--- In [email protected], Mark Landau <m@...> wrote: > > Yes, I had this lovely experience for a year ages 18-19. I > had to be hospitalized after my first two doses, it was so > bad.
And you were presumably in pretty good physical shape to start with, being so young. Imagine what it's like for elderly folks who are already debilitated by age. > Chemo was even harsher then than it is now. Fred Ansfield, > a pioneer in it, was my oncologist. Of course I lost all > my hair and had to sip blended food due to the sores in my > mouth. Thank goodness you were able to stick with it and the chemotherapy worked. > But, towards the end, my spiritual experiences returned (I > had shut them off at the age of five) and I started having > Unity experiences. Wouldn't it be lovely if *that* were a side effect of chemotherapy! > On Aug 7, 2011, at 11:36 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Finally, did you notice that she did not receive MA-V > > > treatment for her cancer--as Skolnick implied--but rather > > > as an adjunct to mitigate the effects of the chemotherapy? > > > > Yikes. That should read, "mitigate the SIDE effects of the > > chemotherapy." Cancer chemotherapy can have some very nasty > > side effects. They can be so bad, in fact, that the dosage > > has to be cut back below what is optimal for fighting the > > cancer, or the chemotherapy drug changed to one that is > > less effective. Patients may quit chemotherapy altogether > > because the side effects are intolerable. Or they may > > avoid seeing a doctor in the first place if they're afraid > > they may have cancer and not get treated at all because > > they've heard about how awful an experience chemotherapy is. > > > > Some patients die from the side effects of the chemotherapy > > before it's had a chance to kill the cancer. It's not just > > a matter of comfort but of immune function (opportunistic > > infections are common with chemotherapy), of adequate > > nutrition (digestion is often negatively affected, and > > mouth sores can make it difficult for the patient to eat), > > and the general toll chemotherapy takes on the patient's > > physical condition. > > > > Bottom line, anything that mitigates the side effects of > > chemotherapy is valuable in the treatment of cancer. > > Such an adjunct treatment can save lives indirectly by > > making it possible for the chemotherapy to do its job. > > > > Not to mention its value simply in reducing suffering, > > the humane aspect. > > > > Because of Skolnick's jihad against MA-V in the pages > > of JAMA and elsewhere, we're unlikely ever to know > > whether MA-V is a useful adjunct to chemotherapy, > > because no respectable researcher is going to dare to > > study it, and no respectable oncologist is going to > > recommend it if there isn't any solid evidence that > > it's effective. > > > > That Skolnick's personal animosity toward alternative > > treatments has resulted in keeping a potentially > > valuable adjunct treatment from the oncology > > armamentarium because its effectiveness won't ever > > be tested should make everybody angry.
