Posted on 05/09/2019 2:13:31 PM PDT by Red Badger
Yeah - if they wanted to necessarily kill the child in the womb, they can do it even though you don't like it...now that they are "legal humans" the parents should be able to mete out a death sentence at will....riiiiight?
Next up a parent decides to deny his child food and inhalers because the has asthma....
And what's the only question most people ask? "Is it insured?""
Where exactly is the conflicting information? It’s called the internet.
https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-chemo-end-of-life-20150724-story.htm
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/chemotherapy-study-cancer-patients/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(16)30383-7/fulltext
So it is obvious at this point you worship the lab coat. Your bellicose response is that of a challenge to faith not a true interest in truth.
I did not link to the study above because I mistakenly thought you were serious about the subject, and the subject precludes some level of intelligence way past operation of a internet search.
Besides it does no good to do a trolls homework for them, the dont bother following links.
There, bellicose back at ya.
If you ever do actually develop an interest in the subject beyond mere opinion I would love to discuss it with you. Cancer is a fascinating phenomenon, and real inroads have been made in treatment inside and outside of the medical industry.
I missed that. Thanks. I watched a friend go multiple rounds of chemotherapy and it was truly brutal. And innefective.
Way can the Femi-nazis say, “It’s my body, so don’t tell me what to do with it!”, but people who are against vaccines or other invasions of their body can’t?..................
If they can overrule the POTUS then parents are a breeze..............
If cannabis had any anti-cancer properties, Jamaica would be cancer free..................
Because they don't get it. It all goes back to the Eugenics movement. I wonder how many people get the big picture, that we are the playthings of the Illuminati Elite, to whom we're a herd that needs to be optimized.
I'd guess that statement qualifies me as a conspiracy theory extremist. Whatever.
I see a black helicopter in your future.........................
Please look up St Judes Research Hospital, Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. I was in cancer detection for over 40 years. The ‘cure rate’ (remission for 10 years) was very low when I went into my field, but the strides in treating young people have been amazing. I know I’m old, but back in the 70’s there was a toddler named Chad Green in Boston. His parents secreted him away to Mexico for ‘alternative treatment’, Laetrile and a ‘special diet’. He died a few months later. Back then he WAS getting the best possibility of living. It was heartbreaking to read the story when he died. The survival rate in the 70’s was about 50% (so much higher than when I was young in the 50’s, and knew a family who had lost a son to childhood leukemia). Now in 2019, the cure rate is above 90%. If a family believes Christian Science, conventional medicine is often not the route they want to take. I understand that. But conventional medicine is the BEST WAY to fight most cancers. No matter the patient’s age.
That sounds like the movie ‘Lorenzo’s Oil’.................
I think you missed the point.
The parents objected to that type of treatment, they wanted to do alternate treatments.
As an adult, the doctor can make treatment recommendations, but cannot force you to have any one particular treatment.
For children, the parents are the decision makers, not the doctor.
There is a multitude of conflicting information about chemotherapy, Recent medical studies indicate that chemotherapy actually reduces the chances of surviving cancer.
Okay, now for your references that supposedly support your claim:
LA Times--woefully inept as a purveyor of news; definitely not a scientific journal of any repute. Not going to waste my time on it.
thefreethoughtproject.com--sounds like one of those not quite reputable websites that proliferate on the internet; definitely not a reputable scientific journal. Not wasting my time on this one, either.
The Lancet--at last, a real scientific journal, one which has a good reputation and a phenomenal impact factor of 47.831. The only problem here is that the statistical study linked in no way supports your original claim that chemo reduces the chance of surviving cancer. All it did was to determine the number of people who had one of two types of cancer and who died within 30 days of a round of chemo. Not surprisingly, more people whose cancer was highly advanced died than did people with less advanced cancers. The overall death rate was actually quite low, especially considering that many of those people had stage 4 terminal disease.
Also, I must point out that a single statistical study does not make for a "multitude of conflicting information."
In order to demonstrate that your claim is true, there would have to be a controlled study in which one group of patients receives no chemo and a matched group does receive the gold standard of chemo care for their cancer. No IRB would ever approve such a study, since the control group would almost all die and it is unethical to withhold treatment when an effective treatment exists. We can do these kinds of studies in animals, and the animal studies do show that the animals who receive the chemo survive longer.
Last, I must comment that I do not think the word "bellicose" means what you think it means. I relay information in as objective a manner as possible, in the way I was taught when I was studying to be a scientist. I'll also point out that I've actually studied cancer biology, so I do have a decent understanding of the disease.
I live with long term complications from chemo therapy but I live. I thank God for the ingenuity he put into man. The drive for success. The passion for answers.
Thank you lord for your many messengers. I got to see my children graduate high school, graduate college. Get masters degrees. I hope, God willing, to see grandchildren. As much complication I have, I thank you lord for the researchers, doctors, nurses, and chemical companies. My diagnosis was a death sentence. I’m still here and can appreciate how God created man in his own image to keep answering hard problems with the intellect he gave to mankind. Is it perfect - no. Is it real - yes. All glory to God. All thanks to the thousands / millions who fight the fight.
This debate is like seat belts. They work. People (like me) don’t always use them but the fact is they work more often than not.
Parents too stupid to use car seats, seat belts, vaccines and modern medicine are foolish. To a point they have a choice but then they don’t.
DLBCL bulky Stage IV B symptoms @ 37. 12 Year’s more than I deserve. All praise be to God and many thanks to men and women in oncology/research. people told me the big pharmacy lie. They never had an alternative that was tested and objective results published. I’m still standing and still kneeling to say thanks to so many.
To the crazy cancer big pharmacy idiots - FU!!!!! I’m here. I’m cured. I’m still paying taxes. I win!
But never argue with idiots. It just doesn't’t work because they are idiots to begin with.
The Lancet was a short layman’s summary of the study. The study indicated the premise that the introduction of chem at the terminal stages not only reduced significantly the quality of life but statistically reduced the length.
Perhaps you should have read it. It’s why I am wroth to spend the time linking sites on my phone, it takes me far more effort than you put into it.
If you had not indicated an interest in the study I would have not have responded to your bellicose shaming on the subject, I would have just considered you another close minded idiot.
But, you read the study! BRAVO!
Do keep in mind that was one quick search, and hopefully you were rewarded for your effort by learning something worth while. Chemotherapy is not always the best choice. See the value of discourse outside your approved peer circle?
I value your opinion, at least once you put your brains behind it instead of your brawn.
Do you respect scientific studies done by other countries? Some lead to fascinating branches of possibilities.
I know very well that the idiots refuse to be swayed by facts and that they misrepresent expertise as being in bed with the pharma industry or whatever their bogeyman of the day is. The reason I engage in these discussions is that the explanations I carefully compose also reach other people who learn something from it.
I figure that my Ph.D. cost over $100,000 of taxpayer money. Giving this information without any expectation of financial compensation for my time is my way of "giving back" to the taxpayers who financed my education.
Perhaps you should have read it. It’s why I am wroth to spend the time linking sites on my phone, it takes me far more effort than you put into it.
Um, The Lancet is a highly respected medical journal, written for an audience of scientists and medical practitioners (meaning that I am, by education and profession, one of its target audience). It does not in any way target the layman. Nor was that particular article you linked a "short layman's summary of the study." It was a detailed description of how the authors selected patient-derived data points for their analysis, the explanation of their assumptions (the upfront criteria by which they would interpret the statistical analysis), and the results of the statistical number crunching itself. It did not include the data files from SPSS which may or may not be available upon request by other researchers who wish to examine the data.
Out of the links you provided, the Lancet statistical analysis was the only one I read, and I said exactly why I did not read the other links. Perhaps if you would read more carefully, you would have ascertained that.
The only reason I would read a mass media (i.e. layman's summary) of a study is to try to determine the actual source of the summary so that I can review the original medical publication. Very often, the interpretation given to a study by the non-scientist reporter is flat-out wrong--much like your assertion that this statistical analysis showed that the quality and duration of life of cancer patients is significantly decreased by chemo. There is not a single aspect of the statistical analysis that would lead to this conclusion.
If an analysis of the outcomes of a shock-trauma unit determines that 15% of its patients die, and that another 43% are disabled, does that mean that shock-trauma units kill and maim people? Because that is exactly your assertion with respect to cancer patients and chemo. Cancer is deadly; it requires aggressive treatment in order to give the patient any chance at all of survival.
Instead of attacking chemo, how about providing links to legitimate scientific studies that show the efficacy of "alternative treatments." Surely, if CAM is effective, there must be thousands of studies documenting that fact.
I would have not have responded to your bellicose shaming on the subject
Once again, I do not think the word "bellicose" means what you think it means. I am a scientist, and I speak scientificese, which is an impartial language but is in no way belligerent (synonym: hostile).
Sorry, I meant the free thought project, it was the article about the study pointing out the conclusions of the study you missed.
I see free thought is not your thing... too bad. No intellectual discourse is possible when science has settled down to doctrine. Just ask Copernicus.
Wrong.
That "Free Thought Project" article might have linked the Lancet Study, but the claims of its author have nothing to do with what was published in The Lancet. In fact, I'm going to go so far as to say that the "Free Thought Project" author is counting on the fact that the study published in The Lancet is targeted at a highly educated, scientifically literate audience and is therefore unlikely to be read, much less understood, by the audience that "Free Thought Project" is targeting.
What the "Free Thought Project" article most certainly is not, is a layman's description of a complicated study.
Let me repeat what I said in a post above: the statistical analysis published in The Lancet does not give ANY information on relative death rates with versus without chemo. It only documented deaths that occurred within 30 days of the last round of chemo, and broke out how those deaths were distributed among various groups of patients. Not surprisingly, those who were the most sick had the highest death rates.
Cancer is a deadly and serious disease. The fact that many people succumb to it despite treatment does not mean that the treatment is to blame. It means that the disease is too deadly and aggressive to be reliably stopped at our current level of medical knowledge.
Let me ask again, since you did not answer before: If an analysis of the outcomes of a shock-trauma unit determines that 15% of its patients die, and that another 43% are disabled, does that mean that shock-trauma units kill and maim people? In other words, are severe trauma patients better off if you just slap a Band-Aid on them and avoid subjecting them to the severe treatment they will receive at the hands of the shock-trauma staff?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.