6 ms·

One of the ironies is that a very common side effect of standard issue chemotherapy is a marked and often permanent weakening of the immune system by altering a

by ansible 11y ago

One of the ironies is that a very common side effect of standard issue chemotherapy is a marked and often permanent weakening of the immune system by altering a person's microbiome. Advances in oncology perhaps within our own lifetime will make today's treatments seem as embarrassing as medieval blood-letting. It's embarrassing now, never mind later. We just don't often have better alternatives than to pump already sick people full of poison in the hope that the poison kills the cancer faster than the rest of the person. It is horrible, and has (in my opinion) only improved slightly in the last few decades.

robbies 11y ago
> pump already sick people full of poison I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for explanation/references/proof of what you mean when you say 'poison'. I don't know your particular experiences with chemotherapy, but I hear this soundbite parroted too often without any effort to actually research what chemotherapy is actually trying to accomplish. I'm not saying people shouldn't investigate their recommended treatment plans, but this often unwarranted suspicion of modern cancer treatment techniques is mystifying to me.
- scarmig 11y ago
  It's a sound bite because it's true. That's not a reason to avoid chemotherapy--it's probably the best method we have right now of fighting cancer--but the biggest concern with prescribing chemotherapy is how much and how long can the patient sustain it, and does the benefit outweigh the costs.
- iskander 11y ago
  Chemotherapy, for most cancers, achieves tumor shrinkage and a temporary extension of life, at the cost of severe life quality degradation. It's a tradeoff that most cancer patients think is worth it. I think that this therapeutic benefit puts us in a grey zone with regard to the definition of poison. The substances would undoubtably be considered poison in other contexts (e.g. mustard gas) but the doses are carefully calibrated to just-barely not kill a patient. Maybe "poison" is a function of usage intent?
  - Gatsky 11y ago
    "Chemotherapy, for most cancers, achieves tumor shrinkage and a temporary extension of life, at the cost of severe life quality degradataion." This is just not true. I provide you with this list of cases where chemotherapy can cure people (established in phase III double blind randomised controlled trials): Early stage breast cancer Early stage colon cancer Acute myeloid leukaemia Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia Diffuse large B-cell Lymphoma Paediatric neuroblastoma, retinoblastoma, nephroblastoma etc etc Testicular seminoma and non-seminoma Testicular germ cell tumours Note that breast and colon cancer are among the top 3 most common cancers.
    - iskander 11y ago
      Let me revise that: for solid tumors, chemotherapy can cure people, but typically doesn't. At one extreme, early stage (solid) cancers are primarily cured by surgery. At the other extreme (metastasis), chemotherapy is a terminal rollercoaster. In between those extremes (e.g. some limited local progression), adjuvant chemotherapy seems to be useful for breast cancer, but has only a very small effect for colon cancer (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607618662 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607...) and none for lung cancer (http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/19/1453.short http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/19/1453.short).
      - Gatsky 11y ago
        When you say adjuvant chemotherapy 'seems' to be useful in breast cancer, what exactly do you mean? How does a meta-analysis of 20,000 patients in randomized controlled trials showing a persistent reduction in risk of recurrence and death equate to 'seeming'? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25917869 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25917869
  - Ralfp 11y ago
    You are talking about chemo provided via infusions. We are seeing increasing number of chemo in pills that are noted for being far more bearable for patients while still being effective.
- Mz 11y ago
  My mother has had cancer twice. My father: twice. My sister: four or five times. My brother: once. My mother's mother died during treatment for cancer. At least three of my mother's sisters have had cancer. I took care of my sister after her first mastectomy. They do pump cancer patients full of poison. The patients know it. The doctors know it. Maybe I am a little too deep in the weeds here, but I am astonished this assertion is being questioned at all.
  - frenchy 11y ago
    I think the gp just doesn't like this liberal usage of the word "poison". Most medication is "poison" to people who are otherwise healthy. NSAIDs are bad for the stomach, pills for insomnia will make you fat, narcotics will make you fall asleep, epinephrine can stop your heart. We take them because their ill effects aren't as bad as the good they produce. Cancer chemotherapy is mostly unique because it produces a lot of suffering to someone who appears to be quite healthy. There are other medicines with horrible side effects, but you'll usually have to be obviously sick with something like malaria in order to be treated with one of those.
  - fredgrott 11y ago
    it goes deeper than that because of the way our bodies metabolize chemicals we often have to pump poisons in to kill something at far greater toxic levels than to kill that thing if it was outside our bodies
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  That's how chemotherapy works. Primarily it just kills cells. Typically it has a more potent effect on faster reproducing cells. Because cancer cells often lack the repair mechanisms and support systems of healthy cells they are sometimes more susceptible to being damaged than healthy cells. That plus the focus on fast dividing cells means that sometimes the cancer cells will die off while your non-cancerous tissues persevere and are able to recover after the end of the treatment. It's also why chemotherapy has its notable side effects though (weakness, paleness, nausea, and hair loss) because hair follicles, the digestive tract lining, and new blood cells are also targeted.
  - Ntrails 11y ago
    That's a neat, simple explanation. Thanks :)
- jghn 11y ago
  Classic chemo drugs are cytotoxic which is safe to refer to as a poison. Modern targeted therapies can take different approaches
baus 11y ago
My Dad was a melanoma patient. Modern chemotherapy has gotten a little more complicated than just directly attacking cells. Modern treatments include immunotherapy such as YERVOY[1] and KEYTRUDA[2]. With that said, the side effects of YERVOY put him the ICU with kidney failure. [1] http://www.yervoy.com/ http://www.yervoy.com/ [2] https://www.keytruda.com/ https://www.keytruda.com/
gautamnarula 11y ago
A great book on this subject is The Emperor of All Maladies, which goes through the historical development of cancer treatments. I highly recommend it to anyone with even a passing interest in understanding cancer.
milkcircle 11y ago
Fun fact: blood-letting is still used clinically for several forms of blood disorders. In cases of iron overload (hereditary hemochromatosis), blood is removed to maintain a low circulating free iron level. Today we don't call it "blood-letting" but rather "therapeutic phlebotomy".

by ansible 11y ago

robbies 11y ago

> pump already sick people full of poison I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for explanation/references/proof of what you mean when you say 'poison'. I don't know your particular experiences with chemotherapy, but I hear this soundbite parroted too often without any effort to actually research what chemotherapy is actually trying to accomplish. I'm not saying people shouldn't investigate their recommended treatment plans, but this often unwarranted suspicion of modern cancer treatment techniques is mystifying to me.

scarmig 11y ago
It's a sound bite because it's true. That's not a reason to avoid chemotherapy--it's probably the best method we have right now of fighting cancer--but the biggest concern with prescribing chemotherapy is how much and how long can the patient sustain it, and does the benefit outweigh the costs.
iskander 11y ago
Chemotherapy, for most cancers, achieves tumor shrinkage and a temporary extension of life, at the cost of severe life quality degradation. It's a tradeoff that most cancer patients think is worth it. I think that this therapeutic benefit puts us in a grey zone with regard to the definition of poison. The substances would undoubtably be considered poison in other contexts (e.g. mustard gas) but the doses are carefully calibrated to just-barely not kill a patient. Maybe "poison" is a function of usage intent?
- Gatsky 11y ago
  "Chemotherapy, for most cancers, achieves tumor shrinkage and a temporary extension of life, at the cost of severe life quality degradataion." This is just not true. I provide you with this list of cases where chemotherapy can cure people (established in phase III double blind randomised controlled trials): Early stage breast cancer Early stage colon cancer Acute myeloid leukaemia Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia Diffuse large B-cell Lymphoma Paediatric neuroblastoma, retinoblastoma, nephroblastoma etc etc Testicular seminoma and non-seminoma Testicular germ cell tumours Note that breast and colon cancer are among the top 3 most common cancers.
  - iskander 11y ago
    Let me revise that: for solid tumors, chemotherapy can cure people, but typically doesn't. At one extreme, early stage (solid) cancers are primarily cured by surgery. At the other extreme (metastasis), chemotherapy is a terminal rollercoaster. In between those extremes (e.g. some limited local progression), adjuvant chemotherapy seems to be useful for breast cancer, but has only a very small effect for colon cancer (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607618662 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607...) and none for lung cancer (http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/19/1453.short http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/19/1453.short).
    - Gatsky 11y ago
      When you say adjuvant chemotherapy 'seems' to be useful in breast cancer, what exactly do you mean? How does a meta-analysis of 20,000 patients in randomized controlled trials showing a persistent reduction in risk of recurrence and death equate to 'seeming'? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25917869 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25917869
- Ralfp 11y ago
  You are talking about chemo provided via infusions. We are seeing increasing number of chemo in pills that are noted for being far more bearable for patients while still being effective.
Mz 11y ago
My mother has had cancer twice. My father: twice. My sister: four or five times. My brother: once. My mother's mother died during treatment for cancer. At least three of my mother's sisters have had cancer. I took care of my sister after her first mastectomy. They do pump cancer patients full of poison. The patients know it. The doctors know it. Maybe I am a little too deep in the weeds here, but I am astonished this assertion is being questioned at all.
- frenchy 11y ago
  I think the gp just doesn't like this liberal usage of the word "poison". Most medication is "poison" to people who are otherwise healthy. NSAIDs are bad for the stomach, pills for insomnia will make you fat, narcotics will make you fall asleep, epinephrine can stop your heart. We take them because their ill effects aren't as bad as the good they produce. Cancer chemotherapy is mostly unique because it produces a lot of suffering to someone who appears to be quite healthy. There are other medicines with horrible side effects, but you'll usually have to be obviously sick with something like malaria in order to be treated with one of those.
- fredgrott 11y ago
  it goes deeper than that because of the way our bodies metabolize chemicals we often have to pump poisons in to kill something at far greater toxic levels than to kill that thing if it was outside our bodies
InclinedPlane 11y ago
That's how chemotherapy works. Primarily it just kills cells. Typically it has a more potent effect on faster reproducing cells. Because cancer cells often lack the repair mechanisms and support systems of healthy cells they are sometimes more susceptible to being damaged than healthy cells. That plus the focus on fast dividing cells means that sometimes the cancer cells will die off while your non-cancerous tissues persevere and are able to recover after the end of the treatment. It's also why chemotherapy has its notable side effects though (weakness, paleness, nausea, and hair loss) because hair follicles, the digestive tract lining, and new blood cells are also targeted.
- Ntrails 11y ago
  That's a neat, simple explanation. Thanks :)
jghn 11y ago
Classic chemo drugs are cytotoxic which is safe to refer to as a poison. Modern targeted therapies can take different approaches

baus 11y ago

My Dad was a melanoma patient. Modern chemotherapy has gotten a little more complicated than just directly attacking cells. Modern treatments include immunotherapy such as YERVOY[1] and KEYTRUDA[2]. With that said, the side effects of YERVOY put him the ICU with kidney failure. [1] http://www.yervoy.com/ http://www.yervoy.com/ [2] https://www.keytruda.com/ https://www.keytruda.com/

gautamnarula 11y ago

A great book on this subject is The Emperor of All Maladies, which goes through the historical development of cancer treatments. I highly recommend it to anyone with even a passing interest in understanding cancer.

milkcircle 11y ago

Fun fact: blood-letting is still used clinically for several forms of blood disorders. In cases of iron overload (hereditary hemochromatosis), blood is removed to maintain a low circulating free iron level. Today we don't call it "blood-letting" but rather "therapeutic phlebotomy".