"The Cancer Report"-Are we killing patients?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
JP2740 said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnaBG177VIw

What do you think brahs?
Click to expand...

Well, clearly, no one has (or should spend) the time to watch an hour and 20 minute documentary from an organization whose web disclaimer reads "The information provided by this site is intended to be a truthful, corrective alternative to the advice provided by physicians and other medical professionals." and whose tagline is "Powered by God's Medicine"

However, from reading the Youtube description (the amount of time I will devote to this material): "Cancer patients with no treatment at all statistically live four times longer"

I ...am skeptical of this and would like to see a study.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Didierdrogba said:
Thank god i am a DO student, when the the big conspiracy of allopathic medicine and big pharmas is revealed, I still have osteopathic manipulation to fall back upon.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm?

I don't doubt that big pharma is a huge conspiracy. There are a lot of people taking way too many drugs and drugs are often the primary method to treat chronic diseases from poor lifestyle choices. America is so sick because they are unhealthy to begin with.

Obviously this isn't all of healthcare, it may not even be a majority - but it's a huge part of the system that is over medicated.
 
John Lannister said:
Sarcasm?

I don't doubt that big pharma is a huge conspiracy. There are a lot of people taking way too many drugs and drugs are often the primary method to treat chronic diseases from poor lifestyle choices. America is so sick because they are unhealthy to begin with.

Obviously this isn't all of healthcare, it may not even be a majority - but it's a huge part of the system that is over medicated.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm indeed. I was trying to poke fun at those delusional conspiracy theorists and some dubious claims and aspects of osteopathic manipulation at the same time. I guess it did not come out well.

Truthful personal opinion: are big pharmas greedy? yes to some degree, but at least they have done more good than harm so far.
 
I watched all of about 3 minutes of that video but had to stop.

Predicting what its arguments were going to be.

It is a logical fallacy to state that there's been a dramatically higher increase in the incidence of cancer. There may be a higher prevalence of cancer, but that is due to the fact that a significantly higher amount of people are living into their 60s, 70s, and 80s+ which are the years most at risk for cancer.
 
vonburen said:
I watched all of about 3 minutes of that video but had to stop.

Predicting what its arguments were going to be.

It is a logical fallacy to state that there's been a dramatically higher increase in the incidence of cancer. There may be a higher prevalence of cancer, but that is due to the fact that a significantly higher amount of people are living into their 60s, 70s, and 80s+ which are the years most at risk for cancer.
Click to expand...

Well incidence and prevalence rates could both go up because of that, so it may not be entirely incorrect to say that incidence rates of cancer have gone up. Remember that incidence and prevalence are two separate ideas.

Incidence rates can go up because certain cancers may not appear until the 6th+ decade of life, so we're now including all these people who would have died from something else before in our incidence rates.
Prevalence rates can go up because we're better at treating cancer so many people who develop cancer are living for a longer period of time, increasing the total number of people who have the disease in our population.

Here's an article from the CDC explaining some of the reasons why cancer incidence rates have seemingly gone up:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/risk/cancer/cancer-trends.html

LOL at the line in the video "Before the 20th century, cancer was so uncommon that it was a medical oddity". Well yeah, cause before the 20th century the average life expectancy at birth was 42 years old for white males in the US.
 
Last edited:
calvnandhobbs68 said:
Well incidence and prevalence rates could both go up because of that, so it may not be entirely incorrect to say that incidence rates of cancer have gone up. Remember that incidence and prevalence are two separate ideas.

Incidence rates can go up because certain cancers may not appear until the 6th+ decade of life, so we're now including all these people who would have died from something else before in our incidence rates.
Prevalence rates can go up because we're better at treating cancer so many people who develop cancer are living for a longer period of time, increasing the total number of people who have the disease in our population.

Here's an article from the CDC explaining some of the reasons why cancer incidence rates have seemingly gone up:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/risk/cancer/cancer-trends.html

LOL at the line in the video "Before the 20th century, cancer was so uncommon that it was a medical oddity". Well yeah, cause before the 20th century the average life expectancy at birth was 42 years old for white males in the US.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I was shown those graphs multiple times in pathology, along with some opinions from my professor about why he thought we were seeing this. Despite how some people seem to think all gloom and doom, it's really not the case. The environment has had a huge impact and knowing this has shown a decrease rate in deaths/cancers. But there's also the idea that more people are living longer, so it's making a negative impact. And then there's the fact that back then... who had the proper screening equipment for cancer? Back in the early 20th century... I'm sure lots of people died from heart failure but was it really heart failure that caused it? Or cancer? How many coroners and pathologists were available to exam EVERY death in the US in the early 20th century?
 
I've got to think that increased rates of detection have to play a role in the apparent increase in incidence. Maybe we're just catching it more often and it is not necessarily becoming more and more common.
 
Last edited:
Cancer is more common now than it was in the past, and this cannot be explained simply by increased diagnosis and an aging population.

It's a common misconception that people in the past simply dropped dead at 30 (life expectancy was 30). Low life expectancy was a result of high infant mortality. There were plenty of people living well into their 60's, 70's, and 80's. In fact, life expectancy from age 20 has only increased about 15 years since 1850.

There are many possible explanations for the increased incidence of cancer. We have the obvious causes - smoking, obesity, stress, poor diet, etc. Then there are the causes that most physicians don't think about: ubiquitous environmental toxins, excessive use of vaccinations and antibiotics, harmful perinatal practices recommended by physicians, drugs prescribed by physicians, genetically modified food - the list goes on. The relative contributions of each of these factors to the increased incidence of cancer is hard to predict, and may not be apparent for decades, if the research ever gets done.

Regarding chemotherapy, well, we all acknowledge that there's enormous bias in the literature. Billions of dollars are at stake here, and anyone who thinks this doesn't hurt patients is kidding themselves. Surgery is probably the most reliable treatment we have, but even here, where there's much less bias secondary to financial interests, surgery is often overused and causes more harm than good. Chemotherapy generally causes more harm than good. There are some obvious exceptions, ie, certain leukemias, etc.
 
I didn't have time to watch it, but looking at cancer forums, you have the people saying how there's a "cure" for cancer (even though it's a variety of different diseases) and how it's because your body is too acidic or something dumb like that. If ou take biochem, you'll see why this is garbage.

The trolls on cancer forums are sickening.

In fact, I believe cancer is caused by a lack of Taco Bell. If you eat a very specific Taco Bell diet every day, you will bring your body back into Taco Bell homeostasis. This makes just as much sense as the idiotic cancer cures and conspiracies being thrown around.
 
Rothbard said:
Cancer is more common now than it was in the past, and this cannot be explained simply by increased diagnosis and an aging population.

It's a common misconception that people in the past simply dropped dead at 30 (life expectancy was 30). Low life expectancy was a result of high infant mortality. There were plenty of people living well into their 60's, 70's, and 80's. In fact, life expectancy from age 20 has only increased about 15 years since 1850.

There are many possible explanations for the increased incidence of cancer. We have the obvious causes - smoking, obesity, stress, poor diet, etc. Then there are the causes that most physicians don't think about: ubiquitous environmental toxins, excessive use of vaccinations and antibiotics, harmful perinatal practices recommended by physicians, drugs prescribed by physicians, genetically modified food - the list goes on. The relative contributions of each of these factors to the increased incidence of cancer is hard to predict, and may not be apparent for decades, if the research ever gets done.

Regarding chemotherapy, well, we all acknowledge that there's enormous bias in the literature. Billions of dollars are at stake here, and anyone who thinks this doesn't hurt patients is kidding themselves. Surgery is probably the most reliable treatment we have, but even here, where there's much less bias secondary to financial interests, surgery is often overused and causes more harm than good. Chemotherapy generally causes more harm than good. There are some obvious exceptions, ie, certain leukemias, etc.
Click to expand...

LMAO. One more BS post out of you and you're going on my ignore list. You think vaccinations/antibiotics/periNATAL practices are causing cancer?

One thing I will agree with you is that some chemotherapy regimen studies may show significant benefits, but is 2 months really that valuable when you're doing palliative chemo/radiation (especially on a patient without symptoms)?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
evilbooyaa said:
LMAO. One more BS post out of you and you're going on my ignore list. You think vaccinations/antibiotics/periNATAL practices are causing cancer?

One thing I will agree with you is that some chemotherapy regimen studies may show significant benefits, but is 2 months really that valuable when you're doing palliative chemo/radiation (especially on a patient without symptoms)?
Click to expand...

Er, yes. You probably didn't pay attention on your ob rotation, but, for example, oxygen use in newborns is believed to cause cancer. Only recently have our wise physicians started to minimize its use.
 
Rothbard said:
Er, yes. You probably didn't pay attention on your ob rotation, but, for example, oxygen use in newborns is believed to cause cancer. Only recently have our wise physicians started to minimize its use.
Click to expand...

You probably didn't pay attention on your ob rotation, but lack of oxygen in newborns is believed to cause ischemic encephalopathy and death.
 
VisionaryTics said:
You probably didn't pay attention on your ob rotation, but lack of oxygen in newborns is believed to cause ischemic encephalopathy and death.
Click to expand...

TIL that the neonatologist I rounded with murders his patients.
 
Those 19th century MRI machines used to catch every incidence of cancer. Not to mention the autopsies done on every dead person who died of 'natural causes' at 40 years old to diagnose cancer.

Increased screenings, imaging techniques, public awareness, larger older population -> increased diagnoses -> apparent 'increase' in cancers.

****ing genius.
 
theshellyb said:
However, from reading the Youtube description (the amount of time I will devote to this material): "Cancer patients with no treatment at all statistically live four times longer"

I ...am skeptical of this and would like to see a study.
Click to expand...
There is no study. It's completely wrong on every level. The end.
 
TheProwler said:
There is no study. It's completely wrong on every level. The end.
Click to expand...

I'm just curious where they got that info from... Sure, chemo is killer, but it prolongs your life vs not gettin chemo which would end your life sooner.
 
Rothbard said:
Cancer is more common now than it was in the past, and this cannot be explained simply by increased diagnosis and an aging population.

It's a common misconception that people in the past simply dropped dead at 30 (life expectancy was 30). Low life expectancy was a result of high infant mortality. There were plenty of people living well into their 60's, 70's, and 80's. In fact, life expectancy from age 20 has only increased about 15 years since 1850.
Click to expand...

That is a massive increase in life expectancy (going from 55 to 70) when we are talking about cancer.

There are many possible explanations for the increased incidence of cancer. We have the obvious causes - smoking, obesity, stress, poor diet, etc. Then there are the causes that most physicians don't think about: ubiquitous environmental toxins, excessive use of vaccinations and antibiotics, harmful perinatal practices recommended by physicians, drugs prescribed by physicians, genetically modified food - the list goes on. The relative contributions of each of these factors to the increased incidence of cancer is hard to predict, and may not be apparent for decades, if the research ever gets done.
Click to expand...

And this is where you reveal yourself to be a quack
 
Regarding chemotherapy, well, we all acknowledge that there's enormous bias in the literature. Billions of dollars are at stake here, and anyone who thinks this doesn't hurt patients is kidding themselves. Surgery is probably the most reliable treatment we have, but even here, where there's much less bias secondary to financial interests, surgery is often overused and causes more harm than good. Chemotherapy generally causes more harm than good. There are some obvious exceptions, ie, certain leukemias, etc.
Click to expand...

From your post it is clear you do not understand when chemo is used.
 
Rothbard said:
Go on...
Click to expand...
You already demonstrated it. Chemotherapy generally causes more harm than good? So oncologists just intentionally violate "first do no harm" every day they go to work?

Exactly what operations are overused and do more harm than good?
 
TheProwler said:
You already demonstrated it. Chemotherapy generally causes more harm than good? So oncologists just intentionally violate "first do no harm" every day they go to work?

Exactly what operations are overused and do more harm than good?
Click to expand...

Intentionally? No. Oncologists generally believe in what they're doing. But the literature is so tainted with pharma dollars that the treatments usually work no better than placebo. Their side effects, however, are quite real.
 
Rothbard said:
Intentionally? No. Oncologists generally believe in what they're doing. But the literature is so tainted with pharma dollars that the treatments usually work no better than placebo. Their side effects, however, are quite real.
Click to expand...

That's quite the sweeping generalization. So we have been injecting poison into people for corporate profits is what you are telling me? Who do I trust the countless oncologists who save patients lives by the millions or some half wit on the internet who is warning us about big bad pharma.

I watched my then girlfriend now fiancee go through chemo/radiation and it without question saved her life as it turns out Hodgkins was a fatal disease up until these "evil pharma drugs" came around. Is there a risk for a secondary cancer coming along? Absolutely.. but we would take that risk over trying some alternative crap that would do end up with the same result as doing nothing or worse give her side effects with no benefit.

So mr. internet guy I hope you're just a troll that I wasted 5 minutes on. However if you do believe this nonsense, you're a fool and need to stop talking.
 
I equate people like this with those who believe vaccines cause autism and chiropractic care can cure multitudes of various pathologies.

Its all garbage that exists due to ignorance and fear mongering. The interesting thing is these types will typically be the first begging for treatment when its their life at stake. Funny how green tea and organic fruits dont have the same appeal when its time to put up or shut up.
 
Rothbard said:
Intentionally? No. Oncologists generally believe in what they're doing. But the literature is so tainted with pharma dollars that the treatments usually work no better than placebo. Their side effects, however, are quite real.
Click to expand...

😕

You don't know what you're talking about... There has never been a chemo vs placebo trial. That's unethical, illegal and just wrong. Drugs like this are tested against the best known available treatment. It's not a trial like treating for depression.

Also -

logkill2.gif
 
I really hope he is just trolling. It's difficult enough trying to convince some members of the lay public who are so freaking adamant about these issues, but a soon to be physician thinking that? 👎
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
What matters for applying to competitive specialties/programs (and how much are they each weighed)
Replies
9
Views
2K
Dral
Dral
M
Are these MSPE comments alright?
Replies
12
Views
2K
JuicedToTheSocks
J
S
SDN Article: TCU and UNTHSC Report their Divorce
Replies
0
Views
847
Student Doctor Network
S
V
Normal for visiting sub-I to steal your patients and cases?
Replies
19
Views
2K
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
EngineerPreMD
Basically none of the patients at my home hospital speak English, and the whole place is just wearing me down
Replies
3
Views
969
operaman
O
Top