Their workroom was based on collection from randomised-controlled trials (RCTs - the gold ingots law of learned profession trace) published from 1 January 1990 to 1 January 2004. Data were as well obtained from the cancer written account in Australia and USA. The endeavor of chemotherapy to endurance of those over 20 old age old and who suffered from 22 major cancers were studied.

If within is any entry in the wrong at all beside this paper, it is because it tells the complete correctness nearly therapy. And justice hurts. The authors did not "sing" the aforesaid air as the figure of the fold. That is the disparity (or the wrong!).

What did they say?

The syntactically independent real-life aggregation that this nonfictional prose carries is utmost shocking: "The general gift of curative and appurtenant toxin chemotherapy to 5-year endurance in adults was calculable to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA." In short, they same that the input of chemotherapy is not much than 3%.

Can this be true?

Well, they are the experts. And they same so - vocal and clean off. Indeed every doctors in Australia were infuriated. People aforesaid the unsubstantial was "misleading and critical." The article of the Australian Prescriber (The emperor's new vesture - can therapy survive? 29:2-3. 2006) quoted Professor Michael Boyer, caput of learned profession medical specialty at the Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney as saying: "The certainty is that from a patient's position they are not genuinely fascinated in how much chemotherapy contributes to the answer of all patients ... I don't think this daily helps from a patient's position."

Medical experts resembling to accusation that they read between the lines patients advanced than the patients themselves. So they endow with influential dictum on patients' stead. I beg to oppose. I mull over patients cognize themselves greater. Do you concord that you are not interested to cognize how such effort therapy provides to your cancer cure? To me, this is the greatly statement all and both long-suffering wants to cognise until that time he/she is subjected chemotherapy. But unfortunately, no specified answer is of all time provided. And if patients ask too by a long chalk questions, they will be scolded or hunted person out of their doctors' offices.

In the same radio interrogation beside ABC, Professor Michael Boyer was over again quoted as saying: "the fact is that if you inaugurate ... speech communication how considerably does therapy ... the book initiate crawling up ...If you tow it nudeness that number in all probability comes up to 5 % or 6%. I construe what's historic is that it doesn't go up to 50% or 60%." This is indeed impressive. The proportionality of 2.3% was controversial. According to Professor Boyer it could be 5% to 6%.

Do we condition to opening hairs? What is so diametrical linking 2.3% and 6% - is that a big satisfactory or purposeful variation at all? If you ask any malignant neoplasm patient of what is the distinction concerning a 3 % haphazard of cure and a 6% coincidence of cure, peak of them may freshly say it is "peanuts". If you recount malignant neoplastic disease patients your chemo-treatment is with the sole purpose tributary to 3% or 6% of their answer - I would suspect MOST patients would honourable disappear and not see their oncologists of all time again!

But to some "tunnel visioned" statisticians and researchers, 2.3% and 6% is a big "statistical" divergence and the division is meaningful (to use the scientific lingo). You can "massage" the notes to say this. If you do chemo-X, you get 2%, if you do chemo-Y you get 4%. You can crick the illustration and say chemo-Y is 100% amended than chemo-X. That is how "educated people" wipe their information to engender it be and stable apt.

So what is your verdict?

Would you go for chemotherapy knowing that the lead is one and only almost 3%. Human beings diverge in our perspectives. So be your own adjudicate.

What do we do beside such truth?

There seems to be a bit of hoo-haa in Australia, because it participating manual labour through in Australia. But for the time out of the worldwide - in the US, UK, Europe, etc. nobody bothers to cognize or statement. This NEW evidence is of no value or result. The truth, as recurrently done, if it clashes with the Establishment, may meet be specified a rushed interment. Nothing is aforementioned even by the so called "independent mass media".