All cancer patients!!

[flamingjimmy]

[/color]If there were savings available, the govt wouldn't necessarily go for it- think of the proven savings available from legalising drugs (no profits going to criminals, virtual elimination of drug crimes and the associated expenses, far less overdoses (due to the drugs being regulated and of fixed quality) etc, etc; yet they still remain illegal.

 

Yeah but the reason no serious politician will legalise drugs is because it would be political suicide to do so because so many people have ignorant views on the matter.

 

In contrast if Cameron came out and said 'the tories are going to cure cancer' and then he did it, then they'd probably have the mandate to govern for years and years.

[geared]

Not only that, if he then showed Labour had intentionally covered it up when they were in power then that party would quite probably be disbanded.

 

and vice-versa if Labour get in this year (Jokes!!)

[onewheeldave]

Yeah but the reason no serious politician will legalise drugs is because it would be political suicide to do so because so many people have ignorant views on the matter.

 

And yet more than 50% of the UK population favour a review of the current drug laws. So a review of drug laws clearly wouldn't be political suicide. Yet no review seems to be forthcoming

 

As for legalising drugs, given the overwhelming actual evidence showing the pros of it, a political marketing campaign based on pushing out that evidence could be quite plausible.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2015 at 17:36 ----------

 

So what are you trying to say?

 

I'm saying that the statistics about the 'benefits' of chemo (and several other medical procedures) are routinely over sold to vulnerable patients.

 

For whatever reasons, the medical establishment clearly wants patients to undergo chemotherapy, when, if the facts concerning it's efficacy were presented without the distortion of 'relative risk', many of those patients would be turning it down.

 

If the absolute benefits equate to a 1% better chance of survival, why be quoting 50%- as a 'relative risk' 50% is technically accurate, but clearly it's pretty misleading. As the quoted research shows, the patients are generally wanting the actual facts, not the 'relative risk'.

 

The average cancer victim is probably too scared and vulnerable to be embarking on a study of convoluted statistical theory before they can make their decision- why not just give them the simple truth, which is that, in that case, taking the chemo (and all it's side effects) will give them a 1% better chance of surviving over a given period?

[tinfoilhat]

And yet more than 50% of the UK population favour a review of the current drug laws. So a review of drug laws clearly wouldn't be political suicide. Yet no review seems to be forthcoming

 

As for legalising drugs, given the overwhelming actual evidence showing the pros of it, a political marketing campaign based on pushing out that evidence could be quite plausible.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2015 at 17:36 ----------

 

 

I'm saying that the statistics about the 'benefits' of chemo (and several other medical procedures) are routinely over sold to vulnerable patients.

 

For whatever reasons, the medical establishment clearly wants patients to undergo chemotherapy, when, if the facts concerning it's efficacy were presented without the distortion of 'relative risk', many of those patients would be turning it down.

 

If the absolute benefits equate to a 1% better chance of survival, why be quoting 50%- as a 'relative risk' 50% is technically accurate, but clearly it's pretty misleading. As the quoted research shows, the patients are generally wanting the actual facts, not the 'relative risk'.

 

The average cancer victim is probably too scared and vulnerable to be embarking on a study of convoluted statistical theory before they can make their decision- why not just give them the simple truth, which is that, in that case, taking the chemo (and all it's side effects) will give them a 1% better chance of surviving over a given period?

 

But what about the above average cancer victim? A medical professional? Do you know what they do, on average? Much the same as the rest of us I'll bet!

[onewheeldave]

But what about the above average cancer victim? A medical professional? Do you know what they do, on average? Much the same as the rest of us I'll bet!

 

I've got no more idea than you what medical professionals tend to do.

 

I am aware that many doctors are now refusing to undergo, for example, colonoscopies (and recommending their patients also refuse) due to the fact that actual evidence shows the risks to far outweigh the considerable risks. Yet the profession as a whole, continues to endeavour to persuade vulnerable, scared patients into undergoing the procedure.

 

I can give you names of respected and established doctors who consider statins to, in most cases, cause more harm than good. Meanwhile the medical profession as a whole continues to dish them out like smarties (along with antidepressants and several other profitable pharmacutical products).

 

When it comes to cancer, I don't know what medical professionals do when it affects them- in my previous posts I was more concerned about the average non-medical professional, as they clearly will tend to have no grasp on what the 'relative risk' actually is, nor will they likely receive an explanation from their doctor. They will thus likely make a decision that, if they did know what relative risk actually was, they quite possibly would not have made.

[medusa]

 

I'm saying that the statistics about the 'benefits' of chemo (and several other medical procedures) are routinely over sold to vulnerable patients.

 

For whatever reasons, the medical establishment clearly wants patients to undergo chemotherapy, when, if the facts concerning it's efficacy were presented without the distortion of 'relative risk', many of those patients would be turning it down.

 

If the absolute benefits equate to a 1% better chance of survival, why be quoting 50%- as a 'relative risk' 50% is technically accurate, but clearly it's pretty misleading. As the quoted research shows, the patients are generally wanting the actual facts, not the 'relative risk'.

 

The average cancer victim is probably too scared and vulnerable to be embarking on a study of convoluted statistical theory before they can make their decision- why not just give them the simple truth, which is that, in that case, taking the chemo (and all it's side effects) will give them a 1% better chance of surviving over a given period?

 

What you may not be aware of, if you haven't been through it yourself, is that I've never met an oncologist who will go into any sort of numbers for risk or benefit at all. The closest I've ever managed to get any of them in terms of assessing risk for a procedure or chances of survival in circumstances was the explanation (as though I needed one) that giving me a chances of survival was pointless because a 20% risk is not really 20% for one person- it either happens or it doesn't.

 

They did consent to give me a fact sheet which explained how many people would develop side effects out of every 1000 people given the treatment, and then gave me the choice of what to do- at no point was I pressured to take any medication, radiotherapy or chemotherapy. In fact, given the risks discussion that one has before commencing radiotherapy, quite the opposite.

 

There are people who will seize anything that they think may work to give them valuable extra time alive, and there are people who will query things very hard in order to work out whether they are in the position of having a tumour which is truly curable, or one which can be managed for a long spell, or one which is likely to be a one way street in the end, and who decide to let nature take its course and try to have good quality in the time they have left instead.

 

I was lucky- my tumour only took the use of my right arm, 3 operations, a huge course of radiotherapy and 8 years of assorted chemo to kill it (we hope).

[geared]

If you think 'going your own way' is good, and that the medical profession is all a big con and a cover-up.

 

Just look at Steve Jobs, see how well that worked out for him.

[onewheeldave]

If you think 'going your own way' is good, and that the medical profession is all a big con and a cover-up.

 

Just look at Steve Jobs, see how well that worked out for him.

 

Healthy living and healthy eating simply lower the odds of getting cancer- there's no way to guarantee not getting it.

 

Here's Dr John Mcdougals take on Steve jobs cancer-

 

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2011nl/nov/jobs.htm

 

Not that it is that relevant to the aformentioned that that the medical profession, for whatever reason, routinely answers patients requests for statisitical info about chemo by quoting misleading and confusing 'relative risk' stats.

[geared]

Here's Dr John Mcdougals take on Steve jobs cancer-

 

Job’s Vegan Diet Prolonged His Life

 

Says the man who's career is built around trying to convince people that disease can be prevented and treated with a vegan diet.

 

:suspect::suspect:

 

Jobs died from a form of cancer that is rarely fatal if treated appropriately, he put off appropriate treatment for nearly a year choosing instead to eat a 'special diet'.

 

but the time he realised it was a crock of **** things were out of his control.

[onewheeldave]

Jobs died from a form of cancer that is rarely fatal if treated appropriately, he put off appropriate treatment for nearly a year choosing instead to eat a 'special diet'.

 

but the time he realised it was a crock of **** things were out of his control.

He lived 20 years with pancreatic cancer, without any conventional treatment (surgery/chemo/radiotherapy)- suggesting something about his lifestyle was actually pretty good.

Says the man who's career is built around trying to convince people that disease can be prevented and treated with a vegan diet.

 

Nevertheless, he's a qualified doctor of long standing with, a good track record of curing his patients with dietary interventions (along with weaning them off long term drugs like statins etc).

 

He promotes a plant based low-fat diet due to the huge amount of evidence and scientific nutritional studies that indicate it's efficacy.

 

I'll admit that there's also plenty of evidence and scientific nutritional studies showing the exact opposite as well- but that's the state of nutritional scientific research at the moment, and a reason why I personally don't place too much stock in any of it: when large numbers of equally qualified nutritional 'experts' in 2 camps argue for logically contradictory conclusions, to me, that's a sure sign that somethings deeply flawed in the system.

 

You, however, presumably place great stock in scientific studies run by 'experts', so you'll presumably understand why Dr McDougal is so swayed by them.

 

As are Drs Ornish (responsible for treating Ex-president Clinton when he had several heart bypass ops- by putting him on a dietary intervention (low fat vegan) and getting him off statins) and Dr Caldwell Esselstyn.

 

As are Dr Gregor (of nutritionfacts.org- a repository of references to vast amounts of studies and scientific evidence in favour of plant based low fat low animal produce diets) and many other qualifed MDs influenced by the evidence.

Edited March 5, 2015 by onewheeldave