This was posted 12 years 6 months ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Documentory - Cut Posion Burn (Truth about Cancer Industry) Pay Want U Want!

75
Documentory - Cut Posion Burn (Truth about Cancer Industry) Pay Want U Want!
Go to Deal
finance on 22/05/2012 - 11:04 cutpoisonburn.com (202 clicks)

I know this isn't a game but it may benefit some people who may be effected, or are interested in the topic. I know some people like documentories.

"Cut Poison Burn is a controversial, eye opening, and sometimes heartbreaking documentary that puts the business of cancer treatment under the microscope. Follow the frustrating journeys of critically ill cancer patients as they try to navigate the confusing and dangerous maze of treatment and encounter formidable obstacles in the “cancer industrial complex.” A compelling critique of the influence of medical monopolies, the power of pharmaceutical companies and government agencies, Cut Poison Burn is essential viewing for anyone and everyone touched by cancer."

The digital copy - you can choose to pay what you want $0-$50
DVD copy is $16.99

Entertainment

Related Stores

cutpoisonburn.com
cutpoisonburn.com

closed Comments

  • Housecat on 22/05/2012 - 11:22
    +1

    I'm going to pay what this scare-mongering is worth. Any guesses?

    • SBOB on 22/05/2012 - 11:41
      +1

      your soul? ;)

      • StewBalls on 22/05/2012 - 12:18
        +1

        I don't have that much! :p

    • aussman on 23/05/2012 - 10:22

      -$1000/minute and that wouldn't even cover the time I would never get back

  • Well on 22/05/2012 - 11:23

    I think this should be in the forums or something.

  • PlasticSpaceman on 22/05/2012 - 11:50
    +9

    I hope that they do not push the 'alternative therapies' band wagon. The fact they are donating some of their profits to the likes of "peopleagainstcancer" (who support 'alternative therapies') is not a good sign. An alternative therapy to something like chemotherapy, for example, might be radiotherapy. Or medicine. Or surgery. Things like homeopathy or acupuncture or fish slapping are not alternative therapies because they are not therapies. If people want to try something that has no basis in science to make them feel better, that's their choice. Heck, if it makes you feel better that's great because cancer can be a horribly emotionally draining thing. The concern is always that someone may do this instead (ie as an alternative) of recognised therapies that have been proven scientifically to actually work [and people who now want to say that homeopathy and/or acupuncture and/or fish slapping have been proven scientifically to work are welcome to say so, as long as they also provide some links to peer reviewed research using double-blind, randomized, control groups and whose results have been replicated eg http://www.skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia15.html]. Steve Jobs is a recent well known example someone who may have lived a lot longer than he did if he had chosen real therapy for his condition rather than choose to modify his diet in the hope that would make his cancer go away. It didn't. (http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-to…)

    • StewBalls on 22/05/2012 - 12:29
      +3

      Agreed. I'm all for alternative/complimentary therapies where they do not preclude or interfere with good evidence-based current medical best practice.

      Sadly, quite often the brainwashing process & sheer desperation of the patient frequently negates the natural healthy skepticism required for ANY medical treatment. I have seen it countless times…the pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo from fervent snake-oil salespeople sways the patient away from accepting proper treatment, significantly reduces their quality of life and ultimately dramatically shortens their remaining time on this world.

      • vbevan on 22/05/2012 - 13:49
        +4

        You now what they call alternative medicine that works?

        Medicine.

    • m1nh on 22/05/2012 - 12:57
      -1

      Don't dismiss acupuncture just because you don't believe in it. I have used it and it fixed my hay fever for good. I watched Horrible Histories on ABC3 and they said European people used to believe pigeon pecking as a therapy (haha). You'll never know what people will find 100 years later. Reasonable people will not dismiss your religion just because you can't prove your god exists.

      • Untameable on 22/05/2012 - 13:09
        +9

        It doesn't come down to whether he believes it or not; he's only asked for evidence (in the form of a basic scientific test designed to weed out the placebo affect, a double-blind), and none currently exists for acupuncture.

        Your belief masquerading as anecdotal experience is worse than worthless in this regard.

        • young_dazza on 22/05/2012 - 13:41
          +1

          I'm with you here. Show me the scientific studies and I'll believe it.
          The reason why there are no double-blind studies for acupuncture is that its really difficult to do. You can blindfold the patient and use a machine that blows air on the skin that feels very similar to a pin prick. The problem is the guy administering the blow of air knows that he's blowing air, not inserting pins. If it was easy to do a double-blind study there would have been one and acupuncture could be scientifically proven to be nothing more than hocus-pocus (with a small chance of blood-bourne infections from an unhygienic practitioner)

        • PlasticSpaceman on 22/05/2012 - 14:01
          +1

          Absolutely correct. It's not that I do or don't believe it, it's just that unless there is accepted scientific proof that something works then - if the risk of being wrong could mean a fairly painful death - I would vote for trying something that has been proven to work. We're not talking belief, but evidence based knowledge. Just because it seemed to work for one person, doesn't actually mean it will work for everyone because a) people get better for various reasons b) the placebo affect is a wonderful thing (get your bands here http://skepticbros.com/placebo-bands/). I personally had asthma but was cured…. when I moved to a different state away from the rotten plant that I was allergic to. At around the same time I also stopped watching Batman - but I chose to blame the plant rather than the tv show. My theory was proven correct when I went back many years later and found I started to have issues again after a while - with or without Batman.

          In short, as much as I might believe that much, if not all, so called alternative therapies are pure hocum I have no issue with someone who believes it or who wants to give it a try - same as I have no issue if someone wanted to hop on one leg from Sydney to Perth. I see no value in it myself, but good on them, I say….. but when it is offered up as an alternative to real therapies rather than perhaps in conjunction with - then that's where I think we should all draw the line. Yes, it is a personal choice, but it is one that impacts the person as well as their family.

        • vbevan on 22/05/2012 - 15:51
          +2

          But I have a magic rock and I'v never been attacked by terrorists…OH MY GOD, my rock stops terrorism. This is worth millions, I need to let the US government know.

        • StewBalls on 22/05/2012 - 16:53

          I've gotta get me one of those rocks, dammit! ;)

        • SomeGuyOnOzB on 22/05/2012 - 23:35

          … hmm

          Double blind trials are expensive and typically are funded by drug companies, attempting to get their drugs accepted by government and medicine.

          Who is going to fund a double blind trial, into something like acupuncture?

          Why would a drug company want to fund that? If they prove it works, they lose sales? :S

      • simulacrum on 22/05/2012 - 13:47
        +1

        "Reasonable people will not dismiss your religion just because you can't prove your god exists."

        Reasonable people don't dismiss it, they just don't accept it as valid until they they are presented with evidence.

        The alternative approach would be to accept every possible claim (including claims that contradict each other) until it they are disproven… this counterintuitive shifting of the burden of proof would not only lead to ridiculous results but also stifle any real progress in your understanding of the universe. Answers not based in evidence have to be accepted on faith or authority, and there are few ways to test the relative validities of competing hypotheses.

        The huge jump in our understanding of the physical universe over the past couple of centuries only happened as a result of the formalisation of the scientific method - explanatory models based on real observable evidence that can be replicated. Prior to that, the so called medicine people practiced was more likely to harm you than help you.

    • young_dazza on 22/05/2012 - 13:49
      +3

      Heres a review
      http://www.naturalnews.com/035926_cancer_industry_poison_doc…

      Kid gets cancer, parents refuse medical practioners advice in preference for snake oil practitioner, state intervenes and forces evidence based treatment, parents take govt to court & win, kid dies of cancer shortly after and parents blame govt.

      -1 from me

      • Housecat on 22/05/2012 - 20:31
        +1

        i concur

  • penthius on 22/05/2012 - 11:56
    -7

    I wish people would keep their personal comments from posts like these that are actually interesting to some of us! Thanks OP

    • dr_ rusko on 22/05/2012 - 12:15
      +7

      why is your opinion any more or less relevent than anyone elses?

      on one hand you don't want the "closed minded mainstreamers" to interfere by voicing their opinion, but on the other, by trying to silence them and not considering the validity of their opinion, you yourself are being "closed minded"

      (please dont try and extrapolate from what I am saying how I feel about this post - my concern is about your specific comment)

      • StewBalls on 22/05/2012 - 12:21

        Well said Doc! :)

      • penthius on 22/05/2012 - 12:26
        -3

        Oh clever doc its supposed to be a post about a bargain, this is not the forum section and nobody was commenting about the "bargain post" so I will say it again - Thanks OP

        • xor on 22/05/2012 - 12:30
          +3

          I seem to be reminded of those "magnetic wristbands" from a while ago

        • Cobalt_ on 22/05/2012 - 12:31
          +5

          If the "bargain" happens to be for snake oil, then it is the nature of ozbargain to expose it for what it is.

        • simulacrum on 22/05/2012 - 13:55
          +2

          If it's a product that aims to "inform", then the value of the product, is dependant on the validity of the information. If the information is invalid, then surely the product is worthless.. and hence not much of a bargain.

          To suggest that Discussing the nature or quality of a product posted here is somehow "off-topic" seems a bit of a far stretch.

        • dr_ rusko on 22/05/2012 - 14:23
          +1

          no one was "negging" the deal… (well, not on a mass scale)

          if i posted a deal about a computer and there were people out there who thought it was a rubbish piece of equipment, then their opinion would be relevent to the post… similarly, the content of the video is open to scrutiny..

          yes it is a free video (which, for the record, I intend to watch), but there are billions of free videos on youtube… it's content is direcly related to whether it qualifies as a "bargain" on ozbargain (this is not oz"interesting videos".com.au)

        • finance on 22/05/2012 - 14:53

          how is it any different to the "free game" those pay what you want ones?
          there's also plenty of free games on the internet. A lot of people probably just get it because it's 'free' and don't get around to playing it.

          I guess it's all a matter of opinion if the content is good enough to be considered a bargin!

        • StewBalls on 22/05/2012 - 17:03
          +2

          how is it any different to the "free game" those pay what you want ones?

          It is different because spreading ill-informed negative propaganda that may deter cancer patients from accepting real life-saving treatment is not a 'game'!

  • retiredfeline on 22/05/2012 - 12:01
    +4

    In fact the personal comments are the most interesting. When someone criticises something, one has to have an open enough mind to investigate if those criticisms are valid, and if not, to stand your ground with your beliefs. Shutting one's ears to what might be bad news is not the answer.

  • Weird and Wonderful on 22/05/2012 - 13:13

    I'm trying to remain unbiased which is incredibly difficult with this. It's a story on how the FDA has a stranglehold on what cancer treatments is available to patients, this is a story on how evil chemo and radiation are and how alternatives should be used instead.

    In my opinion chemo and radiation are brilliant but they are a last resort and for those that will have a vastly deminished quality of life then those people should exercise their right to refuse treatment. Cut, Poison, Burn; is not about a persons right to refuse treatment but what treatment they believe they should be allowed to use.

    Studies could be done to show that sleeping upside down lowers your risk of skin cancer but that does not make it a treatment!

    People are entitled to their own opinion on everything but they should not expect a health based organization approve unproven treatments.

    • StewBalls on 22/05/2012 - 13:23
      +4

      In my opinion chemo and radiation are brilliant but they are a last resort and for those that will have a vastly deminished quality of life then those people should exercise their right to refuse treatment.

      Dead wrong…pun intended; this is the classic mistake most patients make in choosing therapy.

      Statistically speaking, appropriate chemo/radio/surgical therapy guided by an oncologist should be the front-line treatment for most cancer patients. Leaving this option until too late effectively IS refusal of treatment IMHO!

      Forgive me for getting on my soapbox, but I've seen too many good people die, or die way too soon (and in agony) because some smooth-talking hippy idiot has sweet-talked them into forgoing proper treatment on the misguided promise that a diet of canned mackerel & brown rice (or some other fad) for every meal will cure their cancer!!!

      • Weird and Wonderful on 22/05/2012 - 13:49
        +1

        I did not mean to say that alternatives should be used before chemo/radiation.

        The best method is surgical (depending on the case obviously), which may have to be coupled with radiation/chemo; or even radiation/chemo alone if necessary.

        My point was that in some cases where life expecatancy is not vastly improved (adding weeks or months) and quality of life is drastically expected to be deminished, then and only then should treatment not be taken (upon careful consideration of the patient and their family).

        No offense intended and ofcourse life expectancy isn't exact. I hope this has cleared that up (it's a bit difficult to sum up the exact meaning without missing out on some key points).

        • andy19363 on 22/05/2012 - 16:06

          in some cases where life expecatancy is not vastly improved (adding weeks or months) and quality of life is drastically expected to be deminished, then and only then should treatment not be taken

          In those instances, treatment would likely be withdrawn anyway….. These are not cheap treatments, and are not thrown at everyone, with no regard to prognosis.

        • StewBalls on 22/05/2012 - 17:01
          +1

          Thankfully, end-of-life scenarios are handled much better nowadays than simple withdrawal of services. Hospice/Palliative Care services are the quiet achievers of the health professions! At the risk of waxing lyrical, I'd be tempted to call them unsung angels.

          As a matter of fact, I have as much respect for those who seek to ease the passing from this life of those whose time it is, as I do for those who toil to prolong it for those whose time is not yet up!

        • andy19363 on 22/05/2012 - 17:24

          simple withdrawal of services

          never mentioned withdrawal of services :)….

          Have lots of experience with palliative care…. I agree with your comments.

        • StewBalls on 22/05/2012 - 17:31

          That statement wasn't actually a reply to your comment Andy, it was merely a comparative one from a person who is unfortunately old enough to remember the time when that's precisely what happened at EoL.

          I'm quite proud that we've come a long way from allowing the terminally ill to die from dehydration or malnutrition shortly before disease would have taken them anyway.

        • andy19363 on 22/05/2012 - 17:37

          Ah, my bad :)

        • StewBalls on 22/05/2012 - 17:40

          No prob, it was just coincidental, but I can understand why you might have thought that it was. :)

        • SomeGuyOnOzB on 22/05/2012 - 23:46

          -> Stewballs

          So … you've seen people not getting chemo die.

          Are you saying you've seen people getting chemo go on to survive? :S

          I'm in the opposite position of seeing people recovering, who then go and get further chemo and x-rays that then co-incidentally relapse :S

          Also, an interesting skew on the statistics to support chemo

          http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Cancer_I…

          I'm watch one specialist right now, who's patient is extremely ill. Other doctors are saying it's the chemo medication and it should be stopped immediately. The specialist is instead insisting it's nothing to do with the medication (without looking at the patient and attempting to avoid her).

          That said, people do need to be conscious of where the funding comes for whatever they read.

          But that applies not just to those opposed to these treatments, but also assess the funding for sources that support these treatments

          :S

        • SomeGuyOnOzB on 22/05/2012 - 23:53
          -2

          That all said, I should also emphasise I do not support this movie.

          I have not seen it and nor am I looking into it.

          But I am alarmed at people who are praising chemo. We still don't know everything there is to know about cancer and what is going on. Also, isn't chemo show to be effective by correlation rather than causation? :S

          (trying to find a link to the Norwegian study into 200,000 cases of diagnosed cancer, where 1/3 of the cases self resolved. ie Cancer may not be what we've been told to belive and the scientific investigation into cancer and regular interactions with antibodies has not ended, yet)

        • StewBalls on 23/05/2012 - 11:00
          +2

          Are you saying you've seen people getting chemo go on to survive? :S

          Yes, I know many people who've had appropriately timed & delivered combinations of chemo/radio/surgical interventions who are in long-term remission.

          Unfortunately, I have also known many who have not survived…that is the nature of the disease, it can be both aggressive & dynamic; and why early detection & intervention is critical to survival. Well-intentioned; but nonetheless ill-informed & time consuming; dalliances with strange diets, crystals, chanting, herbs & candles etc will get you dead pronto once you have a diagnosis.

          But I am alarmed at people who are praising chemo. We still don't know everything there is to know about cancer and what is going on.

          We know enough about the aetiology to have developed potent drugs that predominantly target neoplastic cells; we know enough to have developed techniques in excision, ablation & targeted ionizing radition with minimal collatoral tissue damage; and most certainly enough about the prognosis to know that if there is no intervention whatsoever in a malignant cancer the end result will be death. I think that's enough evidence for the gold-standard evidence-based treatment…don't you???

          Also, isn't chemo show to be effective by correlation rather than causation?

          I'll take a statistical correlation over NOTHING any day thanks!

      • vbevan on 22/05/2012 - 13:50
        +4

        But an Apple a day…oh wait, Steve Jobs died trying that didn't he :p

      • [Deactivated] on 23/05/2012 - 09:08
        -4

        Seriously, I cant believe the negative responses coming from people on this forum about what chemo/radio/surgical therapy is.
        First of all it is not 'therapy'. It is an all out attack, a war on this supposed enemy, Cancer. Maybe the cancer is your bodies way of telling you there is something wrong in your lifestyle or mental/emotional state that has manifested itself as a group of cells who are now at a vibrational state that is much different to the surrounding cells and at a state that is not recognised by the immune system. This is what is happening.

        You cant change this state by attacking the body, you change it by accepting it and changing who you are as a person, maybe start following your passion! Everyone who has 'successfully' put cancer into remission thru 'conventional means' has made lifestyle changes, that is what makes the difference. (to be a statistical success in fighting cancer the conventional way is to live an extra 5 years, thats not a success, its delaying the inevitable!) The only person who can heal the cancer is the person with the cancer and it takes humble pie to acknowledge that you put it there, no one else. Once you come to that realisation you can move on.

        Cancer can be caused by many factors, it can be environmental (toxins, EMF radiation), it can be your perception (mental, emotional) and it can be disharmony generally about your life and not following your true passion. Im not talking airy fairy (although Im sure lots of ozbargainers may think so) this is real. Following your passion ie doing what you really want to do instead of just going to work to get a few dollars to keep the hampster wheel going, is really important.

        There is NO one way to cure cancer. It takes looking at your entire life, taking responsibility for all that has happened in it and accepting it. Dont fight it. Dont attack it and try and cut it out or bomb it with radiation. That to me is ridiculous!

        Science DOES NOT have all the answers. Statistics are very easily manipulated and the drug companies who fund the 'double blind studies' pick and choose which reports are submitted to the FDA etc.

        Choose which ever method you like, its your life and no-one can dictate otherwise, just choose wisely with ALL the facts and considerations available.

        • Weird and Wonderful on 23/05/2012 - 11:13
          +3

          So the cure to cancer is fixing your chi/aura or appeasing Gaia?
          No happy and emotionally fulfilled person gets cancer?

          If you want to blind yourself from the reality then that's your choice but that's just insane.
          Go past a pediatric cancer ward tell me what's wrong with the mental/emotional state, they are brave and fun loving kids.

          Please tell me if those amazing kids deserve the cancer they have.

        • StewBalls on 23/05/2012 - 11:16
          +1

          @winnie,

          That's the very same new-age, airy-fairy, uninformed, pig-ignorant attitude that costs people their lives.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/05/2012 - 12:14
          -3

          @StewBalls, no what it is is looking at the Human Being and Cancer as a result of a multitude of 'issues'. Energy is real, the energetic imprint of information is what makes 'stuff' physical. Cancer does not just appear (or any illness/dis-ease), it is a manifestation of energy patterns. You can call this what you like (new age or airy fairy) but them there are the facts. Its not Newtonian Physics that dictates this world its Quantum Physics (no thats not new age it is scientific fact).
          I would suggest it is You that is Uninformed!
          I have been researching this for over 10 years, but everyone to their own, if you like the current medical approach then go for it, I certainly would not recommend it. Just my opinion.

        • StewBalls on 23/05/2012 - 12:16
          -1

          I smell personality disorder…

  • PlasticSpaceman on 22/05/2012 - 14:20
    +6

    I think this is starting to get into troll territory. To stay on topic, so to speak:
    1. You can chose to pay anything you like from $0 to $50 for a copy. So that's a potential bargain.
    2. If you pay anything other than $0 for it, part of those proceeds will go towards sponsoring a group who suggest using non-science based methods for treating cancer as an alternative (ie instead of) therapies that have been proven to work. It would not surprise me that even if you pay $0 for it, they will record the downloads to advertise how popular it is.
    3. People have been known to die (like Steve Jobs) because they have not had timely & appropriate treatment

    So by buying (or potentially even just downloading) this movie, even if the movie itself is fantastic, you are supporting a group who (although they no doubt 'mean well') are encouraging people to not take appropriate treatment and are therefore increasing the risk that their cancer(s) will get more serious, harder to treat…..

    Saving some money on a movie is good, but if that might lead to encouraging people to not seek proper treatment that in turn could lead to a shortened life (and I have known a number of people who have died of various forms of cancer, and trust me when I say the end is not always peaceful)… is not a bargain. I have never neg'd a deal yet - until now. Sorry.

    • finance on 22/05/2012 - 14:48
      -3

      It's just a movie! For people to be informed and make up their own mind.

      it's a bit of a long assumption to say this would lead to that and that….etc.

      As per post it may be of interest for some people, as not all posts are catered to all people. Hence you are free to move on.

      "Its no different to saying: it's a great laptop bargain but i'm not in the market for one and in 12months time it'll be cheaper but if I buy it today i won't be able to feed my kids. so no thanks, therefore not a bargain."

    • reddragon on 22/05/2012 - 15:50
      +5

      As a cancer suffering scientist (if either of those two things counts for anything in this discussion) I'm with Plastic Spaceman, Stewballs & vbevan.

      Anybody who uses terms like “cancer industrial complex” or "Medical Monopolies" loses me straight away and I will do nothing to encourage them further.

      The last four years I've spent here have been brought to me and my family courtesy of the scientific method and I'm sticking with that thanks.

      Aside from that, brown rice and mung beans cause flatulence as if we don't already have enough problems with the chemical "winds".

      • StewBalls on 22/05/2012 - 16:48

        “cancer industrial complex” or "Medical Monopolies"

        It reminds me of the Tim Robbins quote from Team America:

        "Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out… and the corporations sit there in their… in their corporation buildings, and… and, and see, they're all corporation-y… and they make money."

      • PlasticSpaceman on 22/05/2012 - 17:23
        +1

        "brown rice and mung beans cause flatulence"? To heck with alternative therapies - I think we've stumbled onto a new source of alternative energy! Just gotta work out an unintrusive way to harness it…. ;-)

        • StewBalls on 22/05/2012 - 17:44
          +1

          Add some brussells sprouts & cauliflower into the equations, and we may be talking about an almost inexhaustible energy supply! :p

        • reddragon on 22/05/2012 - 18:31

          Plastic Spaceman, not just unobtrusive capture - you need to seriously consider OH&S. Anyway I think it is predominantly H2SO3.

        • PlasticSpaceman on 22/05/2012 - 20:24

          Can't reply directly to reddragon - but was more thinking more some sort of wind powered turbine inserted - I mean located - in a suitable position…. good point about OH&S…. might be a small issue with global warming as well… although of course that's also another thing being pushed by Big Pharma….

  • andy19363 on 22/05/2012 - 16:28
    +3

    I guess the other point to be considering is that the Alternative Medicine field is also a substantial industry…

    • StewBalls on 22/05/2012 - 16:52

      …and a not particularly well regulated one at that!

    • rekabkram on 22/05/2012 - 16:55
      +2

      I'd also like to see an ethics committee set up to investigate some of the claims made by alternative treatments to ensure that they aren't misleading patients and/or stoping them from seeking genuine medical assistance.

      • vbevan on 22/05/2012 - 17:13
        +1

        This…so much this. It makes me sick when the vultures in the "Altrenative medicine" industry pray on people at their most desperate and even convince them to spend money on things that they have no proof of working. A celebrity endorsement is not proof.

        Fusion excel energy pendents come to mind as an example of this. They cost alot of money which primes people to psychologicaly assume they work and to also defend their decision once they buy them (Otherwise they have to accept they made a bad choice. Cognitive dissonance usually prevents this).

        • PlasticSpaceman on 22/05/2012 - 18:06

          Personally I get a great deal of spiritual comfort from my Placebo Band - helping with many of my nonspecific ailments, as well as seeming to improve many other aspects of my existence. Mainly I suspect because it has not one, but two holograms on it! Sadly currently unavailable in Oz (http://skepticbros.com/store/) although there is a US version now…..

        • rekabkram on 22/05/2012 - 19:54

          Well PlasticSpaceman you'll be pleased to know that all of Australia's water supply now contains compound PLA-CE-BO, not a cure for all ailments in liquid form but if frozen in to a shape a study of a man in perfect health has shown it prevents all illness.

          *may cause impotence

    • aussman on 23/05/2012 - 07:18

      Yes in ripping off poor suckers that's why not going to be included in private health

  • aussman on 22/05/2012 - 21:14
    +1

    i never knew people would actually pay fot sh!t

    • Housecat on 22/05/2012 - 22:04

      Don't you use Norton Antivirus?

      • aussman on 23/05/2012 - 07:07

        I am Aladeen you are An idiot

  • SomeGuyOnOzB on 23/05/2012 - 00:49
    -1

    I'm not advocating this documentary or indeed any therapy in particular.

    Cancer is still being researched.

    However, people should be aware that with regards to chemo, talk of being cured and how effective chemo is, may relate people surviving 5 years from the time they start chemo treatment (as opposed to not dying of cancer).

    Also, can someone who knows a bit more about science, comment on this study ("Contribution of Chemotherapy to Five Year Survival Rate")[http://www.burtongoldberg.com/home/burtongoldberg/contribution-of-chemotherapy-to-five-year-survival-rate-morgan.pdf]?

    It's an old study, from 2004, and is based on literature searches, but perhaps you could comment on page 551.

    What do they mean that, chemotherapy only helps people with head and neck cancers to survive 5 years … 2.5% of the time?

    Only 0.7% if you have stomach cancer

    Lung 1.5%

    …

    There are some statistics in there that are more impressive, but it seems chemo is far from the magic cure that a lot of the pro-chemo supporters suggest :S

    Chemo is not the only treatment (I'm not even talking alternative therapies; there are other treatments being trialled at hospitals and in universities). Cancer is not full understood.

    But I think before people start admonishing anything and support the use of chemo, they should lay out what facts persuaded them that chemo is a cure to consider (if indeed, there were any facts required, to persuade them). :S

  • SomeGuyOnOzB on 23/05/2012 - 00:57
    -1

    This bit I also welcome if someone can contradict it.

    Chemo is considered a successful treatment if a patient happens to survive 5 years from the day they begin chemotherapy treatment, having been diagnosed with cancer.

    It is not causatively proven, that chemo was the sole factor, if indeed chemo helped at all, in keeping the patient alive. There are many factors and typically, no factor is proven to be the cause.

    Instead, maths alone is used. A bit like throwing a dice 1,000 times. Sometimes with your left hand and sometimes with your right. Then saying conclusively that it's because you threw with the other hand, that you got different results, without investigating say, that you were throwing dice with the other hand at a different time of day, or onto a different surface, etc etc.

    It's maths, correlation, that is used to say chemo is effective, rather than causation to prove how successful it can be.

    Chemo's been around a long time. There are very good reasons why we haven't finished research into cancer or other possible cures.

    I'm not saying support this document or any other particular treatment.

    But don't praise chemo like it's the be all and end all for cancer treatments.

    • aussman on 23/05/2012 - 07:12
      +2

      Given you don't have a medical degree and you are talking pure unadulterated rubbish based on bs no one should or will take notice of you!
      Some of us have a medical degree and treat cancer patients and actually understand the genetics and targeted treatment principles. Spend 12 years learning about the topic then you can actually post something relevant including relevant studies that you can actually understand

      • andy19363 on 23/05/2012 - 09:21

        Hmmm…. disappointing response, doing little to dispel the notion that many medicos are arrogant tools.
        Simply pouring scorn and derision does not answer the questions posed. People are far less convinced these days by the "I'm a Doctor, I know best" stance.
        At best, an opportunity for education missed….. at worst, further confirmation of the medical professions supposed 'closed mind'.

      • [Deactivated] on 23/05/2012 - 09:22
        -4

        Oh, a medical degree! You must be God. You must know it all with all your special university knowledge.
        You get taught what the establishment wants you to know. Thats it!
        Open your mind to other potentials that dont solely rely on left brain logic. And keep your sarcastic criticism to yourself!

        "Some of us have a medical degree and treat cancer patients and actually understand the genetics" - with all your amazing university knowledge please explain to me about the DNA. What is this so-called Junk DNA? May it be that science does not understand genetics AT ALL!

        The Human Being is very complex. Dont be a George Bush sprouting that you have "Won the War' before you actually know what is going on.

        • aussman on 23/05/2012 - 10:21

          More space in public system for those who want a cure

    • reddragon on 23/05/2012 - 09:33
      +2

      Thanks Aussman for your conribution.

      Founddit, I've only just chewed through the straps after Mrs Dragon forcibly prevented me from responding to your post and deleted my sweet pearls of venom.

      Founddit, You really are a fool and a dangerous one at that.

      Do you also go around advising people to avoid using paracetamol because, you know, we don't really know how that works either. Maybe you should be recommending that people rub a cat on their head to cure headaches (see link to Dara O'Briain below).

      My simple advice to you is this: when you personally have to deal with a cancer diagnosis of your own then, and only then, feel free, with my personal blessing, to undertake one of the alternative treatments for yourself. Forgo the surgery as well if that is recommned as, no doubt, your atlternatives would cause the tumour to shrink and disappear along with the cancer just like it did for Steve Jobs.

      There is a person of my acquaintance who claims she cured herself of cancer even though nobody is aware of her ever being diagnosed. Sadly she is peddling her cure, apart from her nightly trips home to Alpha Centauri, to unsuspecting and desperate people. You sound as though you would be in good company with her.

      "Just because science does not know everything does not mean that you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairytale appeals to you".

      In the words of Dara O'Briain at around 2:20 on the attached link "Get in the sack": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvMb90hem8

      • andy19363 on 23/05/2012 - 09:53

        With all due respect, Founddit has posted questions about a paper found in Clinical Oncology, which uses phrases such as

        "The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA."
        "it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival."
        "The minimal impact on survival in the more common cancers conflicts with the perceptions of many patients who feel they are receiving a treatment that will significantly enhance their chances of cure."

        He/she does not clam to be a scientist "Also, can someone who knows a bit more about science, comment on this study".
        Calling someone a dangerous fool is not commenting on the study.

        I have no interest in the 'alternative medicine' debate…. I'd plump for medical model every time. However, if I were sceptical of that model, the responses thus far would not convince me to be rushing to my local GP.

        • StewBalls on 23/05/2012 - 11:24

          I'd take "minor contribution" or "minimal impact" over no chance any day…wouldn't you???

          However, if I were sceptical of that model, the responses thus far would not convince me to be rushing to my local GP.

          I'd most likely have seen my GP first, shortly before checking OzBargain for medical advice! ;)

        • andy19363 on 23/05/2012 - 11:28

          before checking OzBargain for medical advice! ;)

          Tis probably no worse than anywhere else on the net :)

        • StewBalls on 23/05/2012 - 11:44

          With regard to those stats, how about we put them in human terms…according to the cancer council in 2010 approximately 43,000 Australians died due to cancer.

          2.3% of that is 989 families whose loved ones are still with them because of the "minor contribution" or "minimal impact" of cytotoxic chemotherapy.

          The CC estimate that this figure increases by ~15,000 each year, "However, the death rate (number of deaths per 100,000 people ) has fallen by 16%." - by most scorecards that's a win for medical science BTW! :)

          http://www.cancer.org.au/Newsmedia/factsfigures.htm

        • andy19363 on 23/05/2012 - 12:04
          +1

          very true…. and I'm sure we have/will be all touched by cancer.

          Personally I had never read that paper before, and found it quite a shocking statistic, that the contribution was only 2.3%.
          I'm hoping that we have have been able to make significant advances since then….. I have heard professionals talk of treating cancer now as a 'chronic' condition, similar to diabetes….. In my head I had assumed 'chronic' meant longer than 5 years. :(

          As I said before, I have no interest in any 'voodoo' cures. Have had experience of all the fun with folfox, picc lines, peripheral neuropathy etc etc….. It certainly helped…. and personally, I would take 18 month survival over 6 months anyday. I guess it highlights just what a difficult disease it is.

        • SomeGuyOnOzB on 23/05/2012 - 12:56

          -> Andy19363

          Yeah, I was kind of appalled at finding those figures. I'd heard of them but … yeah.

          On the plus side, for certain cases, they talk about a good (5 year) survivability rate. I think it was 44% in some cases.

          But in other cases, treating 100 people with cancer in the same location, might help 1 or 2 people only, while some can expect to be too tired to do anything, ever. Then there are the side effects that most of the 100 people can expect.

          Besides which, I guess some of the others didn't get my point at all. Doctors have more tools than just chemotherapy, radiation and surgery available.

          Non chemo targetted therapy, immunotherapy, hormonal … scientists are investigating select antibodies and their interaction with various cancer cells.

          …

          I guess, if someone is told they have something serious, they need to do their own research, talk to their own specialists and definitely be wary of people making specific statements like "I'm a scientist/doctor, you aren't, so just do what I say and be quiet".

      • SomeGuyOnOzB on 23/05/2012 - 12:06

        -> aussman

        Are you saying you, yourself, have a medical degree, you treat cancer patients and that you've spent 12 years learning about the topic?

        Are you talking about all chemotherapy or select types, when you say we are talking about targeted treatment principles?

        Since you are implying that you treat cancer patients, do you advise them that chemotherapy is a targetted medication, free of side effects and there is nothing to worry about?

        Is there any investigation into other therapies, going on, say the use of naturally occurring antibodies, because the medical, scientific and pharmaceutical bodies would like there to be a better treatment than chemo? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_killer_cell#New_finding…

        When you say I spoke unadulterated rubbish are you saying everything I said was rubbish or can you please narrow down and pinpoint something that you actually have a problem with?

        Are you saying that Burton Goldberg did not use a proper scientific approach to producing that table of results or that they are using fabricated data or something?

        Alternatively, perhaps you could point out a table for us, that shows different results for chemotherapy and it's use. Hopefully better outcomes than what is in that table.

        Can you please explain how it is rubbish? Remember I am not a scientist, so simple explanation with actual figures would help.

        ===

        -> reddragon

        In fact, it sounds like you are sourcing your own experiences rather than reading what I wrote or asked.

        Fine. Regards using mathematics as the sole source of proof. There can be side effects not known, covered or discovered during testing phases. Then, not until widespread adverse effect has been had generally by many, is the drug withdrawn.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

        Consider that Advantan was withdrawn in Australia, only recently, for increased risk of heart attack and death, only found out after much time and many people had been exposed to it. (and a number of people had heart attacks and some died)

        Reddragon - I see you say I should not talk about treatments and results published by scientists without a cancer diagnosis. Are you saying you've were diagnosed with cancer?

        What part of, I am not advocating any particular treatment, did you not understand?

        Chemo is only one treatment. Chemo should be presented as it really is and not the miracle 100% salvation, completely free of any problems, that some people in this thread seem to imply that it is.

        It is a treatment. It has some predicted benefits. It has some expected problems. Depending where cancer is found and which cancer you have, chemo may or may not be advisable and may or may not be expected to benefit you at all.

        Present the whole case, don't give me religious zeal for a single treatment.

        As for your acquaintance going on about some alternative treatment and flying off to Alpha Centauri, interesting who you hang around with.

        Okay, why am I responding to you even? You're trying to argue with your acquaintance and not me.

        Since you are against any investigation into new methods, you probably aren't interested that scientists are looking at how specific antibodies react with cancer cells.

        Also, since your pro chemo/radiation/surgery as the only solutions, just wondering what you have against immunotherapy and hormonal therapy. I guess you think someone with breast cancer should only look at chemo/radiation/surgery as a first course of action.

        Okay, bit was a bit unfair.

        Probably that was more towards Stewballs and an overreaction.

        My issue is with people thumping their chests, saying chemo/radiation/surgery or there is nothing and telling people that any and all research into alternatives is a disgusting thing to do.

        Some cases of cancer will have treatments recommended by doctors and specialists which do not start with chemo/radiation/surgery so maybe all of us non-doctors who are not dealing with specific patients and cases should knock off with the chemo/radiation/surgery or nothing else, lest we scare someone into the wrong treatment for them.

        • aussman on 23/05/2012 - 13:16
          +1

          you clearly don't understand what chemotherapy is nor the options available
          antibiotics = chemotherapy
          antibody based treatment = chemotherapy
          All other pharmaceutical medications
          homeopathic medicines actually are a form of chemotherapy

          in case you don't get the gist chemotherapy = the use of drugs to treat cancers (note treatment is not equal to cure)

          You are also espousing information very dangerously, reading a study about cancers you know nothing about, and based on 10+ yr old data is very dangerous thing to do!!
          Case closed

          I don't have the time to spend here educating you I am off to hunt down more bargains :P

        • SomeGuyOnOzB on 23/05/2012 - 13:42

          -> Aussman

          You still haven't clarified that you have a science/medical background or how you are involved in treating cancer patients.

          So, someone says to you, worried, there's a study here that says if I take chemo, the side effects are that the chemo might destroy my capacity to function and/or kill me (eg weakened immune system + catching a virus)… and it'll only increase my chance of making it through five years by 1% …

          You would say, it's old data, that's dangerous to look at, case closed.

          Then they say, well, can you show me the newer results that show me I have a better than 1% chance … and you still say case closed or do you …. have something you could actually share with us? :S

          I realize you are busy now, with getting bargains but seriously, if you can show us newer data that shows better results, please do.

          Those other results look abysmal

        • andy19363 on 23/05/2012 - 14:00
          +4

          you clearly don't understand what chemotherapy is

          Chemotherapy is generally understood to mean cytotoxic compounds used in the treatment of cancer.

          Case closed

          That's good….. your waffle was beginning to betray you….

  • aussman on 23/05/2012 - 10:19
    +1

    For all you self founded internet geniuses look up the drug glivec and look at its effect on gist and leaukaemia
    Look up the Swedish colorectal cancer study. Look up MAGIC trial.
    These are just a few
    Happy for you to have fish slapped on your back for treatment. Frees up the public health system for others

  • scotty on 23/05/2012 - 15:15
    +2

    Looks like the discussion has gone way off-topic. I'll close this thread now.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join