Maybe it is best to support her in whatever she decides, quality of life, if there is a poor prognosis might be best for her, someone else would tolerate all the side effects to have a bit longer.
I doubt any of us who have not been through it can really appreciate what it must be like.
I can only speak from when I had breast cancer and say she can try all the alternatives she likes but please don't give up the conventional medicine, chemo is nasty but I wouldn't be here today without it.
Is she in touch with others going through the same thing, my oncologist ran a group we all supported each other. Some didn't make it but it was only 2 out of the twenty in our group which tells me the 2% figure must be wrong.
Yes it is up to her as long as she has access to proven scientific evidence about the success rate of any particular treatment and can thus make an informed judgement
Sorry but none of that is needed if you are the patient, its a personal choice. You can't be forced to have treatment, unless you are deemed not of sound mind.
bambii - I have to say I absolutely disagree - of course access to REAL clinical evidence is necessary - otherwise how can you possibly make a sensible choice? No one has said that this lady should be forced to have chemo - merely that if she is going to make a decision it should be based on proper facts, not wildly exaggerated and totally unfounded statistics about 100% survival rates.
Are you saying that this lady is better off basing her decision on some information which is patently untrue rather than the very useful data which another FM posted showing the actual survival rates for chemotherapy?
bambii - I have to say I absolutely disagree - of course access to REAL clinical evidence is necessary - otherwise how can you possibly make a sensible choice? No one has said that this lady should be forced to have chemo - merely that if she is going to make a decision it should be based on proper facts, not wildly exaggerated and totally unfounded statistics about 100% survival rates.
Are you saying that this lady is better off basing her decision on some information which is patently untrue rather than the very useful data which another FM posted showing the actual survival rates for chemotherapy?
I am only saying she can only base her decision on her own wishes. I agree that conventional medicine is the best, and I would personally choose that for myself. However, I am not her, this is not my fight. No one has a right to tell her what to do, but by all means OP do all the research you can so that she reaches an informed decision. Perhaps after just having Chemo she was feeling particularly low that day and made the comments to the OP....
A 'personal' choice has to be an informed choice, otherwise it isn't a real choice is it?
Its great to be informed before making a choice, not everyone is though. Rational thinking is also a good idea too. We don't know what her state of mind was/is. We don't know how bad she was feeling in that moment.
Its great to be informed before making a choice, not everyone is though. Rational thinking is also a good idea too. We don't know what her state of mind was/is. We don't know how bad she was feeling in that moment.
But she has been mis-informed about survival rates - basically lied to - and believes hemp oil has a 100% cure rate and chemo only 2%
Surely you can see that basing a life or death decision on a lie is wrong?
I am 100% with StressMonkey on this. It is very important for people with serious illness to feel that they have choices, and control, and to be emotionally cared for as well as physically. However, choices must be informed. If a person chooses to reject the evidence and follow their gut then that's incredibly frustrating but ultimately their choice; where a person has been lied to (as in this case) then I believe previous posters are justified in calling it manslaughter.
It's an extreme case, but there was a woman called Penelope Dingle who died of bowel cancer a few years ago. She died because her homeopath told her that conventional medicine, including surgery, would "interfere" with the homeopathy. The homeopath had been told by a psychic that she would cure someone with cancer, and become some kind of leading light. What actually happened is that Penelope Dingle suffered excruciating pain and emotional anguish, and ultimately died, because a charlatan sold her lies that she desperately wanted to believe.
So yes, everyone has the right to choose. But it remains a duty for all of us to do our utmost to make sure our loved ones make these decisions with their eyes open.
I am 100% with StressMonkey on this. It is very important for people with serious illness to feel that they have choices, and control, and to be emotionally cared for as well as physically. However, choices must be informed. If a person chooses to reject the evidence and follow their gut then that's incredibly frustrating but ultimately their choice; where a person has been lied to (as in this case) then I believe previous posters are justified in calling it manslaughter.
It's an extreme case, but there was a woman called Penelope Dingle who died of bowel cancer a few years ago. She died because her homeopath told her that conventional medicine, including surgery, would "interfere" with the homeopathy. The homeopath had been told by a psychic that she would cure someone with cancer, and become some kind of leading light. What actually happened is that Penelope Dingle suffered excruciating pain and emotional anguish, and ultimately died, because a charlatan sold her lies that she desperately wanted to believe.
So yes, everyone has the right to choose. But it remains a duty for all of us to do our utmost to make sure our loved ones make these decisions with their eyes open.
I totally understand what you are saying. I think whats to be gained from this thread OP, is don't undervalue her feelings, but help educate her so she has facts, suggest doing them both in conjunction. As far as I can see from the OP its a thought she has shared at the moment, she hasn't actually done anything about it yet. Like I said before maybe she was having a particularly low and sick day, and came out with this and the OP has panicked (with good reason). Hopefully the advice here will help the OP help his relative make an informed decision.
But she has been mis-informed about survival rates - basically lied to - and believes hemp oil has a 100% cure rate and chemo only 2%
Surely you can see that basing a life or death decision on a lie is wrong?
Ofcourse I do Stressmonkey and I completely agree with your thinking. However, we are an awkward frustrating race, not everyone thinks the same. I had an argument with someone once about man lading on the moon, I was being cocky and repeating 'facts' I had seen on the net and refusing to believe it happened, I asked him why he believed it did happen, he said 'because I sat and watched it happen on the TV (as a young boy), who could argue?
Ofcourse I do Stressmonkey and I completely agree with your thinking. However, we are an awkward frustrating race, not everyone thinks the same. I had an argument with someone once about man lading on the moon, I was being cocky and repeating 'facts' I had seen on the net and refusing to believe it happened, I asked him why he believed it did happen, he said 'because I sat and watched it happen on the TV (as a young boy), who could argue?
You yourself didn't not believe in the moon landings?
Anyway, back on topic. It is absolutely essential that the patient knows the true facts about this "hemp oil.
It does not work. That's the bottom line.
We are so PC in the country now that we fear actually telling the truth about things, even in life or death situations, for fear of offending "believers".
I can only speak from when I had breast cancer and say she can try all the alternatives she likes but please don't give up the conventional medicine, chemo is nasty but I wouldn't be here today without it.
Is she in touch with others going through the same thing, my oncologist ran a group we all supported each other. Some didn't make it but it was only 2 out of the twenty in our group which tells me the 2% figure must be wrong.
That is good advice and it would be highly unwise for anyone to give up treatment recommended by a specialist consultant. If the person concerned wants to use hemp oil in addition to chemotherapy then they should get specialist medical advice but giving up chemotherapy entirely could very well have a deeply unhappy ending.
...
Anyway, back on topic. It is absolutely essential that the patient knows the true facts about this "hemp oil.
It does not work. That's the bottom line.
We are so PC in the country now that we fear actually telling the truth about things, even in life or death situations, for fear of offending "believers".
More a case of (if I may over simplify), "the benefits are not proven, and there are other treatments, like chemo, that have been proven to be effective (in certain cases)".
But I agree that claiming 100% success rate, presumably based on someone knowing someone who knew someone else who took help oil and survived, and knowing no-one who it took it and died (hence 1 out of 1 = 100%) is frankly misleading and dangerous.
...
We are so PC in the country now that we fear actually telling the truth about things, even in life or death situations, for fear of offending "believers".
It's a case of not confusing facts and opinions, and respecting others rights to hold opinions (so long as both side realise that they are only opinions), until established as facts. That's not so much about being PC as being educated, having an open mind, and understanding the scientfic process.
More a case of (if I may over simplify), "the benefits are not proven, and there are other treatments, like chemo, that have been proven to be effective (in certain cases)".
But I agree that claiming 100% success rate, presumably based on someone knowing someone who knew someone else who took help oil and survived, and knowing no-one who it took it and died (hence 1 out of 1 = 100%) is frankly misleading and dangerous.
It's a case of not confusing facts and opinions, and respecting others rights to hold opinions (so long as both side realise that they are only opinions), until established as facts. That's not so much about being PC as being educated, having an open mind, and understanding the scientfic process.
As far as I can tell, there's no rational basis for considering hemp oil as an anti-cancer agent.
I have come across one paper though that mentioned an artificial derivative of cannabis' tetrahydrocannabinol (Dronabinol) being used as an antiemetic medicine to relieve nausea and vomiting caused by cytotoxic cancer chemotherapy. However, tetrahydrocannabinol is purified out of hemp oil so there would be no positive cancer treatment or anti-sickness benefit from using hemp oil which gives every impression of being a modern version of Wild West Snake Oil.
It's a case of not confusing facts and opinions, and respecting others rights to hold opinions (so long as both side realise that they are only opinions), until established as facts. That's not so much about being PC as being educated, having an open mind, and understanding the scientfic process.
Believe me, i understand the scientific process.
This is not opinion, this is fact. There is no research that proves the benefit of using hemp oil as a treatment of cancer.
If you say otherwise, please point me to the papers and i will look over then and perhaps revise my opinion.
Another CC survivor here, lucky enough to be a stage 1B1 (Tracelectomy and lymph-node dissection surgery required only) so I have no chemo experience. I would definitely suggest your relative visit the Jo's Trust website and forum. It is a charity set up to support those diagnosed with cervical cancer and cervical abnormalities and is full if extremely supportive ladies who can hopefully help your friend through her journey and be able to give her some experienced advice.
This is not opinion, this is fact. There is no research that proves the benefit of using hemp oil as a treatment of cancer.
If you say otherwise, please point me to the papers and i will look over then and perhaps revise my opinion.
I am not going to try and suggest that help oil is a cure for cancer, but...
Are you aware of a double-blind control experiment in which it was shown that hemp oil was no better than placebo?
For some reason I doubt that any ethics committee would approve such a test (unless ne alongside conventional treatment). Likewise I doubt any credible cash-stapped scientiic body would test whether hemp oil gives benefits alongside conventional proven treatments like chemo when they can spend the money on more likely alternatives.
Hence I would claim that it is premature to assert that hemp oil "does not work". We just don't know.
And frankly, I'd rather take my chances with chemo and other "conventional" treatments, for which there is evidence of their benefits - in certain cases.
Hence I would claim that it is premature to assert that hemp oil "does not work". We just don't know.
It is not for any scientist to prove that it doesnt work, rather for these alternative therapists to prove that it does. There is not one paper i can find in any scientific peer reviewed journal that states that it does work - it cures cancer.
Anyway, we simply have to state that hemp oil does not work, as in this thread there are cancer patients who are so convinced of it working that they take this snake oil rather than conventional (and tested) cancer therapies.
As far as I can tell, there's no rational basis for considering hemp oil as an anti-cancer agent.
I have come across one paper though that mentioned an artificial derivative of cannabis' tetrahydrocannabinol (Dronabinol) being used as an antiemetic medicine to relieve nausea and vomiting caused by cytotoxic cancer chemotherapy. However, tetrahydrocannabinol is purified out of hemp oil so there would be no positive cancer treatment or anti-sickness benefit from using hemp oil which gives every impression of being a modern version of Wild West Snake Oil.
..and if I am not mistaken cannibidiol, CBD, is still present in hemp oil (although at very low levels), about which the article says:
"Lab experiments have shown promising results with THC on brain tumour and prostate cancer cells, while CBD seems to work well on breast cancer cells." Article does go on to add that there are issues of applying THC and CBD, which rather suggests that just drinking help oil to get CBD to the cancer cells could well be useless.
And a couple more pertinent quotes:
"There are hundreds of exciting potential cancer drugs being developed and tested in university, charity and industry labs all over the world – cannabinoids are merely a small part of a much larger picture"
"It’s not all good news though, as there’s also evidence that cannabinoids may also have undesirable effects on cancer."
And OTOH, there is compelling evidence in favour of conventional treatment.
..and if I am not mistaken cannibidiol, CBD, is still present in hemp oil (although at very low levels), about which the article says:
"Lab experiments have shown promising results with THC on brain tumour and prostate cancer cells, while CBD seems to work well on breast cancer cells." Article does go on to add that there are issues of applying THC and CBD, which rather suggests that just drinking help oil to get CBD to the cancer cells could well be useless.
And a couple more pertinent quotes:
"There are hundreds of exciting potential cancer drugs being developed and tested in university, charity and industry labs all over the world – cannabinoids are merely a small part of a much larger picture"
"It’s not all good news though, as there’s also evidence that cannabinoids may also have undesirable effects on cancer."
And OTOH, there is compelling evidence in favour of conventional treatment.
The key to that article is the following quote:
"The results from this study show that THC given in this way is safe and doesn’t seem to cause significant side effects. But because this was an early stage trial, without a control group, it’s impossible to say whether THC helped to extend their lives. And while it’s certainly not a cure, the trial results suggest that cannabinoids are worth pursuing in clinical trials."
In other words, there have been precisely zero properly conducted full clinical trials regarding this particular compound. Therefore, it is far too soon to make any judgements about its clinical efficacy.
The only responsible and ethical thing to do is to recommend abiding by the specialist medical consultant's advice if someone wants to have a reasonable chance of a recovery from cancer.
Comments
I doubt any of us who have not been through it can really appreciate what it must be like.
I wish there was a 'like' button on this forum.
bambii - I have to say I absolutely disagree - of course access to REAL clinical evidence is necessary - otherwise how can you possibly make a sensible choice? No one has said that this lady should be forced to have chemo - merely that if she is going to make a decision it should be based on proper facts, not wildly exaggerated and totally unfounded statistics about 100% survival rates.
Are you saying that this lady is better off basing her decision on some information which is patently untrue rather than the very useful data which another FM posted showing the actual survival rates for chemotherapy?
I am only saying she can only base her decision on her own wishes. I agree that conventional medicine is the best, and I would personally choose that for myself. However, I am not her, this is not my fight. No one has a right to tell her what to do, but by all means OP do all the research you can so that she reaches an informed decision. Perhaps after just having Chemo she was feeling particularly low that day and made the comments to the OP....
Its great to be informed before making a choice, not everyone is though. Rational thinking is also a good idea too. We don't know what her state of mind was/is. We don't know how bad she was feeling in that moment.
But she has been mis-informed about survival rates - basically lied to - and believes hemp oil has a 100% cure rate and chemo only 2%
Surely you can see that basing a life or death decision on a lie is wrong?
I am 100% with StressMonkey on this. It is very important for people with serious illness to feel that they have choices, and control, and to be emotionally cared for as well as physically. However, choices must be informed. If a person chooses to reject the evidence and follow their gut then that's incredibly frustrating but ultimately their choice; where a person has been lied to (as in this case) then I believe previous posters are justified in calling it manslaughter.
It's an extreme case, but there was a woman called Penelope Dingle who died of bowel cancer a few years ago. She died because her homeopath told her that conventional medicine, including surgery, would "interfere" with the homeopathy. The homeopath had been told by a psychic that she would cure someone with cancer, and become some kind of leading light. What actually happened is that Penelope Dingle suffered excruciating pain and emotional anguish, and ultimately died, because a charlatan sold her lies that she desperately wanted to believe.
So yes, everyone has the right to choose. But it remains a duty for all of us to do our utmost to make sure our loved ones make these decisions with their eyes open.
I totally understand what you are saying. I think whats to be gained from this thread OP, is don't undervalue her feelings, but help educate her so she has facts, suggest doing them both in conjunction. As far as I can see from the OP its a thought she has shared at the moment, she hasn't actually done anything about it yet. Like I said before maybe she was having a particularly low and sick day, and came out with this and the OP has panicked (with good reason). Hopefully the advice here will help the OP help his relative make an informed decision.
Ofcourse I do Stressmonkey and I completely agree with your thinking. However, we are an awkward frustrating race, not everyone thinks the same. I had an argument with someone once about man lading on the moon, I was being cocky and repeating 'facts' I had seen on the net and refusing to believe it happened, I asked him why he believed it did happen, he said 'because I sat and watched it happen on the TV (as a young boy), who could argue?
You yourself didn't not believe in the moon landings?
Anyway, back on topic. It is absolutely essential that the patient knows the true facts about this "hemp oil.
It does not work. That's the bottom line.
We are so PC in the country now that we fear actually telling the truth about things, even in life or death situations, for fear of offending "believers".
That is good advice and it would be highly unwise for anyone to give up treatment recommended by a specialist consultant. If the person concerned wants to use hemp oil in addition to chemotherapy then they should get specialist medical advice but giving up chemotherapy entirely could very well have a deeply unhappy ending.
Actruall I don't think it as black and white as that "Help Oil does not work". See this link Jazmine kindly posted earlier:
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk....far/#can-treat
More a case of (if I may over simplify), "the benefits are not proven, and there are other treatments, like chemo, that have been proven to be effective (in certain cases)".
But I agree that claiming 100% success rate, presumably based on someone knowing someone who knew someone else who took help oil and survived, and knowing no-one who it took it and died (hence 1 out of 1 = 100%) is frankly misleading and dangerous.
It's a case of not confusing facts and opinions, and respecting others rights to hold opinions (so long as both side realise that they are only opinions), until established as facts. That's not so much about being PC as being educated, having an open mind, and understanding the scientfic process.
As far as I can tell, there's no rational basis for considering hemp oil as an anti-cancer agent.
I have come across one paper though that mentioned an artificial derivative of cannabis' tetrahydrocannabinol (Dronabinol) being used as an antiemetic medicine to relieve nausea and vomiting caused by cytotoxic cancer chemotherapy. However, tetrahydrocannabinol is purified out of hemp oil so there would be no positive cancer treatment or anti-sickness benefit from using hemp oil which gives every impression of being a modern version of Wild West Snake Oil.
Believe me, i understand the scientific process.
This is not opinion, this is fact. There is no research that proves the benefit of using hemp oil as a treatment of cancer.
If you say otherwise, please point me to the papers and i will look over then and perhaps revise my opinion.
Good luck and best wishes to your relative x
I am not going to try and suggest that help oil is a cure for cancer, but...
Are you aware of a double-blind control experiment in which it was shown that hemp oil was no better than placebo?
For some reason I doubt that any ethics committee would approve such a test (unless ne alongside conventional treatment). Likewise I doubt any credible cash-stapped scientiic body would test whether hemp oil gives benefits alongside conventional proven treatments like chemo when they can spend the money on more likely alternatives.
Hence I would claim that it is premature to assert that hemp oil "does not work". We just don't know.
And frankly, I'd rather take my chances with chemo and other "conventional" treatments, for which there is evidence of their benefits - in certain cases.
It is not for any scientist to prove that it doesnt work, rather for these alternative therapists to prove that it does. There is not one paper i can find in any scientific peer reviewed journal that states that it does work - it cures cancer.
Anyway, we simply have to state that hemp oil does not work, as in this thread there are cancer patients who are so convinced of it working that they take this snake oil rather than conventional (and tested) cancer therapies.
OK - I didn't realise TCH was purified out (something I learnt today). Despite that I did find this article very interesting, and from a reputable source (Cancer Research UK):
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/#can-treat
..and if I am not mistaken cannibidiol, CBD, is still present in hemp oil (although at very low levels), about which the article says:
- "Lab experiments have shown promising results with THC on brain tumour and prostate cancer cells, while CBD seems to work well on breast cancer cells." Article does go on to add that there are issues of applying THC and CBD, which rather suggests that just drinking help oil to get CBD to the cancer cells could well be useless.
And a couple more pertinent quotes:And OTOH, there is compelling evidence in favour of conventional treatment.
The key to that article is the following quote:
In other words, there have been precisely zero properly conducted full clinical trials regarding this particular compound. Therefore, it is far too soon to make any judgements about its clinical efficacy.
The only responsible and ethical thing to do is to recommend abiding by the specialist medical consultant's advice if someone wants to have a reasonable chance of a recovery from cancer.