In the United States, we treat it very differently than in Europe. In Europe, it is more scented candles and holistic shit. In America, it’s aggressive treatments of surgery or chemotherapy.
Europe has a much better life expectancy with prostate cancer.
“They just report on research” requires me actually looking through multiple papers and ensuring that
(1) their interpretation of each piece of research is correct
(2) that the research that they have chosen isn’t cherry-picked to fit a particular point of view.
There are going to be huge numbers of research papers on chemo therapy, some will have better research methodologies than others, some may talk about particular forms of cancer and different forms of chemotherapy. “Doing your own research” involves close-reading and expertise. That’s why I prefer sources that I can trust to have that expertise. I don’t know that about nutrition facts, which appears to be the passion project of an MD who is passionate about nutrition, but who doesn’t appear to have a background in oncology.
Pretty gutless and dishonest, mod, when the claims being made are backed by verifiable fact and peer-reviewed science. The article you censored without even taking a moment to understand is supported by these papers:
So - the first source there has no abstract available - did you look at it? Why include it when we don’t know what it says.
The second source - what exactly did you take away from that? What’s your understanding of the phrase ‘surrogate end-point’?
The third source doesn’t say chemotherapy is ineffective - it’s saying that it is very unpleasant and there needs to be additional research on reducing general toxicity and therefore effectiveness
The forth source is saying chemotherapy is expensive. No abstract available.
At this point I give up the will to live - you aren’t providing us with sources that demostrate your original claim that “drugs have never been proven effective at improving survival” - you’re just throwing vaguely related links at us in the hope taht we won’t look too carefully.
If he gets the scented candle treatment it’ll be because he’s well into “alternative medicine”, not because that’s standard practice here. He has a track record of promoting homeopathy in particular
Prostate cancer is very common, very survivable, and very easily treatable. It’s a serious health problem, but he’s almost definitely gonna be fineMe fail reading comprehension. The article says it’s NOT prostate cancer
As long as he gets real treatment, not some wack job with a scented candle and some holistic shite.
In the United States, we treat it very differently than in Europe. In Europe, it is more scented candles and holistic shit. In America, it’s aggressive treatments of surgery or chemotherapy.
Europe has a much better life expectancy with prostate cancer.
removed by mod
I’m not sure how much I trust nutritionfacts.org
Who are you, so wise in the ways of science?
You don’t have to. They don’t make claims of their own. They just report on research.
“They just report on research” requires me actually looking through multiple papers and ensuring that
(1) their interpretation of each piece of research is correct
(2) that the research that they have chosen isn’t cherry-picked to fit a particular point of view.
There are going to be huge numbers of research papers on chemo therapy, some will have better research methodologies than others, some may talk about particular forms of cancer and different forms of chemotherapy. “Doing your own research” involves close-reading and expertise. That’s why I prefer sources that I can trust to have that expertise. I don’t know that about nutrition facts, which appears to be the passion project of an MD who is passionate about nutrition, but who doesn’t appear to have a background in oncology.
Pretty gutless and dishonest, mod, when the claims being made are backed by verifiable fact and peer-reviewed science. The article you censored without even taking a moment to understand is supported by these papers:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26502403
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26098871
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22751283/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22210088
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24905161
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25500146
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31229193
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31291813
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30726124
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30726124
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30138052
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25068501
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28033447
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30933235
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31135826
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31268471
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29276024
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28978555
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29636577
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28978548
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29244175
So - the first source there has no abstract available - did you look at it? Why include it when we don’t know what it says.
The second source - what exactly did you take away from that? What’s your understanding of the phrase ‘surrogate end-point’?
The third source doesn’t say chemotherapy is ineffective - it’s saying that it is very unpleasant and there needs to be additional research on reducing general toxicity and therefore effectiveness
The forth source is saying chemotherapy is expensive. No abstract available.
At this point I give up the will to live - you aren’t providing us with sources that demostrate your original claim that “drugs have never been proven effective at improving survival” - you’re just throwing vaguely related links at us in the hope taht we won’t look too carefully.
If he gets the scented candle treatment it’ll be because he’s well into “alternative medicine”, not because that’s standard practice here. He has a track record of promoting homeopathy in particular
Kingy has a reputation for holistic shite though. He recently appointed one of these charlatans to a senior post.
, assuming he has prostate cancer.Me posting a “well actually” while OP was “well actually” - ing themselves.