dss
New User
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 6
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:47 am Post subject: Peter Jennings Dies from Lung Cancer |
 |
|
Peter Jennings died of Lung Cancer, only a few month after being diagnosed. This is very very sad, how could someone so alive and well, die in such a short time. It is especially sad for those of us with loved ones in the same situation. Are there any details on what type of treatment plan he was on and why did he die so quickly?  |
|
gdpawel
Senior User
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 123
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:19 pm Post subject: Test The Tumor First |
|
|
Recent NCI data showed that U.S. cancer mortality rates have increased and age-adjusted cancer mortality rates in response to treatment have not improved in several decades, despite the introduction of many new drugs. There is a mind-set of cancer culture that pushes tens of thousands of physicians and scientists toward the goal of finding the tiniest improvements in treatment rather than genuine breakthroughs, that rewards academic achievement and publication over all else. Tumor shrinkage should not be the criteria for approving cancer drugs.
A patient responds to therapy when their tumor shrinks, but apparently this has nothing to do with survival. A tumor responds, that is, shrinks a little, then quickly grows and spreads. The cancer comes back with a vengeance and the cancer patient is given a death sentence by his/her oncologist who will wash his hands of it.
Experimenting on cancer patients is permissible behavior for medical oncologists. They have been allowed free access to their bodies with no accountability. After a cancer patient dies, there are no repercussions. The oncologist's compensation, reputation, position, career prospects and opportunities for advancement have no relationship to whether or not his patients live or die.
They went after Peter Jennings with a vengeance, with aggressive chemo. The very first time he said that he was going to show up and do the news, and he didn't, I knew then that it would be his last. Robert Ulrich had a 75% chance at survival with an operation. Someone sold him a bill of goods that he could achieve 93% if he was given aggressive chemo. Well, you saw where that got him. Jackie Kennedy goes in for a round of aggressive chemo, and never comes out. Jerry Orbach, another one.
My wife had chemotherapy in 1972, and then again in 1997. The "before" and "after" of the chemotherapy drug concession. "Before," she took it with ease. The postoperative drug she took, Chlorambucil (Leukeren) is among the slowest acting and least toxic of the alkylating agents (well tolerated oral drugs). Depression of the immune system was slow and reversible, allowing it to regenerate and contribute to recovery. A malfunctioning immun system can fail to stop the growth of cancer cells. She went twenty-four years before experiencing any recurrence. Why don't they treat ovarian cancer patients with Chlorambucil anymore? Because Taxol/Carboplatin is 15 times more costly!
She could not believe what happened "after." Infusion-therapy, given in big doses, with breaks of several weeks between doses to let the body try to recover (or else it can kill a patient, like the four above). The effectiveness of her combination regimen was limited because of the late stages of her recurrent cancer and most patients develop resistance. Most cancer patients have the drug or drugs, bounce off their tumors, doing little if any good.
I look forward to the day that "infusion" therapy goes by the way of the Neanderthal!!!
RIP Peter, your were a straight shooter!!! |
|
Search 
Email Digests
Register to post
Profile 
Check private messages 
Log in
What is this ?
We subscribe to the HONcode principles. Verify here. All content and posts are copyright.
