Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Sometimes Cures May Just Turn Out To Be Worse Than Diseases Themselves


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 ntuc

ntuc

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 162 posts

Posted 07 August 2017 - 10:19 PM

Sometimes cures may just turn out to be worse than diseases themselves


In regard of the title above, please consider the following excerpts:


Extrapyramidal symptoms 
/ Neuroleptic malignant syndrome




Extrapyramidal symptoms are forms of abnormal body movements that are caused by a blockade of normal
dopamine functions in the brain. They occur most commonly as side-effects of certain medications that block dopamine functioning, such as the Typical Antipsychotics, less commonly the Atypical Antipsychotics, and very rarely by antidepressants [ref]. Extrapyramidal symptoms are often found in people with Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder who use these medications [ref]. However, these symptoms can also occur in people with Schizophrenia who have never taken any of these medications [ref].


The four main types of extrapyramidal symptoms are
Parkinsonian Symptoms, Dystonia, Akathisia, and Tardive Dyskinesia. See here for strategies on how to manage these symptoms......



as quoted from:


Extrapyramidal Symptoms | PsychVisit
 

[* Off topic content removed *]


Edited by Buffy, 08 August 2017 - 02:16 AM.


#2 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8859 posts

Posted 08 August 2017 - 02:22 AM

Topics as broad as that of your topic title are rarely very productive for having discussions. And the multiple examples you added in your OP have been deleted for clarity. If the discussion warrants it, you can certainly bring them up later in the thread.

 

It does look to some though that you're just trying to build links to posts you've created in other locations. As far as referencing them in the context of actual discussions, that's fine, but otherwise it just looks like you're after free advertising at our expense. Hopefully you will not prove this appearance to be true.

 

You might want to expand on what it is that you want to talk about to give people the opportunity to find something in here that interests them so they'll join in.

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

 

One should use common words to say uncommon things, :phones:

Buffy



#3 ntuc

ntuc

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 162 posts

Posted 08 August 2017 - 09:11 PM

Topics as broad as that of your topic title are rarely very productive for having discussions. And the multiple examples you added in your OP have been deleted for clarity. If the discussion warrants it, you can certainly bring them up later in the thread.

 

It does look to some though that you're just trying to build links to posts you've created in other locations. As far as referencing them in the context of actual discussions, that's fine, but otherwise it just looks like you're after free advertising at our expense. Hopefully you will not prove this appearance to be true.

 

You might want to expand on what it is that you want to talk about to give people the opportunity to find something in here that interests them so they'll join in.

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

 

One should use common words to say uncommon things, :phones:

Buffy

 

 

Thanks for the feedback. And I believe that there may just simply be other untold reasons for such edit-remove action(s) to be taken - please refer to other posts of mine in this and other forums, especially whenever it comes to dealing with anything which are simply commercially / moneyed-interests hurtful, detrimental, unfavorable or undesirable.

 

 

Next, I truly mean no offenses but that's simply the prevailing way of the world that we are living now whereby the sanctity of human lives, especially the poor & needy ones can just be fully ignored outright like garbage or alternatively, human lives themselves, whilst in this case, the affordable, well-to-do & affluent ones, are simply fully exploitable, if not, expendable, purely for the sake of profit-making and revenue-maximization or other 100% profit-oriented medical pursuits of miscellaneous fully self-serving moneyed interests by medical personnel totally irrespective of the welfare, well-beings, if not the very lives of their fees-paying patients.

 

 

http://www.curezone....asp?i=1671945#i - The Ugly Realities of The Modern Day Medical Professions

 

 

http://forum.neurolo...ilit=&start=50 - Deleted post due to reasons mentioned above


Edited by ntuc, 10 August 2017 - 10:35 PM.


#4 ntuc

ntuc

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 162 posts

Posted 01 September 2017 - 04:33 AM

A very simple principle & Direct reality for the fees-paying patients

 

 

And well, all in all, it all would just come down eventually to the very simple principle & direct reality that fees-paying patients paying medical fees / monies to the fees-seeking doctors are undoubtedly to get themselves healed, treated & cured eventually rather than making things worse in the end.


And it's simply all common senses


Whilst in the case of psychiatrists, these medical fees / monies are certainly, definitely & simply not paid by the related fees-paying patients to the fees-seeking doctors for eventually getting EPS in the end -

http://www.psychvisi...E.html#dystonia

 

Additional Information:


http://www.curezone....asp?i=2063112#i -Fees-seeking Psychiatrist & Their Fees-paying Patients – Everyone Has All the Undisputed Rights & Responsibilities On Any Grounds to Safeguard the Best Possible Interests of Their Personal Heath Cares & Well-beings
 

 

http://www.curezone....asp?i=2386541#i - Follow-up : Fees-seeking Psychiatrist & Their Fees-paying Patients – General & brief idea about psychotherapy

 

 

http://www.psychvisi...chotherapy.html  - Psychotherapy


Edited by ntuc, 18 October 2017 - 01:56 AM.


#5 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 777 posts

Posted 01 September 2017 - 07:15 AM

Personally, I never believed that healthy people need to see a doctor every year.  I have seen people nearly killed from side effects of blood pressure medication, and I wonder if some of this "preventative medicine" might be preventing heart disease death simply causing the patient to die from another cause.

 

Every living thing has a 100% chance of death.



#6 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4056 posts

Posted 01 September 2017 - 07:39 AM


Every living thing has a 100% chance of death.

A part 3 jellyfish :-) :
https://en.wikipedia...itopsis_dohrnii

 

But they die eventually because they are prey....



#7 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 812 posts

Posted 01 September 2017 - 05:32 PM

I'm more of a quality of life guy. Just about everyone has seen the brutal aspects of some Cancer treatments. Towards the end I said to my mother that if I knew she would go through all that she did, I would have rejected the treatment. If I go the same way I will reject it. Maybe cutting short on time but hopefully not filled with vomiting, hair loss, and extreme fatigue until the last few days and a little help from pain suppressors.

 

Last year a friend at work was down to his last few weeks after month's of treatment. His doctors wanted him to continue treatments, but he declined and instead went on a cruise with his wife. he passed a week after he got back. Perhaps treatment would have given him another few weeks, but he was willing to take the trade off.

 

I look at it the same way I look at all out nuclear war. Even if I'm not incinerated by the drop, You will have a lot of people around you and many more very sick and injured. With utilities and store supply lines knocked out, the comfort and ease we have all become used to will be gone. Do I really want to live in a world where I have sit on my front porch with a shotgun trying to ward off people who want to take what little water I have left?



#8 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 777 posts

Posted 03 September 2017 - 11:52 AM

I'm more of a quality of life guy. Just about everyone has seen the brutal aspects of some Cancer treatments. Towards the end I said to my mother that if I knew she would go through all that she did, I would have rejected the treatment. If I go the same way I will reject it. Maybe cutting short on time but hopefully not filled with vomiting, hair loss, and extreme fatigue until the last few days and a little help from pain suppressors.

 

Last year a friend at work was down to his last few weeks after month's of treatment. His doctors wanted him to continue treatments, but he declined and instead went on a cruise with his wife. he passed a week after he got back. Perhaps treatment would have given him another few weeks, but he was willing to take the trade off.

 

I look at it the same way I look at all out nuclear war. Even if I'm not incinerated by the drop, You will have a lot of people around you and many more very sick and injured. With utilities and store supply lines knocked out, the comfort and ease we have all become used to will be gone. Do I really want to live in a world where I have sit on my front porch with a shotgun trying to ward off people who want to take what little water I have left?

I had a relative go through chemotherapy, and when the cancer returned, he refused further treatments.  

 

One thing I found disturbing about the push to get Obamacare passed was they way they used Ted Kennedy as a prop, as if the expensive care he got would be available to everyone, and as if it actually made a difference in the end.  I think everyone knew that no treatment was going to save him.



#9 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1342 posts

Posted 03 September 2017 - 12:08 PM

I'm more of a quality of life guy. Just about everyone has seen the brutal aspects of some Cancer treatments. Towards the end I said to my mother that if I knew she would go through all that she did, I would have rejected the treatment. If I go the same way I will reject it. Maybe cutting short on time but hopefully not filled with vomiting, hair loss, and extreme fatigue until the last few days and a little help from pain suppressors.

 

Last year a friend at work was down to his last few weeks after month's of treatment. His doctors wanted him to continue treatments, but he declined and instead went on a cruise with his wife. he passed a week after he got back. Perhaps treatment would have given him another few weeks, but he was willing to take the trade off.

 

I look at it the same way I look at all out nuclear war. Even if I'm not incinerated by the drop, You will have a lot of people around you and many more very sick and injured. With utilities and store supply lines knocked out, the comfort and ease we have all become used to will be gone. Do I really want to live in a world where I have sit on my front porch with a shotgun trying to ward off people who want to take what little water I have left?

The trouble with cancer treatments is you cannot generalise about what side-effects they will have, or how effective they will be. Every individual, and every cancer, is different.

 

My wife, who died last year from ovarian cancer, lived seven years after the original discovery of tumours and the operation, even though the cancer had recurred within 2 years. She went through seven cycles of chemo, each one of 6 rounds, of various agents. But she barely missed a day off work and lived an almost normal life until the last 4 months. She did not throw up once from the chemo - just was off her food for a couple of days after each infusion.   

 

So I think it makes sense to try the first round and see how you react. The drugs for suppressing side effects are really quite good these days in many cases. 



#10 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8859 posts

Posted 03 September 2017 - 01:46 PM

One thing I found disturbing about the push to get Obamacare passed was they way they used Ted Kennedy as a prop, as if the expensive care he got would be available to everyone, and as if it actually made a difference in the end.  I think everyone knew that no treatment was going to save him.

 

This is extremely unfair to Ted Kennedy. I know a lot of people feel he was evil incarnate, or at least a "murderer," but healthcare was basically his number one cause. No one "used him as a prop" he demanded to be as useful as possible when he knew he had no time left because he wanted more than anything to make it happen.

 

If you found this disturbing, I'd ask you to reconsider your opinion, if not for remembering the good he did, to at least give not lend support to the push to dismantle healthcare in America.

 

 

And this is the cause of my life — new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American — north, south, east, west, young, old — will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege, :phones:

Buffy



#11 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 812 posts

Posted 03 September 2017 - 03:00 PM

The trouble with cancer treatments is you cannot generalise about what side-effects they will have, or how effective they will be. Every individual, and every cancer, is different.

 

My wife, who died last year from ovarian cancer, lived seven years after the original discovery of tumours and the operation, even though the cancer had recurred within 2 years. She went through seven cycles of chemo, each one of 6 rounds, of various agents. But she barely missed a day off work and lived an almost normal life until the last 4 months. She did not throw up once from the chemo - just was off her food for a couple of days after each infusion.   

 

So I think it makes sense to try the first round and see how you react. The drugs for suppressing side effects are really quite good these days in many cases. 

Let me say first I'm sorry for your loss X. There are a few things I didn't describe in my first post on this subject that will reinforce your point of view,

 

When my mother died of cancer it was caught very late, although only in her early fifty's she didn't discover she had cancer until it was too far along. She also had it in several locations, brain, lungs, etc. 

 

Her illness occurred over 20yrs ago so the methods they used then were probably not as effective as todays meds. They may have made strides in medicine that could be less abrasive on patients or at least I hope they are or can.

 

I can't remember the specifics now, but years ago I read a detailed article in Scientific American as to why it's so hard to come up with cures for some cancers. As I said I don't remember the specifics, but I remember thinking after reading the article that it would be all but impossible to ever be able to cure some cancers. The way the disease can hide itself and masquerade as normal cells was incredible and scary.

 

I also agree with you on the treatments, everyone reacts differently and it's at least worth going the first round to see where you stand and how you will take it. To good health. :yinyang: 



#12 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 777 posts

Posted 03 September 2017 - 05:28 PM

This is extremely unfair to Ted Kennedy. I know a lot of people feel he was evil incarnate, or at least a "murderer," but healthcare was basically his number one cause. No one "used him as a prop" he demanded to be as useful as possible when he knew he had no time left because he wanted more than anything to make it happen.

 

If you found this disturbing, I'd ask you to reconsider your opinion, if not for remembering the good he did, to at least give not lend support to the push to dismantle healthcare in America.

 

 

And this is the cause of my life — new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American — north, south, east, west, young, old — will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege, :phones:

Buffy

Well, I don't intend to disrespect, but we all know that Obamacare as it was being sold, was not Obamacre as it was being written.  I don't doubt the sincerity of his involvement, but I doubt if even he understood the bill in it's entirety.  Having passion for an issue doesn't necessarily mean you have, or even know, the best solution.  

 

As for the Republican's behavior, they have a much worse approach, and they too are trying to rush through a repeal instead of taking the time to examine all of the problems with Obamacare and resolving those issues.  

 

Legislation should be a deliberative process.  



#13 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8859 posts

Posted 04 September 2017 - 12:21 AM

but we all know that Obamacare as it was being sold, was not Obamacre as it was being written.


This is, to be polite, a gross mischaracterization. Since you are simply tossing it out as a generalization, I won't bother responding at that level, but if you'd like to dig into specific areas that you believe were "hidden" or that "no one knew about" I'd be happy to respond with specific evidence to the contrary.

Otherwise this just comes under the rubric of "stuff heard from the right-wing noise machine," and isn't worth the time.
 

I don't doubt the sincerity of his involvement, but I doubt if even he understood the bill in it's entirety.  Having passion for an issue doesn't necessarily mean you have, or even know, the best solution.

 

"...understood the bill in it's entirety." has enough hedging words in it to allow just about anyone to get out of saying that they said it. No law is written by a single person in Congress, but not only had Kennedy been involved in every attempt at a health bill in the last 50-odd years, he as a result knew every approach that could be taken, including a strong familiarity with "Romneycare," which of course was the health bill from the very state he represented in Congress, and was considered a major experiment in a possible national healthcare law. Moreover if you take some time to read this article, you'll see that he was instrumental in getting the first outline of Obamacare off the ground, working with Max Baucus.

 

The worst thing about this accusation though is that it feeds into the false narrative that Obamacare was "rammed through" with no review and "so long" (thousands of pages!), that nobody understood what was in it, which is just plain false (see above link). Of course those characterizations are actually true of the couple of attempts this year to pass a "kinda repeal and kinda replace in the worst possible way" bill, as if two wrongs make a right.

 

As for the Republican's behavior, they have a much worse approach, and they too are trying to rush through a repeal instead of taking the time to examine all of the problems with Obamacare and resolving those issues.

 

So yes, I understand you're not trying to trash Obamacare here, but the things you've said above are the kinds of "truisms" that we hear all to much of, that keep the debate about what the policy should be from even getting started. Oddly, I've heard some on the right claim that Kennedy wrote the whole thing, just to try to prove that it's "far left socialism," when in fact it's core was Newt Gingrich's response to "Hillarycare" in 1994, and uses principles that came out of the conservative "Communitarian movement" of that era, basically built on the notion that it was everyone's responsibility to have insurance if they were good citizens.

 

One of the main reasons why Republicans have flailed in coming up with their own "alternative to Obamacare" is that Obama pushed it to be so like all the Republican/Conservative think-tank proposals from the last 30 years that he was sure that it would get Republican backing, which ultimately it did not, due to McConnell & Cantor's stated strategy from January 2009, to ensure that Obama had no successes. There's literally nothing more conservative than what Obamacare basically is, without making it worse for everyone.

 

The worst irony of course is that most of Obamacare's outstanding problems--and there are more than a couple to be addressed--really came from compromises in the bill that were changed specifically to try to get more Republican support, like removing the Public Option and making Medicaid expansion an option.

 

Legislation should be a deliberative process.

 

Amen! It is like making sausage, and it's not for people with no ability to compromise, let alone those who spread lies and falsehoods about what the "other side" is proposing, just to gain political advantage.

 

 

I hope for an America where neither "fundamentalist" nor "humanist" will be a dirty word, but a fair description of the different ways in which people of good will look at life and into their own souls, :phones:

Buffy



#14 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1342 posts

Posted 04 September 2017 - 01:48 AM

Let me say first I'm sorry for your loss X. There are a few things I didn't describe in my first post on this subject that will reinforce your point of view,

 

When my mother died of cancer it was caught very late, although only in her early fifty's she didn't discover she had cancer until it was too far along. She also had it in several locations, brain, lungs, etc. 

 

Her illness occurred over 20yrs ago so the methods they used then were probably not as effective as todays meds. They may have made strides in medicine that could be less abrasive on patients or at least I hope they are or can.

 

I can't remember the specifics now, but years ago I read a detailed article in Scientific American as to why it's so hard to come up with cures for some cancers. As I said I don't remember the specifics, but I remember thinking after reading the article that it would be all but impossible to ever be able to cure some cancers. The way the disease can hide itself and masquerade as normal cells was incredible and scary.

 

I also agree with you on the treatments, everyone reacts differently and it's at least worth going the first round to see where you stand and how you will take it. To good health. :yinyang:

Yes, I think if your view has been formed by an experience from 20 years ago then an update is worthwhile.

 

My wife had several different agents over the years, including Taxol (the one from the Pacific yew tree) which made her hair fall out - she bought a wig and used a lot of silk headscarves -  but the mainstay of treatment was good old carboplatin, which has been used for many years. However the side effects from it were quite manageable in her case. Maybe she tolerated it well as an individual, but it does look to me as if the anti-nausea drugs and so on are far better now than 20 years ago.  



#15 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 777 posts

Posted 04 September 2017 - 04:20 AM

This is, to be polite, a gross mischaracterization. Since you are simply tossing it out as a generalization, I won't bother responding at that level, but if you'd like to dig into specific areas that you believe were "hidden" or that "no one knew about" I'd be happy to respond with specific evidence to the contrary.

 

Well, I suppose repeated "slogans" do get stuck in my brain from time to time, including the one oft repeated clip of Obama telling us we would be able to keep our insurance plans, and doctor if we like.  

 

I don't know how Obacamare effected everyone else, but I do know that before the bill, I had very good insurance that cost about 7% of my annual net income, and after the premium on that plan more than doubled, and we had to switch to a not so good plan, which has since risen to nearly double the cost of the original good plan.  

 

From where I stand, it looks as if all of the healthcare power has been handed to the insurance companies.  I find the "open enrollment period" do be particularly inspiring of anger.  Why should we only be able to change our insurance plans during certain months of the year?  If my insurance company displeases me, I ought to have the right to shop around at any time.  



#16 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8859 posts

Posted 04 September 2017 - 10:59 AM

Well, I suppose repeated "slogans" do get stuck in my brain from time to time, including the one oft repeated clip of Obama telling us we would be able to keep our insurance plans, and doctor if we like.

 
This was a really bad line, because it set up an expectation that couldn't be met, mostly because health insurance and the healthcare industry itself just doesn't allow that any more unless you are incredibly wealthy. Saying that right at the inflection point where the industry is forcing this to happen (hey, it's cheaper not to let you keep your experienced, highly paid doctor and force you to you some fresh-faced one, probably foreign) made it something that many people could point to as a "lie."
 

I don't know how Obacamare effected everyone else, but I do know that before the bill, I had very good insurance that cost about 7% of my annual net income, and after the premium on that plan more than doubled, and we had to switch to a not so good plan, which has since risen to nearly double the cost of the original good plan.


This is mostly an indication that you actually probably had a really bad plan and didn't know it. There's no question that folks at middle-class level incomes got hit the worst, because they had plans with lower deductibles--what are now considered "Gold Level"--plans which took the brunt of the rate hikes, and had to switch to higher-deductible plans ("Silver" or "Bronze"). But the average rate hike in 2014 on implementation across the US was in line with the prior expectation of hikes due to simple healthcare inflation.
 
But what hasn't been well publicized is the fact that in states with very weak insurance regulation there were lots of plans that were "junk" plans: they may have had lower deductibles but they had all kinds of caps on annual and lifetime payouts that capped the insurance company's risks. They also had no requirements for the Essential Health Benefits included in Obamacare, that include things like drug addiction treatment that have become fashionable among many Republicans now that addiction is such a big issue in the heartland. Worse, healthcare providers in states that did not undergo Medicaid expansion did not get the benefit of lower emergency room visits by the indigent, and that meant that costs for healthcare per capita were not lowered as we're seeing in Medicare-expansion states.
 
This means that in very red states, rates went up exactly as you describe, whereas in places like California with strong insurance regulation, rates have basically kept pace with healthcare inflation. I'm paying about 20% more than I was 5 years ago (I was already on a high deductible plan, which makes sense if you're in relatively good health and have the income to support it).
 

From where I stand, it looks as if all of the healthcare power has been handed to the insurance companies.  I find the "open enrollment period" do be particularly inspiring of anger.  Why should we only be able to change our insurance plans during certain months of the year?  If my insurance company displeases me, I ought to have the right to shop around at any time.


This is all true, but it all predated Obamacare. Basically the insurance companies saw how much could be saved by making PPO plans look more and more like HMO plans with fewer choices and more restrictions, and the healthcare providers saw the efficiencies that were being obtained by large, integrated providers like Kaiser and started merging like crazy over the last 20 years, and the main feature of that was tightly controlling access to doctors and specialists.

Both of my last two GPs sold their practices to Kaiser, and I eventually took the plunge and went there too.
 
Note that this is exactly why Hillary and a lot of moderate Democrats (and some Republicans, although they're loathe to say so!) support the Public Option, AKA "Medicare-Buy-In": with all of the industry consolidation both in insurance and healthcare providers, we've got little competition any more, and the barriers to entry are so high, there's no potential for any in the future. The Public Option basically sets government up as a provider of health insurance in competition with the insurance companies. This was fiercely opposed by them, and Obama dropped it before it even got into the bill--to get the insurers to back the bill and lobby Republicans to vote for it--so it never happened.
 
While there's much talk about "Single Payer" it's generally recognized among the experts that no Single Payer system can be implemented overnight and that any such plan would actually have to do Public Option as a transition mechanism to let the various parts of one of the most complex and critical economic markets we have adjust to it.
 
Of course Single Payer comes with so much political baggage, those of us who have studied it realize that the Public Option has one of two outcomes: either the conservatives are right and government is so inefficient that the Public Option won't be competitive with the market, or the insurance company's fears that the Public Option will so undercut their rates that they'll go out of business and we'll end up with de facto Single Payer.
 
Either way, the market will have decided through actual competition. But one of these two will happen. If there is no Public Option or similar attempts to fix the market pressures, whether Obamacare is repealed or not, rates will continue to go through the roof.
 
There's a mistaken view of individuals being the "consumers" of healthcare and by putting all of the risk and decision-making in their hands, that it will bring market forces to bear and lower costs. But in reality, you are the *product* that insurance companies *sell* to the healthcare industry. Insurance companies have no incentive whatsoever to try to lower actual healthcare costs because its so much cheaper for them to just dump bad risks if they can.
 
As I like to say, "you don't go shopping for the best emergency room price when you're having a heart attack."
 
I'm one of the millions of Americans with "pre-existing conditions" who are uninsurable if Obamacare is repealed, and while the Republicans say they'll "keep that part" the economics of taking away "evil mandates" just plain don't work. If you're going to insure the "actually sick" you need to have mandates. That's the core of Communtarianism and Mitt's backing of Romneycare: it's the responsible thing for good citizens to do, not a matter of some abstract "freedumb."
 
 
Otherwise you're just passing your expenses on to someone else. That's not Republican, that's not Democratic, that's not Libertarian. That's just wrong, :phones:
Buffy



#17 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 777 posts

Posted 04 September 2017 - 04:08 PM

The trouble with cancer treatments is you cannot generalise about what side-effects they will have, or how effective they will be. Every individual, and every cancer, is different.

 

My wife, who died last year from ovarian cancer, lived seven years after the original discovery of tumours and the operation, even though the cancer had recurred within 2 years. She went through seven cycles of chemo, each one of 6 rounds, of various agents. But she barely missed a day off work and lived an almost normal life until the last 4 months. She did not throw up once from the chemo - just was off her food for a couple of days after each infusion.   

 

So I think it makes sense to try the first round and see how you react. The drugs for suppressing side effects are really quite good these days in many cases. 

I can only imagine going through that.  I told my wife she has to outlive me, even though I qualified for a lower life insurance premium than she did.  (She was perturbed because she is careful what she eats, and I eat a very high fat diet.)

 

I agree about not generalizing, and I would like to point out that a good doctor can make a huge difference as well. There are still quite a few doctors who act like they want to be dictators.  Always get a second opinion.