Do you feel that Chemo and radiation are a viable cancer treatment even though it has a very low recovery rate?

Ladies and gentlemen, I regret to inform you that qualification is broken.

Chemotherapy has kept my mother alive for the past six years, managing her inoperable metastatic colon cancer (inoperable bilateral tumors in the lungs). I don't believe anyone has stopped looking for a cure, or is interested in hiding one so they can make more money.

Let's find something better? Are you serious? Like that isn't being done right now. And sure, you can go for those alternative methods, but if it was me..I'd go for chemo or radiation. There's no proof that alternative methods are any good. Why am I even answering this? This survey is complete crap.

Nothing works. My cats die from cancer no matter what I do. I don't think there is anything to do about cancer.

Trying now to figure out how one of my cats has AIDS even though he's been in the house for 7 years with no exposure to outside cats. He's only 7 years old, is skin and bones and I'm working to keep him alive. Not very optimistic at all.

As far as I can tell, our progress in figuring out how to fight cancer is terrible. We're better now at detecting cancers earlier so the success rate looks a little better but chemo and radiation are pretty horrible treatments. Dichloro-acetate (DCA) is an interesting possibility if it ever manages to get a serious testing. WILT (whole-body interdiction of lengthening of telomeres) is kinda insane but it maybe that cancer is so difficult it'll really take something that radical.

It's pretty much all there is now, and it seems to be better than no treatment at all. Some better treatments likely exist, but the medical researchers looking for them haven't found them yet. They're looking, though, and in the meantime, if I got cancer, I would want chemo or radiation.

yes, i do. this is a general statement made about numerous types of cancer, numerous types of treatment and combinations of treatment that you haven't even researched the actual recovery rates. there are many types of cancer that chemo and/or radiation are beneficial if not curative treatments for. it is painful to lose a friend or family member to cancer of any kind, i do know that. i also know that these are some of the most proven treatments.

> Ladies and gentlemen, I regret to inform you that qualification is
> broken.

i agree, these last two that got through are horrible!!

transmission from the mother cat??

Yea, I guess ....My Brother had chemo ..he had a tumor/cancer of the colon , but to be fair he had his lower Colon removed so... maybe the gfact that it was just "cut out" was more the cure?

Oh I can't wait to get into some arguments of why these wo treatments are not barbaric.

But in that being said, there have been maybe a few instances when it did save a life. Please, this is the 21st century, shelve the barbaric practices already. Let's go back to basics and see that the body is doing what it is supposed to be doing. It is finding a balance, and when one thing is out of balance you don't fix it by strapping a bomb to it's ass.

That last sentence really made me grin.

Thanks!

Hard to say. Possibility I guess.

Well, in an ideal world, we'd have something better. But we just have to work with what's available. It helps some people, others unfortunately it doesn't.

I don't think the premise of this is accurate, and I know for sure the type of cancer plays a huge role in survival rates. Further, the Oliver Stonish explanation seems pretty stupid.

Depends on the type of cancer...the type of human...the types of or lack of treatment.....too many variables

I've lost some very close people to cancer. The chemo did help them recover, but then the cancer came back aggressively.

Sometimes, when its your time... its your time.

I think it is a cruel treatment, damages the kidney and liver. Cancer is a nutrient deficiency. I think it's evil.