Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales has launched an alternative to Facebook and Twitter

[GrinchUtah]

You speak in absolutes, which is not conducive to civil discourse... but AFAIK, there is some truth in your comments. I think we all agree that chemotherapy is basically semi-targeted poisoning of a human body. I think we can all agree on THAT, at least.

People should be empowered to educate themselves and make their own decisions. Personally, if I had terminal cancer, or even just really advanced cancer... I'd rather get into Pain Management and Salvage The Time I Have Left, than subject myself to literal poison-based torture.

As noted, you'd be surprised that many chemo regimens these days are almost side-effect free (especially after the anti-side effect stuff is given, like anti-nausea and anti-diarrhea agents). They are NOT "literal torture."

Some of them still are very unpleasant. But this very much depends on the disease and the drugs and doses to be used. No generalization is possible.

 

[gamerk2]

Now, I didn't fact-check all those things you posted, but they sound about right. See, these are the kind of nuanced data/information that needs to be more widespread. Not just "chemo bad" or "chemo good", as MainStream Media often does with their sound bytes, or that well-meaning folks like @Markoni35 make it seem. The human body is complicated, and human medical science-tech isn't Quiet There Yet to make definitive statements one way or another.

Sadly, I doubt any of us here will live long enough to see mankind conquer the various forms of cancers...

That's why technical journals exist.

 

[Squid Surprise]

OK so I'm not expert, nor am I a doctor. However I read many science journals, some of then medical in nature. My understanding is: depending on the TYPE and AGGRESSIVENESS of the cancer, chemotherapy CAN often be worse than just letting the patient die. It's really the doctors' technical decision usually, but they still inform patients of the risks... it might work, it might not, the cancer might go into remission, it might come back sooner or later, the chemo might flat out kill that person... etc. There are many variables.

However one thing is certain beyond any scientific doubt: those chemicals are literally and intentionally, poisonous. It's the nature of the treatment. Poison the body in hopes that it kills all the cancer cells while leaving the body enough healthy cells/systems to repair and regenerate naturally.

Chemotherapy is - at least SHOULD be - considered the Last Resort.

Full disclosure: I lost my mother to brain cancer in 2005, even after 3 months of chemotherapy. It's painful to watch a parent slip away in such an undignified and painful manner, and I still get emotionally wrecked those memories come back.

So anyway.. with regards to what @Markoni35 said... he's technically correct. That is, from a certain point of view: if we read his comment without the tinge of "absolute-ism". This issue, much like the human body, is complicated and nuanced.

So to summarize... you have ZERO evidence that chemotherapy is more dangerous than cancer. And you are basing all of your own WRONG information on one personal case.

This is the same as those anti-vaxxers who say that "my friend got sick after taking the vaccination, so it must be dangerous"... please don't spread misinformation unless you have the evidence to back it up.

 

[Markoni35]

I'd love to see some evidence that chemotherapy is more dangerous than cancer... please provide....

So called "targeted chemotherapy" (which is the usual chemo nowadays) targets all fast-dividing cells. Because cancer cells are usually fast-dividing. So... no problems, right?

Well, problems. Because stem cells are fast dividing too. Cytostatic therapy kills everything that's dividing fast, including the capacity of body to repair itself. When the therapy is over, active cancer cells may be dead, but those dormant (or those new) will eventually activate. But this time there will be nothing in the body to prevent the attack, since immunity and repair "facilities" have been destroyed.

Another attack vector of chemo are lung alveoli. That's where a lot of chemos penetrate the membrane. Patients often say they "smell the chemo in their breath and have no taste or smell senses anymore". Lung alveoli have very thin and sensitive membranes. So thin that CO2 can exit through them, and O2 can pass through them into the blood. Aggressive chemotherapy, which often damages blood vessels, have no problems penetrating and burning those alveoli.

Chemotherapy isn't just killing the alveoli, but causing degenerative changes, which may cause a secondary cancer. So patient will now have a much worse problem - lung cancer. Which is incurable. Pharmaceuticals are hiding this fact by saying that "cancer has metastasized to lungs" but that's usually not the case. Because that cancer often stays contained in the original organ and then AFTER taking chemo, miraculously appears in the lungs.

So, by treating the primary cancer, which may not be that dangerous, one causes the secondary one which is incurable and lethal. Those who don't receive too much chemo may not get the lung cancer, but their vital body tissues (such as the ones that create stem cells) will be damaged. When the next wave of cancer attacks, it will storm through the body without resistance. That's why you often hear "he survived somehow, but then he died after the cancer appeared again". It reappeared because immunity was killed by the "cure".

Most of doctors, including oncologists, wouldn't give themselves or their beloved cytostatic therapies that they prescribe to their patients without remorse. If you ever get into that position, always choose surgery instead of chemo. If you can avoid chemo altogether, better for you.

 

[Squid Surprise]

So called "targeted chemotherapy" (which is the usual chemo nowadays) targets all fast-dividing cells. Because cancer cells are usually fast-dividing. So... no problems, right?

Well, problems. Because stem cells are fast dividing too. Cytostatic therapy kills everything that's dividing fast, including the capacity of body to repair itself. When the therapy is over, active cancer cells may be dead, but those dormant (or those new) will eventually activate. But this time there will be nothing in the body to prevent the attack, since immunity and repair "facilities" have been destroyed.

Another attack vector of chemo are lung alveoli. That's where a lot of chemos penetrate the membrane. Patients often say they "smell the chemo in their breath and have no taste or smell senses anymore". Lung alveoli have very thin and sensitive membranes. So thin that CO2 can exit through them, and O2 can pass through them into the blood. Aggressive chemotherapy, which often damages blood vessels, have no problems penetrating and burning those alveoli.

Chemotherapy isn't just killing the alveoli, but causing degenerative changes, which may cause a secondary cancer. So patient will now have a much worse problem - lung cancer. Which is incurable. Pharmaceuticals are hiding this fact by saying that "cancer has metastasized to lungs" but that's usually not the case. Because that cancer often stays contained in the original organ and then AFTER taking chemo, miraculously appears in the lungs.

So, by treating the primary cancer, which may not be that dangerous, one causes the secondary one which is incurable and lethal. Those who don't receive too much chemo may not get the lung cancer, but their vital body tissues (such as the ones that create stem cells) will be damaged. When the next wave of cancer attacks, it will storm through the body without resistance. That's why you often hear "he survived somehow, but then he died after the cancer appeared again". It reappeared because immunity was killed by the "cure".

Most of doctors, including oncologists, wouldn't give themselves or their beloved cytostatic therapies that they prescribe to their patients without remorse. If you ever get into that position, always choose surgery instead of chemo. If you can avoid chemo altogether, better for you.

Yes... we know what chemotherapy is... but where is your evidence that it is more dangerous than cancer?
This is where you provide links and/or references

 

[Markoni35]

It's not that easy to find official references against chemo, because chemo is bread and butter of pharmaceutical industry. And since both scientists and mass media earn money from pharmaceuticals, it's not that easy to attack them in public. Still, seems that more and more information about the true nature of chemo is leaking out:

https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/9/397/eaan0026

https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/tmds-aml-risk-chemo

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-study-breast-metastatic-albert-a7826461.html

http://www.pharmatimes.com/news/chemotherapy_causes_death_in_more_than_25_of_cancer_patients_986391

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849

 

[Squid Surprise]

It's not that easy to find official references against chemo, because chemo is bread and butter of pharmaceutical industry. And since both scientists and mass media earn money from pharmaceuticals, it's not that easy to attack them in public. Still, seems that more and more information about the true nature of chemo is leaking out:

https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/9/397/eaan0026

https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/press-releases/2018/tmds-aml-risk-chemo

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-study-breast-metastatic-albert-a7826461.html

http://www.pharmatimes.com/news/chemotherapy_causes_death_in_more_than_25_of_cancer_patients_986391

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849

None of those articles claims that chemotherapy is more dangerous than cancer!!

Here’s a quote from one of the articles YOU linked to...
“The study’s lead author Dr George Karagiannis told The Telegraph the findings did not mean cancer patients should avoid chemotherapy, but rather they should be monitored to check if the disease was spreading.”

Yes chemotherapy is dangerous - you are literally poisoning yourself in the hope that the cancer will die and let you recover from it... but the alternative is death from the cancer.... provided you have a competent doctor (one of your other articles merely concluded that junior doctors and residents not be allowed to prescribe chemo!), if you are prescribed chemo, you ought to take it as the alternative is probably a lot worse - death!

 

[CharmsD]

"We possess the digital rights of free speech, privacy, and security," said Sanger at the time.

No no no, instant no and extra no's for anyone making such a comment. If they want to take on FB have a fun trip, it's going to cost a lot.

 

[Markoni35]

Yes chemotherapy is dangerous - you are literally poisoning yourself in the hope that the cancer will die and let you recover from it... but the alternative is death from the cancer.... provided you have a competent doctor (one of your other articles merely concluded that junior doctors and residents not be allowed to prescribe chemo!), if you are prescribed chemo, you ought to take it as the alternative is probably a lot worse - death!

Thanks for reminding me. I said to myself a hundred times: "Don't ever help anyone". But my personality is stronger than me and I often catch myself fighting for people who actively refuse help. It's like trying to help someone who is drowning, just to discover he's actually committing suicide. Why am I helping people without being paid for it? I have no idea. Must be error in my program.

So, let me change my statements:

1. Chemotherapy is great. Don't ever go to a surgery if you can replace it with 24 doses of chemo.
2. GMO food is fantastic. I recommend it to everyone, especially children and older people.
3. Soy milk is the best thing ever made for women. Especially for pregnant women.
4. For children I recommend baby bottles made of plastic. Especially for baby boys.
5. Formula is a great replacement for breastfeeding. You don't want your children too smart.
6. Marijuana is healthy for you, it doesn't cause psychoses or cancer.

There, I'm giving my best not to help anyone.