Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why are most mfp users against holistic nutrition?
Replies
-
snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Trouble is, not all "holistic" treatments are without side effects. The side effects just aren't necessarily well documented.
Example: Many people don't want to take statins for high cholesterol, because of the side effects. Some of them decided to take red yeast rice instead, a natural, traditional Chinese medicine treatment. And it worked! Here's the rub: What made it work was that it contains lovastatin, same active ingredient as some of the statin drugs . . . but in a nonstandardized dosage, so you don't know how much of the statin you're actually taking. No side effects . . . really?
(Some red yeast rice supplements sold now in the USA have had the statin removed, after some brands made health claims and ran afoul of the FDA. Others make no claims, so who knows what they contain.)
P.S. I, too, didn't want to take a statin because of the side effects, and because I generally avoid non-recreational drugs when I find a good alternative. When other truly low side effect interventions (like eat more veg and MUFAs) didn't work, I lost 50+ pounds, which did work.6 -
I wonder if mathematician George Boole's wife was a believer in the holistic approach. I cringed when I read how he died:
"In late November 1864, Boole walked, in heavy rain, from his home at Lichfield Cottage in Ballintemple[37] to the university, a distance of three miles, and lectured wearing his wet clothes.[38] He soon became ill, developing pneumonia. As his wife believed that remedies should resemble their cause, she put her husband to bed and poured buckets of water over him – the wet having brought on his illness.[38][39][40] Boole's condition worsened and on 8 December 1864, he died of fever-induced pleural effusion." - wikpedia
Must.Resist.Boolean.Algebra.Joke.3 -
Mandygring wrote: »I wonder if mathematician George Boole's wife was a believer in the holistic approach. I cringed when I read how he died:
"In late November 1864, Boole walked, in heavy rain, from his home at Lichfield Cottage in Ballintemple[37] to the university, a distance of three miles, and lectured wearing his wet clothes.[38] He soon became ill, developing pneumonia. As his wife believed that remedies should resemble their cause, she put her husband to bed and poured buckets of water over him – the wet having brought on his illness.[38][39][40] Boole's condition worsened and on 8 December 1864, he died of fever-induced pleural effusion." - wikpedia
Or she disliked him lol
Which is worse; to be drenched by an earnest but ill-informed wife, or to be drenched by a wife with ill intent?3 -
snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Trouble is, not all "holistic" treatments are without side effects. The side effects just aren't necessarily well documented.
Example: Many people don't want to take statins for high cholesterol, because of the side effects. Some of them decided to take red yeast rice instead, a natural, traditional Chinese medicine treatment. And it worked! Here's the rub: What made it work was that it contains lovastatin, same active ingredient as some of the statin drugs . . . but in a nonstandardized dosage, so you don't know how much of the statin you're actually taking. No side effects . . . really?
(Some red yeast rice supplements sold now in the USA have had the statin removed, after some brands made health claims and ran afoul of the FDA. Others make no claims, so who knows what they contain.)
P.S. I, too, didn't want to take a statin because of the side effects, and because I generally avoid non-recreational drugs when I find a good alternative. When other truly low side effect interventions (like eat more veg and MUFAs) didn't work, I lost 50+ pounds, which did work.
I just need to clarify that I didn't say and don't think that there are no side effects to alternate medicine. I said that people "think" and "hope" that there are not because that's what they've been lead to believe. Therefore they are attracted to it. Also side effects are not as documented as standard medicine.
I just got back from a funeral. An 87 yr old woman that I saw in July. She seemed fine then. I would have guessed her to be much younger. A tumor was discovered this summer and she began chemo. She developed sores on her stomach from the treatment. Chemo continued, and there was no luck curing the sores. She became depressed and suffering. She died the other day. In this case what would you prefer--standard medical approach, holistic, or doing nothing?2 -
snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Trouble is, not all "holistic" treatments are without side effects. The side effects just aren't necessarily well documented.
Example: Many people don't want to take statins for high cholesterol, because of the side effects. Some of them decided to take red yeast rice instead, a natural, traditional Chinese medicine treatment. And it worked! Here's the rub: What made it work was that it contains lovastatin, same active ingredient as some of the statin drugs . . . but in a nonstandardized dosage, so you don't know how much of the statin you're actually taking. No side effects . . . really?
(Some red yeast rice supplements sold now in the USA have had the statin removed, after some brands made health claims and ran afoul of the FDA. Others make no claims, so who knows what they contain.)
P.S. I, too, didn't want to take a statin because of the side effects, and because I generally avoid non-recreational drugs when I find a good alternative. When other truly low side effect interventions (like eat more veg and MUFAs) didn't work, I lost 50+ pounds, which did work.
I just need to clarify that I didn't say and don't think that there are no side effects to alternate medicine. I said that people "think" and "hope" that there are not because that's what they've been lead to believe. Therefore they are attracted to it. Also side effects are not as documented as standard medicine.
I just got back from a funeral. An 87 yr old woman that I saw in July. She seemed fine then. I would have guessed her to be much younger. A tumor was discovered this summer and she began chemo. She developed sores on her stomach from the treatment. Chemo continued, and there was no luck curing the sores. She became depressed and suffering. She died the other day. In this case what would you prefer--standard medical approach, holistic, or doing nothing?
It's easy to answer questions like this when we know the outcome in advance (the treatment didn't work and actually made the rest of her life worse). But what if the chemo had gone well and she had, say, five more years to enjoy her life and family?
Instead of looking at individual cases, it would probably be more helpful to look at overall population results when making the decision. What, generally, are the outcomes for people over 85 who get chemotherapy? It could be the results show us that it is better for people over a certain age to decline chemotherapy (at least with some stages of cancer) and focus on making the rest of their lives as comfortable as possible. But that would be based on what many cases showed us, not a case of a particular woman where things didn't work out well.7 -
Mandygring wrote: »I wonder if mathematician George Boole's wife was a believer in the holistic approach. I cringed when I read how he died:
"In late November 1864, Boole walked, in heavy rain, from his home at Lichfield Cottage in Ballintemple[37] to the university, a distance of three miles, and lectured wearing his wet clothes.[38] He soon became ill, developing pneumonia. As his wife believed that remedies should resemble their cause, she put her husband to bed and poured buckets of water over him – the wet having brought on his illness.[38][39][40] Boole's condition worsened and on 8 December 1864, he died of fever-induced pleural effusion." - wikpedia
Or she disliked him lol
Which is worse; to be drenched by an earnest but ill-informed wife, or to be drenched by a wife with ill intent?
To him, functionally indistinguishable. To her, one is a desperate, but tragically failed attempt, and the other is a clear win.
Edited:typo2 -
snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Trouble is, not all "holistic" treatments are without side effects. The side effects just aren't necessarily well documented.
Example: Many people don't want to take statins for high cholesterol, because of the side effects. Some of them decided to take red yeast rice instead, a natural, traditional Chinese medicine treatment. And it worked! Here's the rub: What made it work was that it contains lovastatin, same active ingredient as some of the statin drugs . . . but in a nonstandardized dosage, so you don't know how much of the statin you're actually taking. No side effects . . . really?
(Some red yeast rice supplements sold now in the USA have had the statin removed, after some brands made health claims and ran afoul of the FDA. Others make no claims, so who knows what they contain.)
P.S. I, too, didn't want to take a statin because of the side effects, and because I generally avoid non-recreational drugs when I find a good alternative. When other truly low side effect interventions (like eat more veg and MUFAs) didn't work, I lost 50+ pounds, which did work.
I just need to clarify that I didn't say and don't think that there are no side effects to alternate medicine. I said that people "think" and "hope" that there are not because that's what they've been lead to believe. Therefore they are attracted to it. Also side effects are not as documented as standard medicine.
I just got back from a funeral. An 87 yr old woman that I saw in July. She seemed fine then. I would have guessed her to be much younger. A tumor was discovered this summer and she began chemo. She developed sores on her stomach from the treatment. Chemo continued, and there was no luck curing the sores. She became depressed and suffering. She died the other day. In this case what would you prefer--standard medical approach, holistic, or doing nothing?
Well yeah in that specific case she would have been better off not having taken the chemo. But life isn't about specific cases, life is about balancing risk versus reward and to do that you need to look at the larger picture. What is the likelyhood of survival for cancer for those undergoing chemotherapy versus those choosing not to.
Its like rolling dice. If you roll two dice then the most likely outcome is a 7. Pointing to someone that rolled a 2 doesn't somehow negate the fact that the most likely outcome is a 7. If you are going to roll those 2 dice and make a bet, what information would be more useful to you...the statistical analysis showing that of all recorded dice rolls 7 was the most common or the individual story of that time that person rolled a 2?6 -
Mandygring wrote: »I wonder if mathematician George Boole's wife was a believer in the holistic approach. I cringed when I read how he died:
"In late November 1864, Boole walked, in heavy rain, from his home at Lichfield Cottage in Ballintemple[37] to the university, a distance of three miles, and lectured wearing his wet clothes.[38] He soon became ill, developing pneumonia. As his wife believed that remedies should resemble their cause, she put her husband to bed and poured buckets of water over him – the wet having brought on his illness.[38][39][40] Boole's condition worsened and on 8 December 1864, he died of fever-induced pleural effusion." - wikpedia
Or she disliked him lol
Which is worse; to be drenched by an earnest but ill-informed wife, or to be drenched by a wife with ill intent?
Easy. Earnest but ill-informed is worse.
Ill intent might be predictable, and as such, means that a note can be left with a trusted friend or lawyer.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Trouble is, not all "holistic" treatments are without side effects. The side effects just aren't necessarily well documented.
Example: Many people don't want to take statins for high cholesterol, because of the side effects. Some of them decided to take red yeast rice instead, a natural, traditional Chinese medicine treatment. And it worked! Here's the rub: What made it work was that it contains lovastatin, same active ingredient as some of the statin drugs . . . but in a nonstandardized dosage, so you don't know how much of the statin you're actually taking. No side effects . . . really?
(Some red yeast rice supplements sold now in the USA have had the statin removed, after some brands made health claims and ran afoul of the FDA. Others make no claims, so who knows what they contain.)
P.S. I, too, didn't want to take a statin because of the side effects, and because I generally avoid non-recreational drugs when I find a good alternative. When other truly low side effect interventions (like eat more veg and MUFAs) didn't work, I lost 50+ pounds, which did work.
I just need to clarify that I didn't say and don't think that there are no side effects to alternate medicine. I said that people "think" and "hope" that there are not because that's what they've been lead to believe. Therefore they are attracted to it. Also side effects are not as documented as standard medicine.
I just got back from a funeral. An 87 yr old woman that I saw in July. She seemed fine then. I would have guessed her to be much younger. A tumor was discovered this summer and she began chemo. She developed sores on her stomach from the treatment. Chemo continued, and there was no luck curing the sores. She became depressed and suffering. She died the other day. In this case what would you prefer--standard medical approach, holistic, or doing nothing?
Well yeah in that specific case she would have been better off not having taken the chemo. But life isn't about specific cases, life is about balancing risk versus reward and to do that you need to look at the larger picture. What is the likelyhood of survival for cancer for those undergoing chemotherapy versus those choosing not to.
Its like rolling dice. If you roll two dice then the most likely outcome is a 7. Pointing to someone that rolled a 2 doesn't somehow negate the fact that the most likely outcome is a 7. If you are going to roll those 2 dice and make a bet, what information would be more useful to you...the statistical analysis showing that of all recorded dice rolls 7 was the most common or the individual story of that time that person rolled a 2?
Well Aaron, I'm 62 almost 63 (in 2 weeks), and in my small circle of family and acquaintances I've seen this happen with older people alot. I know, I know, you have to look at the statistics of people making it on chemo after a certain age bracket. Unfortunately the ones I knew suffered alot and died sooner. It makes me wonder who is advising them to take that step?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Trouble is, not all "holistic" treatments are without side effects. The side effects just aren't necessarily well documented.
Example: Many people don't want to take statins for high cholesterol, because of the side effects. Some of them decided to take red yeast rice instead, a natural, traditional Chinese medicine treatment. And it worked! Here's the rub: What made it work was that it contains lovastatin, same active ingredient as some of the statin drugs . . . but in a nonstandardized dosage, so you don't know how much of the statin you're actually taking. No side effects . . . really?
(Some red yeast rice supplements sold now in the USA have had the statin removed, after some brands made health claims and ran afoul of the FDA. Others make no claims, so who knows what they contain.)
P.S. I, too, didn't want to take a statin because of the side effects, and because I generally avoid non-recreational drugs when I find a good alternative. When other truly low side effect interventions (like eat more veg and MUFAs) didn't work, I lost 50+ pounds, which did work.
I just need to clarify that I didn't say and don't think that there are no side effects to alternate medicine. I said that people "think" and "hope" that there are not because that's what they've been lead to believe. Therefore they are attracted to it. Also side effects are not as documented as standard medicine.
I just got back from a funeral. An 87 yr old woman that I saw in July. She seemed fine then. I would have guessed her to be much younger. A tumor was discovered this summer and she began chemo. She developed sores on her stomach from the treatment. Chemo continued, and there was no luck curing the sores. She became depressed and suffering. She died the other day. In this case what would you prefer--standard medical approach, holistic, or doing nothing?
Thank you for clarifying your point of view. I think I understand better where you're coming from.
I don't have enough information to speculate what I would do in your deceased friend's shoes. I will say this:
With advanced, very painful esophageal cancer, already being fed via a stomach tube, my 45 year old husband chose to skip chemotherapy because his remaining life might be a bit longer, but still pretty miserable (just in a little different way). He decided to attempt radiation therapy in hope of reducing extensive tumors enough to reduce pain that was breaking through huge opiate dosages. I understood and supported his choice. He died shortly after, at home under my care, less than 6 months after initial appearance of symptoms, and about 2 weeks after clear diagnosis.
At 45 myself a couple years later, with stage III (locally advanced, locally metastatic, but not painful) breast cancer and a medium-crummy prognosis, I elected extreme surgery (one simple and one modified radical mastectomy), 6 months of distinctly sub-recreational chemotherapy (3 months of one type, 3 months of another), 6 weeks of every-weekday 5-field radiation therapy, and 7.5 years of anti-estrogen drugs. Oh, and 4 years of bisphosphonate drugs for osteopenia likely caused by the anti-estrogens.
I say this not for sympathy - past is past, long past in fact (I'm now 62), and I'm happy and healthy - but to give clear case that none of this is idle theory to me.
I've had friends - not super close, but close enough to know their details - elect alternative treatments that were costly, and failed, after conventional treatment was exhausted. I don't judge their choices . . . but I do judge anyone who knowingly sells false hope to desperate people. "Could have known" or "should have known" is nearly as cruel as "knowingly".
BTW, I would always support choices for effective palliative care, alternative or otherwise, at any point the person chooses for whatever reason. With stage IV metastatic breast cancer at 81, that was my mother's choice, and I supported that choice. She might have extended her life somewhat, but she felt the quality of life tradeoff was not worth it, for her. The residential hospice where she died used mixed modalities to make her as comfortable as possible, a great blessing to us all.
6 -
I've been on this thread so much that I get youtube ads for homeopathic "medicine".
Can we all at least agree that homeopathy is just plain and simply a scam?9 -
snowflake954 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Trouble is, not all "holistic" treatments are without side effects. The side effects just aren't necessarily well documented.
Example: Many people don't want to take statins for high cholesterol, because of the side effects. Some of them decided to take red yeast rice instead, a natural, traditional Chinese medicine treatment. And it worked! Here's the rub: What made it work was that it contains lovastatin, same active ingredient as some of the statin drugs . . . but in a nonstandardized dosage, so you don't know how much of the statin you're actually taking. No side effects . . . really?
(Some red yeast rice supplements sold now in the USA have had the statin removed, after some brands made health claims and ran afoul of the FDA. Others make no claims, so who knows what they contain.)
P.S. I, too, didn't want to take a statin because of the side effects, and because I generally avoid non-recreational drugs when I find a good alternative. When other truly low side effect interventions (like eat more veg and MUFAs) didn't work, I lost 50+ pounds, which did work.
I just need to clarify that I didn't say and don't think that there are no side effects to alternate medicine. I said that people "think" and "hope" that there are not because that's what they've been lead to believe. Therefore they are attracted to it. Also side effects are not as documented as standard medicine.
I just got back from a funeral. An 87 yr old woman that I saw in July. She seemed fine then. I would have guessed her to be much younger. A tumor was discovered this summer and she began chemo. She developed sores on her stomach from the treatment. Chemo continued, and there was no luck curing the sores. She became depressed and suffering. She died the other day. In this case what would you prefer--standard medical approach, holistic, or doing nothing?
Well yeah in that specific case she would have been better off not having taken the chemo. But life isn't about specific cases, life is about balancing risk versus reward and to do that you need to look at the larger picture. What is the likelyhood of survival for cancer for those undergoing chemotherapy versus those choosing not to.
Its like rolling dice. If you roll two dice then the most likely outcome is a 7. Pointing to someone that rolled a 2 doesn't somehow negate the fact that the most likely outcome is a 7. If you are going to roll those 2 dice and make a bet, what information would be more useful to you...the statistical analysis showing that of all recorded dice rolls 7 was the most common or the individual story of that time that person rolled a 2?
Well Aaron, I'm 62 almost 63 (in 2 weeks), and in my small circle of family and acquaintances I've seen this happen with older people alot. I know, I know, you have to look at the statistics of people making it on chemo after a certain age bracket. Unfortunately the ones I knew suffered alot and died sooner. It makes me wonder who is advising them to take that step?
Presumably their doctor.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »I've been on this thread so much that I get youtube ads for homeopathic "medicine".
Can we all at least agree that homeopathy is just plain and simply a scam?
I'm all in on that.1 -
snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Trouble is, not all "holistic" treatments are without side effects. The side effects just aren't necessarily well documented.
Example: Many people don't want to take statins for high cholesterol, because of the side effects. Some of them decided to take red yeast rice instead, a natural, traditional Chinese medicine treatment. And it worked! Here's the rub: What made it work was that it contains lovastatin, same active ingredient as some of the statin drugs . . . but in a nonstandardized dosage, so you don't know how much of the statin you're actually taking. No side effects . . . really?
(Some red yeast rice supplements sold now in the USA have had the statin removed, after some brands made health claims and ran afoul of the FDA. Others make no claims, so who knows what they contain.)
P.S. I, too, didn't want to take a statin because of the side effects, and because I generally avoid non-recreational drugs when I find a good alternative. When other truly low side effect interventions (like eat more veg and MUFAs) didn't work, I lost 50+ pounds, which did work.
Related to this is the complete lack of regulation for the "alternative" medicine industry.
You really don't know what is in that bottle of St. Johns Wort your downing daily as there is limited quality assurance or regulation required to sell it. And it becomes an issue when the filler itself is an allergen.
This is an article about one study, done back in 2013.
https://globalnews.ca/news/899174/herbal-products-contain-fillers-contaminants-omit-ingredients-on-labels-study/
A very limited study so they won't disclose the brands tested, but this was interesting.
"In one case, a product labelled as St. John’s wort was substituted with senna, a herbal laxative that is not meant for prolonged use as it can cause chronic diarrhea and liver damage among other things."
So not only is there no evidence these things actually do anything to help, there is a serious risk of harm.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »I've been on this thread so much that I get youtube ads for homeopathic "medicine".
Can we all at least agree that homeopathy is just plain and simply a scam?
Ehhhh...I don't know to be honest. When I think "scam" I think the people purveying said scam are doing so knowing it is a scam and knowing they are just fleecing you for money. I think a lot of these "holistic" and "alternative medicine" people are actually believers. Now they may be dogmatic in thinking and refusing to critically examine their beliefs but I still think most of them actually believe in what they are selling. Some of what they sell actually does have affect on symptoms, the issue is more that they act like it is a treatment for a disease when in fact it is not. Question is whether or not they believe it actually is.
I mean to me it is clear OP isn't entering into this arena hoping to scam people right? She seems to have good intentions. So I believe there are people like her who complete training, go on to become "doctors" and go on to prescribe things fully believing that they are helping. I also believe some of these people will turn around and teach these methods in schools again fully believing they work. At that point are they scamming?
I think there probably are some that know they are peddling snake-oil but do it anyways because money but I don't really think they are the majority. With that said I do think that investing in such things is a waste of time, effort and money so in that way you are getting "scammed".3 -
snowflake954 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Trouble is, not all "holistic" treatments are without side effects. The side effects just aren't necessarily well documented.
Example: Many people don't want to take statins for high cholesterol, because of the side effects. Some of them decided to take red yeast rice instead, a natural, traditional Chinese medicine treatment. And it worked! Here's the rub: What made it work was that it contains lovastatin, same active ingredient as some of the statin drugs . . . but in a nonstandardized dosage, so you don't know how much of the statin you're actually taking. No side effects . . . really?
(Some red yeast rice supplements sold now in the USA have had the statin removed, after some brands made health claims and ran afoul of the FDA. Others make no claims, so who knows what they contain.)
P.S. I, too, didn't want to take a statin because of the side effects, and because I generally avoid non-recreational drugs when I find a good alternative. When other truly low side effect interventions (like eat more veg and MUFAs) didn't work, I lost 50+ pounds, which did work.
I just need to clarify that I didn't say and don't think that there are no side effects to alternate medicine. I said that people "think" and "hope" that there are not because that's what they've been lead to believe. Therefore they are attracted to it. Also side effects are not as documented as standard medicine.
I just got back from a funeral. An 87 yr old woman that I saw in July. She seemed fine then. I would have guessed her to be much younger. A tumor was discovered this summer and she began chemo. She developed sores on her stomach from the treatment. Chemo continued, and there was no luck curing the sores. She became depressed and suffering. She died the other day. In this case what would you prefer--standard medical approach, holistic, or doing nothing?
Well yeah in that specific case she would have been better off not having taken the chemo. But life isn't about specific cases, life is about balancing risk versus reward and to do that you need to look at the larger picture. What is the likelyhood of survival for cancer for those undergoing chemotherapy versus those choosing not to.
Its like rolling dice. If you roll two dice then the most likely outcome is a 7. Pointing to someone that rolled a 2 doesn't somehow negate the fact that the most likely outcome is a 7. If you are going to roll those 2 dice and make a bet, what information would be more useful to you...the statistical analysis showing that of all recorded dice rolls 7 was the most common or the individual story of that time that person rolled a 2?
Well Aaron, I'm 62 almost 63 (in 2 weeks), and in my small circle of family and acquaintances I've seen this happen with older people alot. I know, I know, you have to look at the statistics of people making it on chemo after a certain age bracket. Unfortunately the ones I knew suffered alot and died sooner. It makes me wonder who is advising them to take that step?
What makes you believe that someone was "advising" them rather than "informing" them? Who's to say that the patient didn't look at the options and make what was the best choice based on available information? I'm not saying that's what happened, but why are we not even considering that possibility?3 -
clicketykeys wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Trouble is, not all "holistic" treatments are without side effects. The side effects just aren't necessarily well documented.
Example: Many people don't want to take statins for high cholesterol, because of the side effects. Some of them decided to take red yeast rice instead, a natural, traditional Chinese medicine treatment. And it worked! Here's the rub: What made it work was that it contains lovastatin, same active ingredient as some of the statin drugs . . . but in a nonstandardized dosage, so you don't know how much of the statin you're actually taking. No side effects . . . really?
(Some red yeast rice supplements sold now in the USA have had the statin removed, after some brands made health claims and ran afoul of the FDA. Others make no claims, so who knows what they contain.)
P.S. I, too, didn't want to take a statin because of the side effects, and because I generally avoid non-recreational drugs when I find a good alternative. When other truly low side effect interventions (like eat more veg and MUFAs) didn't work, I lost 50+ pounds, which did work.
I just need to clarify that I didn't say and don't think that there are no side effects to alternate medicine. I said that people "think" and "hope" that there are not because that's what they've been lead to believe. Therefore they are attracted to it. Also side effects are not as documented as standard medicine.
I just got back from a funeral. An 87 yr old woman that I saw in July. She seemed fine then. I would have guessed her to be much younger. A tumor was discovered this summer and she began chemo. She developed sores on her stomach from the treatment. Chemo continued, and there was no luck curing the sores. She became depressed and suffering. She died the other day. In this case what would you prefer--standard medical approach, holistic, or doing nothing?
Well yeah in that specific case she would have been better off not having taken the chemo. But life isn't about specific cases, life is about balancing risk versus reward and to do that you need to look at the larger picture. What is the likelyhood of survival for cancer for those undergoing chemotherapy versus those choosing not to.
Its like rolling dice. If you roll two dice then the most likely outcome is a 7. Pointing to someone that rolled a 2 doesn't somehow negate the fact that the most likely outcome is a 7. If you are going to roll those 2 dice and make a bet, what information would be more useful to you...the statistical analysis showing that of all recorded dice rolls 7 was the most common or the individual story of that time that person rolled a 2?
Well Aaron, I'm 62 almost 63 (in 2 weeks), and in my small circle of family and acquaintances I've seen this happen with older people alot. I know, I know, you have to look at the statistics of people making it on chemo after a certain age bracket. Unfortunately the ones I knew suffered alot and died sooner. It makes me wonder who is advising them to take that step?
What makes you believe that someone was "advising" them rather than "informing" them? Who's to say that the patient didn't look at the options and make what was the best choice based on available information? I'm not saying that's what happened, but why are we not even considering that possibility?
I'm still active in a breast cancer support group (less for myself, more to embody "17 years past stage III diagnosis" for the newly diagnosed). We do get some people with stage IV (distant metastatic) diagnosis, which is still considered terminal - though average survival is lengthening. Some people live only a couple of years, some a decade or more. Quality of life varies, and can roller-coaster.
Normally, here, in the context of a mid-sized US city cancer center, those at stage IV are informed and advised by their medical team, which includes more than just doctors, though doctors run the show. (Complementary therapies may be approved or suggested by the doctor, but detailed advice handled by other experts, such as registered dieticians, physical therapists, etc.)
With the doctor-mediated medical treatment component, some doctors are more overbearing than others, but often patients are presented with options and asked to make choices. This is extremely likely when the tradeoffs are difficult. Most doctors try to be clear about prognosis and likely range of side effects, and are helped in the latter by people like chemo nurses, who often have clearer views of side effects because they provide first-line treatment of them.
Though some at stage IV know they want to try anything that provides some hope of longer life (even at lower quality) and others know they want only comfort care, most fall somewhere in between, IME. It's important to note, too, that some at stage IV are naturally very confused and feel overwhelmed about what to do.
It's not unusual for family, friends, etc., to encourage any of these people to "have hope" and "fight as hard as possible" or "exhaust all options" and hope for a miracle. These advisors sometimes have unrealistic ideas, but much passion, and strong influence (often, the person with cancer loves them). Sometimes they even bully or use guilt.
Why am I rattling on so? I guess because I disagree with both of you. In my limited experience with this one type of cancer, those who elect maximum treatment do tend to live longer, but the length/quality tradeoffs vary. I believe that, especially in less clear-cut cases, most doctors are likely to offer options in a sensitive, caring, carefully-described way. Age and general health are clearly taken into account. Doctors routinely answer questions like "what would you reccomnend if I were your mother", and try to answer that honestly.
But at these extremes, treatment effectiveness and side effects often vary widely and individualistically, and doctors are not all-knowing. There are not enough cases, and too many different variations in metastases (location, extent, basic biological factors of the tumors, more) even with this widespread type of cancer, for doctors to predict individual cases precisely.
IME, the implication seems inaccurate that doctors commonly push people to extreme and likely fruitless treatments against the person's preferences. I think families and others sometimes do, however.
It also seems a little unrealistic to think that people can make fully-informed, rational decisions routinely, and to think they want their doctor to "inform" but not "advise". The facts are really kind of murky in a lot of specific cases, and our individual psychology doesn't necessarily support rationality in these circumstances (in other people's view of rationality, especially).13 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I've been on this thread so much that I get youtube ads for homeopathic "medicine".
Can we all at least agree that homeopathy is just plain and simply a scam?
Ehhhh...I don't know to be honest. When I think "scam" I think the people purveying said scam are doing so knowing it is a scam and knowing they are just fleecing you for money. I think a lot of these "holistic" and "alternative medicine" people are actually believers. Now they may be dogmatic in thinking and refusing to critically examine their beliefs but I still think most of them actually believe in what they are selling. Some of what they sell actually does have affect on symptoms, the issue is more that they act like it is a treatment for a disease when in fact it is not. Question is whether or not they believe it actually is.
I mean to me it is clear OP isn't entering into this arena hoping to scam people right? She seems to have good intentions. So I believe there are people like her who complete training, go on to become "doctors" and go on to prescribe things fully believing that they are helping. I also believe some of these people will turn around and teach these methods in schools again fully believing they work. At that point are they scamming?
I think there probably are some that know they are peddling snake-oil but do it anyways because money but I don't really think they are the majority. With that said I do think that investing in such things is a waste of time, effort and money so in that way you are getting "scammed".
I think that everyone involved in creating homeopathic supplements has to know enough about chemistry just to get a job in that department to know diluting something does not make it stronger.5 -
clicketykeys wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Trouble is, not all "holistic" treatments are without side effects. The side effects just aren't necessarily well documented.
Example: Many people don't want to take statins for high cholesterol, because of the side effects. Some of them decided to take red yeast rice instead, a natural, traditional Chinese medicine treatment. And it worked! Here's the rub: What made it work was that it contains lovastatin, same active ingredient as some of the statin drugs . . . but in a nonstandardized dosage, so you don't know how much of the statin you're actually taking. No side effects . . . really?
(Some red yeast rice supplements sold now in the USA have had the statin removed, after some brands made health claims and ran afoul of the FDA. Others make no claims, so who knows what they contain.)
P.S. I, too, didn't want to take a statin because of the side effects, and because I generally avoid non-recreational drugs when I find a good alternative. When other truly low side effect interventions (like eat more veg and MUFAs) didn't work, I lost 50+ pounds, which did work.
I just need to clarify that I didn't say and don't think that there are no side effects to alternate medicine. I said that people "think" and "hope" that there are not because that's what they've been lead to believe. Therefore they are attracted to it. Also side effects are not as documented as standard medicine.
I just got back from a funeral. An 87 yr old woman that I saw in July. She seemed fine then. I would have guessed her to be much younger. A tumor was discovered this summer and she began chemo. She developed sores on her stomach from the treatment. Chemo continued, and there was no luck curing the sores. She became depressed and suffering. She died the other day. In this case what would you prefer--standard medical approach, holistic, or doing nothing?
Well yeah in that specific case she would have been better off not having taken the chemo. But life isn't about specific cases, life is about balancing risk versus reward and to do that you need to look at the larger picture. What is the likelyhood of survival for cancer for those undergoing chemotherapy versus those choosing not to.
Its like rolling dice. If you roll two dice then the most likely outcome is a 7. Pointing to someone that rolled a 2 doesn't somehow negate the fact that the most likely outcome is a 7. If you are going to roll those 2 dice and make a bet, what information would be more useful to you...the statistical analysis showing that of all recorded dice rolls 7 was the most common or the individual story of that time that person rolled a 2?
Well Aaron, I'm 62 almost 63 (in 2 weeks), and in my small circle of family and acquaintances I've seen this happen with older people alot. I know, I know, you have to look at the statistics of people making it on chemo after a certain age bracket. Unfortunately the ones I knew suffered alot and died sooner. It makes me wonder who is advising them to take that step?
What makes you believe that someone was "advising" them rather than "informing" them? Who's to say that the patient didn't look at the options and make what was the best choice based on available information? I'm not saying that's what happened, but why are we not even considering that possibility?
I'm still active in a breast cancer support group (less for myself, more to embody "17 years past stage III diagnosis" for the newly diagnosed). We do get some people with stage IV (distant metastatic) diagnosis, which is still considered terminal - though average survival is lengthening. Some people live only a couple of years, some a decade or more. Quality of life varies, and can roller-coaster.
Normally, here, in the context of a mid-sized US city cancer center, those at stage IV are informed and advised by their medical team, which includes more than just doctors, though doctors run the show. (Complementary therapies may be approved or suggested by the doctor, but detailed advice handled by other experts, such as registered dieticians, physical therapists, etc.)
With the doctor-mediated medical treatment component, some doctors are more overbearing than others, but often patients are presented with options and asked to make choices. This is extremely likely when the tradeoffs are difficult. Most doctors try to be clear about prognosis and likely range of side effects, and are helped in the latter by people like chemo nurses, who often have clearer views of side effects because they provide first-line treatment of them.
Though some at stage IV know they want to try anything that provides some hope of longer life (even at lower quality) and others know they want only comfort care, most fall somewhere in between, IME. It's important to note, too, that some at stage IV are naturally very confused and feel overwhelmed about what to do.
It's not unusual for family, friends, etc., to encourage any of these people to "have hope" and "fight as hard as possible" or "exhaust all options" and hope for a miracle. These advisors sometimes have unrealistic ideas, but much passion, and strong influence (often, the person with cancer loves them). Sometimes they even bully or use guilt.
Why am I rattling on so? I guess because I disagree with both of you. In my limited experience with this one type of cancer, those who elect maximum treatment do tend to live longer, but the length/quality tradeoffs vary. I believe that, especially in less clear-cut cases, most doctors are likely to offer options in a sensitive, caring, carefully-described way. Age and general health are clearly taken into account. Doctors routinely answer questions like "what would you reccomnend if I were your mother", and try to answer that honestly.
But at these extremes, treatment effectiveness and side effects often vary widely and individualistically, and doctors are not all-knowing. There are not enough cases, and too many different variations in metastases (location, extent, basic biological factors of the tumors, more) even with this widespread type of cancer, for doctors to predict individual cases precisely.
IME, the implication seems inaccurate that doctors commonly push people to extreme and likely fruitless treatments against the person's preferences. I think families and others sometimes do, however.
It also seems a little unrealistic to think that people can make fully-informed, rational decisions routinely, and to think they want their doctor to "inform" but not "advise". The facts are really kind of murky in a lot of specific cases, and our individual psychology doesn't necessarily support rationality in these circumstances (in other people's view of rationality, especially).
Well said. I agree. My mother had cancer at 43--I was the oldest child at 18 and preparing to go to college the next year. She had a radical neck resection and they took out some lymp nodes, since it was in there. She did radiation after her surgery and is still alive today at 87--she even flies to Italy once a year to be with us at the beach. We found out 6 yrs after her surgery that her surgeon didn't think she would make it. I was saved also by standard medicine because if she had died I would have had to stay home to take care of my father and 5 little brothers--no college, no degree, no job as an interior designer, no meeting my Italian husband, 3 sons in Italy.... But, my mother was in her 40's when all this happened. I think age is a big factor in chemo.4 -
clicketykeys wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Trouble is, not all "holistic" treatments are without side effects. The side effects just aren't necessarily well documented.
Example: Many people don't want to take statins for high cholesterol, because of the side effects. Some of them decided to take red yeast rice instead, a natural, traditional Chinese medicine treatment. And it worked! Here's the rub: What made it work was that it contains lovastatin, same active ingredient as some of the statin drugs . . . but in a nonstandardized dosage, so you don't know how much of the statin you're actually taking. No side effects . . . really?
(Some red yeast rice supplements sold now in the USA have had the statin removed, after some brands made health claims and ran afoul of the FDA. Others make no claims, so who knows what they contain.)
P.S. I, too, didn't want to take a statin because of the side effects, and because I generally avoid non-recreational drugs when I find a good alternative. When other truly low side effect interventions (like eat more veg and MUFAs) didn't work, I lost 50+ pounds, which did work.
I just need to clarify that I didn't say and don't think that there are no side effects to alternate medicine. I said that people "think" and "hope" that there are not because that's what they've been lead to believe. Therefore they are attracted to it. Also side effects are not as documented as standard medicine.
I just got back from a funeral. An 87 yr old woman that I saw in July. She seemed fine then. I would have guessed her to be much younger. A tumor was discovered this summer and she began chemo. She developed sores on her stomach from the treatment. Chemo continued, and there was no luck curing the sores. She became depressed and suffering. She died the other day. In this case what would you prefer--standard medical approach, holistic, or doing nothing?
Well yeah in that specific case she would have been better off not having taken the chemo. But life isn't about specific cases, life is about balancing risk versus reward and to do that you need to look at the larger picture. What is the likelyhood of survival for cancer for those undergoing chemotherapy versus those choosing not to.
Its like rolling dice. If you roll two dice then the most likely outcome is a 7. Pointing to someone that rolled a 2 doesn't somehow negate the fact that the most likely outcome is a 7. If you are going to roll those 2 dice and make a bet, what information would be more useful to you...the statistical analysis showing that of all recorded dice rolls 7 was the most common or the individual story of that time that person rolled a 2?
Well Aaron, I'm 62 almost 63 (in 2 weeks), and in my small circle of family and acquaintances I've seen this happen with older people alot. I know, I know, you have to look at the statistics of people making it on chemo after a certain age bracket. Unfortunately the ones I knew suffered alot and died sooner. It makes me wonder who is advising them to take that step?
What makes you believe that someone was "advising" them rather than "informing" them? Who's to say that the patient didn't look at the options and make what was the best choice based on available information? I'm not saying that's what happened, but why are we not even considering that possibility?
My mom works in end-of-life care and she has said in her experience the issue in many families is younger family members pressing for treatment because they are unwilling to let someone go. That is, the ailing older person may be open to suspending treatment or choosing less aggressive treatment, but other family members refuse to accept that. It gets especially difficult when older people can no longer make their own decisions or when younger family members begin to disagree on what to do. I don't know if this is true everywhere, but it's a big factor in her own practice.5 -
This content has been removed.
-
janejellyroll wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Trouble is, not all "holistic" treatments are without side effects. The side effects just aren't necessarily well documented.
Example: Many people don't want to take statins for high cholesterol, because of the side effects. Some of them decided to take red yeast rice instead, a natural, traditional Chinese medicine treatment. And it worked! Here's the rub: What made it work was that it contains lovastatin, same active ingredient as some of the statin drugs . . . but in a nonstandardized dosage, so you don't know how much of the statin you're actually taking. No side effects . . . really?
(Some red yeast rice supplements sold now in the USA have had the statin removed, after some brands made health claims and ran afoul of the FDA. Others make no claims, so who knows what they contain.)
P.S. I, too, didn't want to take a statin because of the side effects, and because I generally avoid non-recreational drugs when I find a good alternative. When other truly low side effect interventions (like eat more veg and MUFAs) didn't work, I lost 50+ pounds, which did work.
I just need to clarify that I didn't say and don't think that there are no side effects to alternate medicine. I said that people "think" and "hope" that there are not because that's what they've been lead to believe. Therefore they are attracted to it. Also side effects are not as documented as standard medicine.
I just got back from a funeral. An 87 yr old woman that I saw in July. She seemed fine then. I would have guessed her to be much younger. A tumor was discovered this summer and she began chemo. She developed sores on her stomach from the treatment. Chemo continued, and there was no luck curing the sores. She became depressed and suffering. She died the other day. In this case what would you prefer--standard medical approach, holistic, or doing nothing?
Well yeah in that specific case she would have been better off not having taken the chemo. But life isn't about specific cases, life is about balancing risk versus reward and to do that you need to look at the larger picture. What is the likelyhood of survival for cancer for those undergoing chemotherapy versus those choosing not to.
Its like rolling dice. If you roll two dice then the most likely outcome is a 7. Pointing to someone that rolled a 2 doesn't somehow negate the fact that the most likely outcome is a 7. If you are going to roll those 2 dice and make a bet, what information would be more useful to you...the statistical analysis showing that of all recorded dice rolls 7 was the most common or the individual story of that time that person rolled a 2?
Well Aaron, I'm 62 almost 63 (in 2 weeks), and in my small circle of family and acquaintances I've seen this happen with older people alot. I know, I know, you have to look at the statistics of people making it on chemo after a certain age bracket. Unfortunately the ones I knew suffered alot and died sooner. It makes me wonder who is advising them to take that step?
What makes you believe that someone was "advising" them rather than "informing" them? Who's to say that the patient didn't look at the options and make what was the best choice based on available information? I'm not saying that's what happened, but why are we not even considering that possibility?
My mom works in end-of-life care and she has said in her experience the issue in many families is younger family members pressing for treatment because they are unwilling to let someone go. That is, the ailing older person may be open to suspending treatment or choosing less aggressive treatment, but other family members refuse to accept that. It gets especially difficult when older people can no longer make their own decisions or when younger family members begin to disagree on what to do. I don't know if this is true everywhere, but it's a big factor in her own practice.
This has been true in my experiences as well, for the most part. Some people have very unrealistic expectations of what can be accomplished.1 -
On Homoeopathy: Given that the water on the planet goes round and around and has all passed through the kidneys of some animal or another on numerous occasions... do you really want it to have a *kitten* memory? I for one really don't want my refreshing glass of aqua to be eau-de-brachiosaur p1ss.15
-
snowflake954 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Trouble is, not all "holistic" treatments are without side effects. The side effects just aren't necessarily well documented.
Example: Many people don't want to take statins for high cholesterol, because of the side effects. Some of them decided to take red yeast rice instead, a natural, traditional Chinese medicine treatment. And it worked! Here's the rub: What made it work was that it contains lovastatin, same active ingredient as some of the statin drugs . . . but in a nonstandardized dosage, so you don't know how much of the statin you're actually taking. No side effects . . . really?
(Some red yeast rice supplements sold now in the USA have had the statin removed, after some brands made health claims and ran afoul of the FDA. Others make no claims, so who knows what they contain.)
P.S. I, too, didn't want to take a statin because of the side effects, and because I generally avoid non-recreational drugs when I find a good alternative. When other truly low side effect interventions (like eat more veg and MUFAs) didn't work, I lost 50+ pounds, which did work.
I just need to clarify that I didn't say and don't think that there are no side effects to alternate medicine. I said that people "think" and "hope" that there are not because that's what they've been lead to believe. Therefore they are attracted to it. Also side effects are not as documented as standard medicine.
I just got back from a funeral. An 87 yr old woman that I saw in July. She seemed fine then. I would have guessed her to be much younger. A tumor was discovered this summer and she began chemo. She developed sores on her stomach from the treatment. Chemo continued, and there was no luck curing the sores. She became depressed and suffering. She died the other day. In this case what would you prefer--standard medical approach, holistic, or doing nothing?
Well yeah in that specific case she would have been better off not having taken the chemo. But life isn't about specific cases, life is about balancing risk versus reward and to do that you need to look at the larger picture. What is the likelyhood of survival for cancer for those undergoing chemotherapy versus those choosing not to.
Its like rolling dice. If you roll two dice then the most likely outcome is a 7. Pointing to someone that rolled a 2 doesn't somehow negate the fact that the most likely outcome is a 7. If you are going to roll those 2 dice and make a bet, what information would be more useful to you...the statistical analysis showing that of all recorded dice rolls 7 was the most common or the individual story of that time that person rolled a 2?
Well Aaron, I'm 62 almost 63 (in 2 weeks), and in my small circle of family and acquaintances I've seen this happen with older people alot. I know, I know, you have to look at the statistics of people making it on chemo after a certain age bracket. Unfortunately the ones I knew suffered alot and died sooner. It makes me wonder who is advising them to take that step?
What makes you believe that someone was "advising" them rather than "informing" them? Who's to say that the patient didn't look at the options and make what was the best choice based on available information? I'm not saying that's what happened, but why are we not even considering that possibility?
I'm still active in a breast cancer support group (less for myself, more to embody "17 years past stage III diagnosis" for the newly diagnosed). We do get some people with stage IV (distant metastatic) diagnosis, which is still considered terminal - though average survival is lengthening. Some people live only a couple of years, some a decade or more. Quality of life varies, and can roller-coaster.
Normally, here, in the context of a mid-sized US city cancer center, those at stage IV are informed and advised by their medical team, which includes more than just doctors, though doctors run the show. (Complementary therapies may be approved or suggested by the doctor, but detailed advice handled by other experts, such as registered dieticians, physical therapists, etc.)
With the doctor-mediated medical treatment component, some doctors are more overbearing than others, but often patients are presented with options and asked to make choices. This is extremely likely when the tradeoffs are difficult. Most doctors try to be clear about prognosis and likely range of side effects, and are helped in the latter by people like chemo nurses, who often have clearer views of side effects because they provide first-line treatment of them.
Though some at stage IV know they want to try anything that provides some hope of longer life (even at lower quality) and others know they want only comfort care, most fall somewhere in between, IME. It's important to note, too, that some at stage IV are naturally very confused and feel overwhelmed about what to do.
It's not unusual for family, friends, etc., to encourage any of these people to "have hope" and "fight as hard as possible" or "exhaust all options" and hope for a miracle. These advisors sometimes have unrealistic ideas, but much passion, and strong influence (often, the person with cancer loves them). Sometimes they even bully or use guilt.
Why am I rattling on so? I guess because I disagree with both of you. In my limited experience with this one type of cancer, those who elect maximum treatment do tend to live longer, but the length/quality tradeoffs vary. I believe that, especially in less clear-cut cases, most doctors are likely to offer options in a sensitive, caring, carefully-described way. Age and general health are clearly taken into account. Doctors routinely answer questions like "what would you reccomnend if I were your mother", and try to answer that honestly.
But at these extremes, treatment effectiveness and side effects often vary widely and individualistically, and doctors are not all-knowing. There are not enough cases, and too many different variations in metastases (location, extent, basic biological factors of the tumors, more) even with this widespread type of cancer, for doctors to predict individual cases precisely.
IME, the implication seems inaccurate that doctors commonly push people to extreme and likely fruitless treatments against the person's preferences. I think families and others sometimes do, however.
It also seems a little unrealistic to think that people can make fully-informed, rational decisions routinely, and to think they want their doctor to "inform" but not "advise". The facts are really kind of murky in a lot of specific cases, and our individual psychology doesn't necessarily support rationality in these circumstances (in other people's view of rationality, especially).
Well said. I agree. My mother had cancer at 43--I was the oldest child at 18 and preparing to go to college the next year. She had a radical neck resection and they took out some lymp nodes, since it was in there. She did radiation after her surgery and is still alive today at 87--she even flies to Italy once a year to be with us at the beach. We found out 6 yrs after her surgery that her surgeon didn't think she would make it. I was saved also by standard medicine because if she had died I would have had to stay home to take care of my father and 5 little brothers--no college, no degree, no job as an interior designer, no meeting my Italian husband, 3 sons in Italy.... But, my mother was in her 40's when all this happened. I think age is a big factor in chemo.
I'm sorry your family had to go through that experience, but glad your mom went on to thrive in a long and happy life. I'm also grateful to the medical establishment and scientific processes that make that possible for more of us cancer patients every year.
I think one issue in thinking and communicating about this is the term "chemo".
"Chemo" is more or less popular culture shorthand for hundreds (thousands?) of different drugs used to treat diseases so dangerous that we're willing to accept side effects and risks so severe that they're be unacceptable in treatment of less extreme diseases. Each one of those individual drugs has different mechanisms of action, methods of administration, side effect risks, probability of benefit in a particular case, contraindications, and more. One really can't generalize much about chemo.
On top of that, cancer isn't one disease. It's dozens (hundreds?), each with different prognoses and treatment paths. Even breast cancer has multiple variants that differ widely in mortality rates, most effective treatment, etc.
At the time I was treated, a particular chemotherapy regimen I followed would likely not have been recommended for a much-older person with similar disease characteristics, not so much because an older person couldn't tolerate the side effects, but because research had shown it to be less effective among older people for some reason.
I'm also going to go off on one of my rants here: Any given age doesn't dictate a particular level of health or disability. In evaluating whether a given person is robust enough to tolerate a particular treatment, a person's age per se really shouldn't be a criterion, but rather their state of health should be. And generally, outside of biases from doctors being humans influenced by biases like any other human, that's how it's done.
When I was treated (age 45), I got drugs that wouldn't have been offered to younger people with certain heart conditions or perhaps even genetic risks of those conditions. It's individualized to a specific patient. (To the extent that certain heart conditions are more common with age, that may become part of the risk evaluation for an individual's treatment.)
My personal cancer experience suggests that adequately good doctors, and "Western medicine" (
) generally, are much more sophisticated and nuanced in their analyses and judgements than most people give them credit for. Similarly, the field they study is much more complex than most people understand, and it changes constantly.
Edited: typo, afterthought.7 -
stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I've been on this thread so much that I get youtube ads for homeopathic "medicine".
Can we all at least agree that homeopathy is just plain and simply a scam?
Ehhhh...I don't know to be honest. When I think "scam" I think the people purveying said scam are doing so knowing it is a scam and knowing they are just fleecing you for money. I think a lot of these "holistic" and "alternative medicine" people are actually believers. Now they may be dogmatic in thinking and refusing to critically examine their beliefs but I still think most of them actually believe in what they are selling. Some of what they sell actually does have affect on symptoms, the issue is more that they act like it is a treatment for a disease when in fact it is not. Question is whether or not they believe it actually is.
I mean to me it is clear OP isn't entering into this arena hoping to scam people right? She seems to have good intentions. So I believe there are people like her who complete training, go on to become "doctors" and go on to prescribe things fully believing that they are helping. I also believe some of these people will turn around and teach these methods in schools again fully believing they work. At that point are they scamming?
I think there probably are some that know they are peddling snake-oil but do it anyways because money but I don't really think they are the majority. With that said I do think that investing in such things is a waste of time, effort and money so in that way you are getting "scammed".
I think that everyone involved in creating homeopathic supplements has to know enough about chemistry just to get a job in that department to know diluting something does not make it stronger.
Oh I don't know about that, I don't see why one would need an education in chemistry to be able to dilute something. I mean we are literally talking about put a drop in water, mix, repeat and that is it. The original active ingredient can be purchased and if they prepare it themselves it doesn't matter if they mess up the prep because they just dilute it to non existence anyways.
Making pills doesn't take a chemistry education either. I doubt people working assembly lines require that.2 -
JerSchmare wrote: »The people in my life who have chronic illness where modern medicine doesn’t have an answer, seem to reach out to alternative. I think I would do the same. Of course, it’s always anecdotal. But, if it makes them feel better during their last days on earth, let them have at it.
I don't disagree with that. I doubt anyone minds people attempting to treat symptoms of a chronic illness with what they see fit. Only point it would bother me is a naturopath or holistic "doctor" prescribed something to them that was actively harmful and the patient trusted them because they were "doctors"....that would bother me.1 -
JerSchmare wrote: »The people in my life who have chronic illness where modern medicine doesn’t have an answer, seem to reach out to alternative. I think I would do the same. Of course, it’s always anecdotal. But, if it makes them feel better during their last days on earth, let them have at it.
Unless cynical hucksters behind the "alternative" overcharge already-financially-stretched patients and families for their miracle placebo . . . .2 -
Cancer is a tough one. It is called a disease but to most of the public I think things that are diseases are caused by specific things and one could potentially find a cure. That isn't cancer. There will be improved treatments, there will be certain types of cancer where a cure might exist (think those types of cancer caused by pathogens like HPV), but for cancer in general there isn't going to be a cure. Cancer is the biproduct of the way our bodies work, I don't think we will ever be rid of it anymore than we will ever be rid of death. For most people who end up being victims of cancer it wasn't because of anything they did, or any choices they made...it was random. Pains me to see people given the impression that the cancer was "caused" by something and that they just need to do this or that to "cure" it. It is blame mixed with false hope which is just insidious and nasty.
I'm not saying one can't be cured of cancer, but the current cure (Chemo) is basically to beat your body with a blunt hammer until hopefully the cancer dies before you do. That isn't to put down the treatment, that is the best we have for saving a cancer victims life.9 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions