[my small voice]

I have always heard said that you hope the chemo kills the cancer before the person.

[Freddd]

Hmmm, maybe that is the plan of the euthanasia government rationed healthcare system? Kill them while claiming your helping them, eh?

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

...you hope the chemo kills the cancer before the person.

Current standards do not "cure" cancer. I look at it as "slash, burn, and sinister poison". Slash and burn being surgery and radiation with sinister poison being chemo. Granted techniques are improving every day for both surgery and radiation but the end goal is to remove the tumor and often that requires you to decide how much of your body you are willing to give up to collateral damage. As far as chemo, you are absolutely right, infusing the patient with toxic chemicals in the hope that the tumor dies before irreducible harm is done to the patient is pretty much an accurate description of chemotherapy.

I know whereof I speak as my mother died of cancer, my father died of cancer. My oldest brother had cancer which may or may not have contributed to his death. The next oldest brother has just undergone "cryogenic ablation" to destroy a malignant tumor, this procedure is now cutting edge technology. And I'm a twelve year survivor (conventional surgery) with no subsequent presentation of the original cancer.

It is obvious to me at least that cancers are of genetic origin. I believe that your genes can predispose you towards cancer. It only develops when you are exposed to a triggering event. A person without the genetic predisposition does not respond to the trigger. Case in point being 90⁺, two pack a day smokers who have no problems while a nonsmoker develops lung cancer from second hand smoke.

My hope is that having the human genome decoded will ultimately uncover the DNA that causes this instability. I also feel that most of the "number one killer" diseases (heart attack, arterial, Alzheimer's, &C.) are ultimately genetic in origin and will eventually yield to the same approach. Eventually we may be able to guarantee that cellular division maintains perfect fidelity. That would lead to boredom becoming the number one cause of death.

Regards,
GtG

[wardaddy]

There are survivors here who praise the chemo that saved them and some who took mild doses they tolerate very well. On the other hand in my family I have dealt with dying now a half dozen times including my own parents, grandmother and two close aunts and have seen chemo and/or radiation decimate folks for very little quality end of life.

I think anything less than a 50/50 3 year survival rate is iffy except for precious children.

I am not dead yet and my bad heart will probably take me but that is how I have lived it up close and personal

what technically kills folks terminal is liver failure ultimately or lung shutdown at bitter end accompanied by serious heart sack fluid buildup and maybe infections too...it is brutal but is the natural course chemo can kill from strokes to cardiac events but that is relatively rare

death is also accompanied by extreme dehydration once the drip is removed and to a degree malnutrition maybe but by that time Uncle C is taking any nutrients you take in anyhow...this is the big truth...Cancer kills you as much by robbing your food as destroying organs

Cancer over aged 65 is btw not remarkable

[Kickass Conservative]

I'm in the middle of my second round of Chemo after falling out of a three year Remission for Leukemia.

Suzanne Somers, who is a friend of my Brother In-Law BTW, is full of it. The improvement in cutting edge drugs is amazing. I am currently on a three drug cocktail and expect to get back into Remission very soon.

Patrick Swayze had the worst of the worst Cancer and he lasted far longer getting treatment, including Chemo, than he would have otherwise.

This New Age crap didn't work for McQueen, Fawcett or Swayze. People never learn.