“What are the REAL risk factors of having chemo done?”
Damage to lungs? What percentage of chemo patients get lung damage and make perexisting lung conditions worse? Actual patients numbers and percentages.
Damage to kidneys (same question as above^)
Damage to heart? (same question as above^^) Percentage of patients that have their first heart attack and/or heart failure after having chemo with no prior heart complications?
Percentage of chemo patients that get infections that lead to fatality after receiving chemo?
Lastly, if there there is only a (>15%) of chemo actually helping to slow down cancer is it worth getting chemo compared to the potential risk factors that actually may hasten cases of death?
Why is such a toxic for of medication therapy even recommended for people to get if the chances of benefit is only at (>15%) compared to the probably much higher chance of something horrible happening that will most likely lead to the patient's death at a faster rate than potential cancers they may or may not get if they do not get chemo?
So, basically, my family member is going to have a toxic chemical found out to rarely help cancer during WW2 from the mustard nerve gas for a chance of (85% or less) of actually working.
I think it's just because the doctors receive money for prescribing these treatments and then do not actually care about the patients health. I've read studies that prove chemo only stops cancer 2-4% of the time, meaning that 96-98% of the time it does not work.
Damage to kidneys (same question as above^)
Damage to heart? (same question as above^^) Percentage of patients that have their first heart attack and/or heart failure after having chemo with no prior heart complications?
Percentage of chemo patients that get infections that lead to fatality after receiving chemo?
Lastly, if there there is only a (>15%) of chemo actually helping to slow down cancer is it worth getting chemo compared to the potential risk factors that actually may hasten cases of death?
Why is such a toxic for of medication therapy even recommended for people to get if the chances of benefit is only at (>15%) compared to the probably much higher chance of something horrible happening that will most likely lead to the patient's death at a faster rate than potential cancers they may or may not get if they do not get chemo?
So, basically, my family member is going to have a toxic chemical found out to rarely help cancer during WW2 from the mustard nerve gas for a chance of (85% or less) of actually working.
I think it's just because the doctors receive money for prescribing these treatments and then do not actually care about the patients health. I've read studies that prove chemo only stops cancer 2-4% of the time, meaning that 96-98% of the time it does not work.
Conditions: Breat cancer
1 Answer
The term chemotherapy is too general to give specifics. Risks are measured for each type. For example doxorubicin used to treat breast cancers, lymphomas among others can affect the heart function requiring thorough pre-assessment; there is a long list of other side effects. When used with other particular chemotherapy it can result in cure Hodgkins lymphoma. In addition, the best rates of cure using chemotherapy includes testicular cancer with rates well over 90%. I agree chemo in general should be safer; more research in understanding how each individual process particular chemotherapy’s would be helpful. During the consenting process, the oncologists should explain in detail the indication—is it palliative or curative,—and the risks and benefits. Choice will fall in the patient whether or not to proceed understanding above. On a side note, over the past decade immunotherapy has been placed a the forefront giving patients longer responses—but they too have side effects.
