Jessica Ainscough is Going to Die

January 28th, 2012
submit to reddit Share

Jessica Ainscough is a model and fashion writer turned “wellness warrior.” She’s an Australian media personality who, in 2008, was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer that is slow growing but extremely prone to spreading and which doctors recommended be treated by amputating an arm, where the tumor was located. It’s understandable that someone would want to avoid such radical and disfiguring surgery, but for this type of cancer, such extreme measures provide the best long term prognosis. Ainscough elected to have intensive local chemotherapy instead, which eventually did eliminate all detectable cancer. Sadly, it recurred about a year later, as this type of cancer often does. At that point, her doctors advised her that amputation was the best option for treatment.

The story might have ended there and been the sad tale of a young lady who lost an arm to cancer. However, due to her poor choices, the story is much much sadder. Ms. Ainscough decided to decline further treatment. She instead opted for an organic diet, coffee enemas and various detoxification rituals. She believes she is “healing” her cancer and that this is an example of her taking responsibility and doing the right thing.

Ms. Ainscough looks pretty good and, according to her, she feels pretty good. That’s actually not too surprising. The cancer has invaded her soft tissues and is growing and spreading, but, at least from the sound of it, it has not become debilitating just yet. The sad thing is Ms. Ainscough seems to be very confident she is getting better because she lacks the most basic understanding of what the condition is and how it needs to be treated. It’s certainly true that surgery, chemotherapy and radiation are damaging, but that’s because they have to be. Cancer cannot be “healed.” It must be killed. Cancerous cells are damaged cells of ones own body, which grow out of control, due to a breakdown in the function of the mechanisms that control cellular growth. Cancer is a problem inherent to animal cell biology, it can happen in anyone, for any number of reasons, but usually with no single attributable cause, and when it does, the only way it can be cured is by destroying the cancerous cells.

Ms. Ainscough’s complete lack of even the most basic understanding of how cancer is treated is apparent in some of her statements, such as this one:

Drugs do not cure cancer. They just don’t. Every now and then, chemotherapy and radiation treatments may put a patient into “remission”, but this is not truly healing. This is certainly not a cure. Why? Because cancer is so much more than the tumour it shows up as. The tumours are merely the symptoms. And when you just target the symptom without dealing with the root cause, the disease is going to keep showing up. You can chase the disease around your body with surgery and radiation, and you can douse it with toxic chemicals, but this is not an effective long-term solution. This is why you here so often of people whose “cancer came back”. They didn’t do the work to truly reverse their disease. Cancer is nothing more than your body telling you that something has got to give. It is the result of a breakdown in your body’s defenses after it has endured years of abuse in the form of a toxic diet, toxic mind and toxic environment.

No. That’s not it at all. The tumors are the problem. The tumors are composed of the cancerous cells that are the root of the problem and the reason it often comes back is that it’s so damn hard to get every one of those cells, especially when they start spreading to different areas of the body. While cancer can be the result of carcinogenic chemicals, it can also be caused by heredity or by the random degradation of genetic material that happens as a result of cellular respiration.

Let me be blunt about the sad truth here. Jess Ainscough is going to die. I don’t mean in fifty years either. The cancer she has now is going to kill her. It’s too late for her to have a good prognosis, and if she continues without treatment, then the already poor odds are going to get worse. She may feel okay for the time being, but she will die. Her only hope is spontaneous remission, which in this kind of cancer is all but unheard of.

I should note that I am not a doctor and I do not have access to Ms. Ainscough’s complete medical information. However, what I do know is that she claims to have been diagnosed with epithelioid sarcoma. If this is indeed true (and if it’s a lie then she’s downright evil), and if she is not receiving treatment by surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, then the cancer can be expected to be fatal. This has been confirmed by experts I have consulted before writing this. As one put it “Not treating epithelioid sarcoma is suicidal.”

The thing that really bothers me, however, is that she is working very hard to put out the message that her non-treatment is working and is the best course of action. She’s been embraced by the media and this idiocy could easily kill others who buy into it.

Via Dolly:

“I’m healing myself from cancer naturally”

In 2008, when I was 22 years old, I was diagnosed with a rare type of cancer called epithelioid sarcoma in my left hand and arm.

I was living in Sydney at the time and working as the online editor for DOLLY magazine. I was living an ideal life for someone in their early twenties – burning the candle at both ends, paying no attention to how my actions could affect my health, but having a whole lot of fun while I was at it.

Everything was going exactly according to my life plan. Or so I thought.

On the 24th of April, 2008 I went to see my hand surgeon to have a cast removed, following an operation I had to biopsy some lumps that had been popping up all over my left hand and arm.

After taking the cast off, my doctor told me the news that would change my life in too many ways to predict. He said that I had cancer, and that the type of cancer I have is so rare that not many doctors know how to treat it.

Epithelioid sarcoma doesn’t respond to chemotherapy or radiation, and my only chance of prolonging my survival would be to have my arm amputated at the shoulder. But essentially, my condition was incurable.

None of this made any sense to me. I felt so healthy, and I looked healthy. I could not understand how my life had come down to a decision about whether to have my whole, fully functioning arm chopped off.

After so much anguish and being given no other options, I signed the papers and arranged to have the amputation. However, Baby Jesus, Buddha, Elvis – or whoever is up there – must have been looking out for me, because two days before I was due to have the operation, my medical team came to me with an alternative option.

They wanted to tie a tourniquet around my armpit so that an extremely high dose of chemotherapy drugs could be pumped through my arm. I spent eight days in hospital having the treatment, then a week at home recovering.

Following scans showed I was clear of cancer, but in 2009 – not even a year after going into remission – the cancer was back.

This time I was told that my only real chance of prolonging my survival would be to have my arm amputated at the shoulder, but that this would just be biding me time. My case was regarded as terminal.

Deciding this was not good enough, I took matters into my own hands. I refused their offers and began searching for natural, alternative cancer treatments.

The way I saw it I had two choices. I could let them chase the disease around my body until there was nothing left of me to cut, zap or poison; or I could take responsibility for my illness and bring my body to optimum health so that it can heal itself. For me it was an easy decision.

I began looking at the different ways I may have contributed to the manifestation of my disease and then stopped doing them.

I swapped a lifestyle of late nights, cocktails and Lean Cuisines for carrot juice, coffee enemas and meditation and became an active participant in my treatment.

This research led me to Gerson Therapy which ensures you have a perfectly balanced diet for optimum health, assisting your body to flush out nasties whilst feeding it with all the goodness it needs to flourish.

Epithelioid sarcoma is a relatively rare type of cancer of the soft tissues. It usually occurs in the extremities and is most common in young adults. The tumors are slow growing, but have an extremely high rate of recurrence. Whenever possible they are best treated by surgical removal. As with most cancers, the earlier the tumor is removed, the better and the lesser the chances of recurrence, but even when the entire tumor can be removed, it frequently recurs. Up to 77% of patients will have the cancer reoccur after it has been removed.

Amputation would seem to be an extreme step to take, but in the case of Epitheloid Sarcoma, it is often the recommended treatment that offers the greatest probability of long term survival. The cancer is prone to metastasis early in its development, which is what makes it so difficult to treat and necessitates radical surgery as the best means of avoiding recurrence. The cancer is most prone to “local metastasis” which is why operations to remove only the tumor are frequently unsuccessful. Operations to remove larger areas of tissue or amputate the entire limb have a much higher success rate. It’s hard to gauge the exact success rate because it depends very heavily on how early the cancer is caught and to what degree it has spread. If the entire region of the cancer is removed, metastasis is only 30%. Therefore, while amputation of a cancerous limb does not guarantee that the cancer is cured, but it offers the best chance for doing so. Even despite the disfigurement and lack of function, it is generally advised that such radical surgery be the primary means of treatment.

The condition becomes extremely difficult to successfully treat once it has begun to spread to more distant areas of the body. It does not respond well to chemotherapy some chemotherapy drugs do appear to have effect on large tumors, but the data is inconclusive due to lack of peer reviewed studies evaluating long term survival. Radiation, though helpful for local occurrences, is of limited value once the cancer begins to spread to multiple areas of the body. In some cases, aggressive radiation therapy does stack up favorably to amputation and therefore may allow for retention of a limb while still providing a similar success rates. Surgical removal of the tumor combined with radiation therapy in the area of the tumor is another option which offers relatively good success with the ability to retain the limb.

The fact that this type of cancer is not common makes it difficult to get good statistical data on the success rates of different treatment regimes. With aggressive treatment by surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, the overall success rate is, sadly, only lackluster. About 42-55% of patients treated will survive ten years or more, which is generally considered the benchmark for being “cured.” Ms. Ainscough, however, would have had better than average odds of survival, given her demographic. Women tend to have better survival rates than men, and younger patients tend to have better survival rates than older ones. In more favorable cases, the rate of successful treatment can be as high 80%.

It’s hard to tell what Ms. Ainscough’s prognosis would be, but it appears it would have been pretty good, based on her age, gender and general health. With aggressive treatment, she had a very good shot at beating the cancer, even if it may have cost her an arm. Regardless of her ultimate outcome, treatment could certainly offer Ms. Ainscough a longer life, even if it were not ultimately successful. In all likelihood, the aggressive chemotherapy she had early on has given her at least a year or more extra to live.

Unfortunately, it’s now probably too late. I asked a doctor about what would be recommended now, and he said it might be amputation, if the cancer is completely or at least mostly in one arm, but if it’s spread further, amputating the arm would not provide much benefit. If the cancer has moved beyond her arm, which it probably has, then there’s very little hope of a successful outcome. Once the cancer has reached widespread distribution, the likelihood of long term survival is small, although it is not impossible. Even if treatment could still result in a favorable outcome, it appears that Ms. Ainscough is not open to the possibility of reconsidering mainstream medicine.

The progress of this type of cancer is usually slow. Since it primarily affects soft tissues, it may be grow and spread for quite some time before presenting serious symptoms or life threatening complications. Soft tumors develop around the body, mainly in the deep subcutaneous tissues. They are slow growing and may or may not result in noticeable tenderness or discomfort. It can, in some cases, result in surface ulcers. The slow but aggressive cancer will eventually begin to impair normal functions as it invades lymph nodes and structures like the abdominal wall.

It can take some time for this form of cancer to become debilitating and even longer for it to kill. The most common way that this cancer kills is by infesting the lungs. It may take some time, but eventually the cancer will begin to impair lung function. Palative care may include supplimental oxygen, which can allow patients to live a bit longer, even as their lung function declines. Ultimately, this is the manner in which epithelioid sarcoma kills.

I really do not take any delight in saying this, but based on all the research I have done and the opinion of doctors in the field, if Jess Ainscough really does have epithelioid sarcoma and is not having it treated then she will almost certainly die in the near future. She may continue in relative comfort and appear healthy for the time being, but the cancer is only going to get worse. She will begin to suffer progressively worse symptoms and will die, although it may take anywhere from a few months to a few years for it to happen. She has missed the opportunity to have a reasonably good prognosis. If she were to start treatment now, her likelihood of living a full life would be low, but if she continues to forgo treatment, it will be even worse.

I really find it extremely sad. Ms. Ainscough is a twenty six year old lady who may be naive and has been very quick to embrace alternative medicine as a cure for a disease she seems to have no understanding of, but being naive hardly is grounds for a death sentence. Sadly it does not look like she is going to make it to thirty.

Now this is really going to sound terribly cold, but considering she is going to die and there’s not much to be done about that, part of me hopes it happens soon, because has long as she is alive (which isn’t going to be a whole lot longer, no matter how you look at it), she’s spreading this deadly misinformation. Maybe once she dies, her tragic case will make others wake up and realize they need to get their condition treated.

The ones who really should have to answer for this disgrace is not so much Ms. Ainscough, who is as much a victim as anything else. This poor woman is dying and does not even know it, because charlatans exploited her ignorance and lack of blind trust. Media outlets have given her a platform to spread it even further. In the end, she’ll be the dead one and they’ll be laughing all the way to the bank.

Unless she’s lying about having this condition, in which case she’s just plain evil.

Finally, in a highly unusual step, I wrote to Ms. Ainscough:

Dear Miss Aincough,

I am writing you because I have read your posts and articles about your battle with cancer and the actions you have taken to try to treat your condition. I am sure that you firmly believe that you are getting better and that you are doing the right thing to improve your health. You may even feel better and perfectly healthy at the moment. However, you have been had. You are taking advice from people who have no idea what they are talking about. If you continue to do so, it will likely kill you.

I am not a doctor, but I know when a doctor should be consulted and being diagnosed with cancer is most certainly a time when you need a doctor. Having read your accounts, I can understand why you feel they are not giving you the answers or advice you are looking for. The modern healthcare system often bounces patients between white coat-clad professionals who do extremely cold and clinical assessments and seem to take little interest in personal wellness. This is a symptom of doctors needing to treat many people and being forced to work within constraints. It’s a heavily regulated and impersonal system. That does not, however, mean they don’t know what they are talking about.

The doctors who treat cancer understand it very well. They have spent years studying it on a biochemical level, a microscopic level and on a whole-body level. They know how it works, how it progresses and how different chemicals interact with the cancer cells. Becoming a doctor is not easy and you’ll generally find doctors to be very smart people.

Despite what you might have heard, doctors are not in it just for money. Sure, a career in medicine pays pretty well, but it’s not as simple as that. Medical school is long, hard and expensive. Doctors have to spend years in low paying residency before they ever get the chance to make good money, and even then the salaries doctors get are good, but they’re not usually enough to become extremely rich – usually just upper middle class. They have to worry about things like malpractice and may be forced to be on call at odd hours. If a person only wants money, they’ll go into finance or become a lawyer. Doctors, on the other hand, may make good pay, but they are also motivated by the desire to help and the challenge of things.

I don’t think anyone is going to deny that cancer is a tough thing to treat. It’s not as simple as nutrition, and if it was, we would not be spending billions a year working on improving treatment. Cancer is a problem inherent to animal cells. Sometimes they break down and start to divide out of control. When this happens, there’s usually no attributable cause. It’s not your body reacting to something, but just a random error that causes the body to attack itself. This is why it’s so hard to treat and why the treatment can be so difficult.

I realize that losing an arm is something that anyone would want to avoid. Being young and healthy and suddenly hearing you’ve got to have your arm amputated to avoid dying from cancer must be a huge shock. However, I assure you that no competition medical professional would ever recommend such a thing unless they thought it was absolutely necessary and even then, they don’t take it lightly.

The reason you have heard things that you do not want to hear from doctors is that they are required by the ethics of their profession to be truthful. When they said you had to have an arm removed and that it would not guarantee that it would successfully stop the cancer, they were telling you the cold hard truth. When they say the disease could kill you and they can’t be sure they’ll be able to stop you, they are telling you the truth. It’s not the reality you want or they want, but it’s just the way things are. Those who tell you to drink juice and have coffee enemas can tell you much more positive and desirable things. They can tell you that you are being cured and will live a long healthy life with both arms and no cancer. They can tell you this because they lie.

One thing that is universal with cancer treatment is that it always is always more effective when started early. You have already waited some time and therefore, your odds of success are now lower than they had been. They are not zero and if you start treatment now, you have a fighting chance of beating the disease. If you want until tomorrow, they will be worse. The longer you wait, the worse the odds get.

I really do not expect you to listen to this, because I’m sure you have heard this all before, but I still felt ethically obligated to at least try.

Please consider seeking real medical treatment or you will almost certainly die. If you get treatment now, you might have a chance.

Regards,
Steve Packard

UPDATE:  SHE DIED ON FEBRUARY 26, 2015.

It took about 3 years from the time this was published and seven years since the first diagnosis.  That is roughly the time that one would have expected.   She was 30 years old.  Her loss is very sad.


This entry was posted on Saturday, January 28th, 2012 at 11:18 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Quackery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions



292 Responses to “Jessica Ainscough is Going to Die”

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All

  1. 251
    Martha Says:

    I can’t believe anyone could be so cold and heartless as to come straight out and predict her death like that.

    Okay, so you were right?

    You want a medal or something for that? Three years ago you said she would die and she did. What have you won?

    You heartless, uncaring, inhuman person.


    Quote Comment
  2. 252
    RJJ Says:

    Yeah she died. She had the right to die in peace and not have it be a spectator sport where you were making bets on how long it would take and putting this offensive filth out there.

    I hope you get cancer and die.


    Quote Comment
  3. 253
    Catie Says:

    It’s not about being right it’s about being honest and there was nothing honest about her blog she made people believe she cured her cancer when she hadn’t she hid the cancer until her a month before her death. She’s a liar and can’t believe the journalists and media friends covering up for her in the daily mail. What a joke I’ll never trust the news sources from that paper again. Seriously she made a lot of money deceiving people. Her and her friend bloggers.


    Quote Comment
  4. 254
    Alberto Says:

    She made not so much money as Big Pharma and Medical holly smoke “professionals” have made “treating” cancer with a very low effectiveness records.
    Oficial doctors and drug companies do not cure cancer either, but they present themselves as saviors when they are vultures instead.


    Quote Comment
  5. 255
    pip cornall Says:

    Alberto – I run a cancer charity – we have 48yrs experience. We see many great successes and many lost battles. I wish Jess had survived but her cancer ran its natural course despite all the effort she put into her health. Anyone with knowledge and medical experience knows that.

    In our lifetime 1 in 2 men will get cancer. Diet can help but many of our sick patients have had great diets. In fact most of our patients tried alternative treatments but they failed. It’s complex but consider that some patients actually die from supplement poisoning, some from too many essential oils, some from too much green juice (yes too many green juices can accelerate some cancers and we’ve seen it happen.

    Big ‘Herbal’ the industry, is worth 61 billion in USA alone. I don’t see anyone criticising that. Before chemo – in the 1940s cancer was a death sentence now most survive. AND – In our 48 years we’ve never seen a natural cure for cancer that could be verified. Medicine is moving beyond chemo and actually Jess may have found a cure with some of the new medical breakthroughs.

    Yes the medical system is not perfect but alternative people tell many lies about ‘natural’ cancer cures. Jess told lies and kept changing her story when challenged by people with medical knowledge.

    In our work we mix with some of the best cancer doctors in the world and all of them try very hard to find the best for their patients. With all the new breakthroughs there has never been a better time to get cancer.


    Quote Comment
  6. 256
    Alberto Says:

    Many great successes? That is just an opinion. The real story is in the numbers. You receive money for treating patients with chemo and rads. You have a conflict of interests pip. A third independent party is needed to evaluate effectiveness of surgery, drugs and radiation against cancer.


    Quote Comment
  7. 257
    Elsa Says:

    Wow what a sickening article to read. The judgemental narrow minded opinions here is disgusting! She was an incredibly brave positive young woman that did the best she could with the cards she had been given. She knew she was going to die no matter what. If you were dying why the hell would you want to be sick and depressed from radiation and chemo everyday. Wouldn’t you want to be as healthy as possible so you could feel happy and energetic to make the last memories for your family and friends to be happy one’s. She didn’t lie/cheat/hide anything. She stopped having scans done as most of the time the tumors wouldnt show up. She didn’t want to count down the days til she left, she wanted to cherish every day she woke up. And yes she made money but she used it to help others lead amazing lives. Even after she passed she wanted to help by giving any money donated for the funeral to Edgars mission animal sanctuary. She achieved so much in such a short time which Im certain is more than you negative people will ever do. You people should be ashamed of yourselves!


    Quote Comment
  8. 258
    DV82XL Says:

            Elsa said:

    She was an incredibly brave positive young woman that did the best she could with the cards she had been given.

    No she was an incredibly stupid and self-deluded fraud, that likely brought more than a few people down with her. She deserves nothing but our contempt.


    Quote Comment
  9. 259
    Rose Says:

            Elsa said:

    Wow what a sickening article to read. The judgemental narrow minded opinions here is disgusting! She was an incredibly brave positive young woman that did the best she could with the cards she had been given. She knew she was going to die no matter what. If you were dying why the hell would you want to be sick and depressed from radiation and chemo everyday. Wouldn’t you want to be as healthy as possible so you could feel happy and energetic to make the last memories for your family and friends to be happy one’s. She didn’t lie/cheat/hide anything. She stopped having scans done as most of the time the tumors wouldnt show up. She didn’t want to count down the days til she left, she wanted to cherish every day she woke up. And yes she made money but she used it to help others lead amazing lives. Even after she passed she wanted to help by giving any money donated for the funeral to Edgars mission animal sanctuary. She achieved so much in such a short time which Im certain is more than you negative people will ever do. You people should be ashamed of yourselves!

    Total and complete bull. Jessica’s message was very clear: Gerson therapy was going to cure her of cancer. That was her end game. She desperately wanted to live and I do not blame her not one bit. Everyone wants to live but a young woman in her prime wants it the most. Her message began to change over the past year (probably once she accepted that she really was going to die). She began deleting things from her web pages and put out a post saying that she never claimed she cured her cancer. However, there are loads and loads of interviews over the years where she says that “Gerson worked for her” and that she has “healed” herself. Make no mistake: Jessica was lied to by Gerson and she legitimately believed that she was going to beat cancer with her lifestyle. If her message was just about living life to its fullest, then she would not have spent two years of her life housebound and giving herself coffee enemas.

    I want you and everyone else who thinks like you to get something into your head once and for all: it is us, the “negative” people who are the ones who produce the most positive outcomes for cancer sufferers. We want people to get real medical care. We have compassion for people with cancer who get scammed. We do not want people to waste their money, their time, their souls, and their LIVES on woo. We think that Sharyn Ainscough deserved real medical care and that she should be alive right now. We want people who are terminal to get palliation and not die in unnecessary agony.

    I am sorry that you cannot seem to process this. I think that if you took your thinking to a higher level and stopped processing things on a superficial level, then you would see that it is us, the people who warn against quackery and deception who are the ones that ought to be praised, and not those who just SEEM positive but who are actually LYING. Do you really not get it? The reason that Gerson and Jessica and all her kind seem to wonderful is because everything they are about is A GIANT PILE OF LIES. We can ALL sound positive and wonderful if we are LYING.


    Quote Comment
  10. 260
    Rose Says:

            Alberto said:

    She made not so much money as Big Pharma and Medical holly smoke “professionals” have made “treating” cancer with a very low effectiveness records.
    Oficial doctors and drug companies do not cure cancer either, but they present themselves as saviors when they are vultures instead.

    They never claim they cure cancer. They ethically and honestly tell their patients their treatment options and what the predicted outcome will be based upon the cancer that they have and the efficacy of various treatments. They will tell you the likelihood that your particular cancer will go into remission after certain treatments, as well as the likelihood that it will not. That is because a real oncologist will tell you the truth. They told Jessica the truth. The truth was that she had terminal cancer that is nearly impossible to treat. The only option that gives the sufferer a chance a full life is amputation. Once the amputation was refused, Jessica Ainscough had sealed her fate and she was destined to die of cancer. Her doctors told her this. They were ethical and so they told her the truth: if she did not undergo the amputation, then she was going to die from her cancer within about five to ten years, which is exactly what happened.

    The Gerson people lied to her. They lied and they told her that they had a system that would cure her cancer. They are unethical, disgusting people who prey on a person when they are their most vulnerable. They lied and Jessica believed the lie and she died of cancer. That is the truth of what happened here.

    Since just a few weeks ago you told us all off, claiming that Jessica was doing great, I assume that you are not conditioned to processing reality in a reasonable way. It was very clear from photos of Jessica, coupled with the fact that she quit blogging, that she was close to death from cancer. From this point forward, I highly recommend that you look at everything you see and read about miracles and things that are too good to be true with a skeptical and critical eye. I worry that if you are ever diagnosed with cancer that you will believe lies that are too good to be true and seal your fate.


    Quote Comment
  11. 261
    pip cornall Says:

    Alberto – We are a charity – do you know what that means? We exist to help people survive from cancer. We draw no or very low wages. Charity. You too are expressing opinion but when it comes to opinion about me, like your opinion about modern cancer medicine, this not true – show me proof. Where do you get your information from?
    Is it Dr Google. Or mass opinion? Remember most people once thought the world was flat.

    Counties with the best medical systems have the best cancer survival rates. Fact! Third world countries have poor survival. Fact! We get patients from those countries pleading with us. I wish I could help. With funding they would go to some of the best cancer centres in the world because that gives them the best chance. They have no illusions about that. Would you like to donate to this cause?
    Jess lived for years with fungating ulcers. Do you know the pain, the stench? Have you see one? I’ve seen many and all in people doing alt/med.

    They used to be common but now only occur in alt/med people or third world countries.


    Quote Comment
  12. 262
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Alberto said:

    She made not so much money as Big Pharma and Medical holly smoke “professionals” have made “treating” cancer with a very low effectiveness records.
    Oficial doctors and drug companies do not cure cancer either, but they present themselves as saviors when they are vultures instead.

            Alberto said:

    Many great successes? That is just an opinion. The real story is in the numbers. You receive money for treating patients with chemo and rads. You have a conflict of interests pip. A third independent party is needed to evaluate effectiveness of surgery, drugs and radiation against cancer.

    You can look at the numbers. They are available from organizations like the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization and other national and international organizations.

    Statistics are kept on cancer rates and survival.

    Over the past 30-40 years advancements have been made in cancer treatment, such as new chemotherapy drugs, better detection, new types of surgery, targeted beam radiaton etc. These are the developments of “big pharma and big medicine.”

    The result of this is that nearly every form of cancer has seen survival rates go up. Of course, we’ve made more progress with some types of cancer than others. Some are roughly flat or have gone up slightly. Others are very striking. A few have gone from death sentences to being highly survivable.

    The long term prognosis for something like lymphoma or childhood leukemia is excellent today, compared to what it was decades ago, when it was a death sentence.

    I keep hearing this crap about how it’s all impossible to trust because of the fact that money is being made by some. That’s bull****. For one thing, the “alternative” practitioners make plenty of money and they don’t even have to put in the kind of intensiveness in med school that doctors do.

    It’s not even like doctors always make money by pushing treatment either. They are sometimes salaried. They’re paid a fixed amount regardless of how many doses of chemo or radiation they give. Of course, that varies depending on their work setting.

    If it were simply a matter of more patients meaning more money and doctors could cure all cancers, then any doctor who does not would be an idiot because if they did, patients would flock to them.


    Quote Comment
  13. 263
    Rose Says:

    Alberto et al,

    I am a lawyer and I have worked on two large-scale pharmaceutical cases. In both cases I read the emails, minutes of meetings, and high-level discussion from two major drug companies (sorry I cannot name them). There is no conspiracy. There is only a very straight-forward research and development plan of a drug for an ailment. That is ALL there is. Have the companies messed up before? Sure. But I had to read the highest-level discussions that can be had at two major pharm companies. I never once saw a single thing that in any, way, shape or form indicated anything illicit going on. It was just a pharma company in the business of developing, manufacturing, and marketing drugs. That’s it.


    Quote Comment
  14. 264
    Bernie Says:

    I had bookmarked this post because I had hoped I could come back in five years when she was cancer free and rub it in your face how wrong you were.

    Looks like I lose and you win. Congratulations.

    It doesn’t prove that she would have done better with radiation or chemo, She probably would have died sooner. It doesn’t prove plenty of others haven’t been saved by good nutrition and healthy living.

    Guess you win this round.

    You must be really happy. Do you want a prize?


    Quote Comment
  15. 265
    Rose Says:

            Bernie said:

    I had bookmarked this post because I had hoped I could come back in five years when she was cancer free and rub it in your face how wrong you were.

    Looks like I lose and you win. Congratulations.

    It doesn’t prove that she would have done better with radiation or chemo, She probably would have died sooner.

    It doesn’t prove plenty of others haven’t been saved by good nutrition and healthy living.

    Guess you win this round.

    You must be really happy.

    Do you want a prize?

    You are the only one who thought this was about winning and losing. If you think that holding a contest was messed up, then you have only yourself to blame because you were the only one who thought this was a contest. Jessica Ainscough would not have done better with chemo and radiation because her particular cancer is very difficult to treat with those two things, which is why her oncologists recommended an amputation. Jessica’s ONLY option for the chance of long-term survival was to amputate her arm.

    No one wanted a prize; all anyone wanted was for Jessica to get proper medical care and for all her followers to understand the seriousness of her condition, and that, despite what she claimed, that she was not going to be able to cure herself and that her condition was terminal.


    Quote Comment
  16. 266
    Renee Says:

    I followed Jess’s blog for many years. I don’t have cancer. Out of the thousands of wellness blogs I could have chosen to follow, I choose hers because of her message of living with passion, and the spark of life she seemed to bring to her conversations. While Jess talked openly about her personal story and decision to believe in Gerson Therapy I do remember her having guest bloggers on who provided a broader perspective. To me, her blog was so much more than promoting Gerson Therapy and anyone who truly followed her would tell you that. In fact, to me it seemed that it was something that was known but in the background. Yes she lived a short life but the important word here is that she LIVED and more than that she touched many, many people in a positive loving way. How many people can stand up and say they had the same positive impact on the world before they die. She empowered people to take control of their health and wellbeing….and reminded them to nurture themselves in order to feel alive!! There is NOTHING SAD about the short life she lived. Some people age to be 100 and do nothing positive with their lives. The truth is we are all dying whether we have cancer or not and the sad reality is when you look around most people are the “walking dead” putting in their days with no purpose, or passion.
    I respect your concern and that you feel the need to warn people not to make the same “mistake” Jess made. You have a right to your opinion as did Jess. You also have the right to express it, as did Jess. Whether I believe you, or whether I believe her…well that’s is my decision. It’s always good to have choice.
    I felt it was important as a long term “follower” to voice that Jess Ainscough’s cause was much more than just trying to convince her “followers” about the virtues of Gerson Therapy. Her true message was BE KIND. BE BRAVE. BE WELL.
    I think that other people reading your work should know this. They should also know that the picture you have in your original article is also not the true Jess. I’m not sure who that is, but it’s not her.


    Quote Comment
  17. 267
    pip cornall Says:

    Thank heaven for the sane voices in this conversation like Rose. In our cancer charity we work so hard to help people survive. People like Jess and her mentor Ian Gawler (who also has not been honest about his healing story) do (negatively ) impact the choices patients make. So they are dangerous to our patients and others.
    Sure it is their choice to do whatever – however they should not themselves up as an expert and give advice when they have NO MEDICAL TRAINING. I’m sad Jess and her mum are both dead but had they got proper treatment they may both be alive. We would have guided Jess’s mum to some of the best doctors in the world if they were our patients. BUT we have only ever seen poor results with Gerson et al.
    Rose is correct – there is no big pharma conspiracy. It is way too disorganised for that. We refer our patients to some of the world’s best and kindest oncologists. Some even get free drugs from ‘compassionate’ drug companies for patients who can’t afford treatment. Gee whiz- yes true.
    These are the people we mix with – people who fight to overcome this horrible disease. Yes there are lots of great doctors in our cancer community.
    So do alt/med if you wish. It has never worked with any of our 20,000 patients over 48 yrs – you might be the first. But don’t lie to people – don’t advise unless you are medially trained. And hey let’s try and work together. We are not against proven complementary therapies and not pro-chemo. IE – we try to find options other than chemo and some of these like immunotherapies are promising.
    Please be a critical thinker and know there are many crooks in the alt/med world just as there are some greedy doctors. AND – if you wish to learn more about cancer listen to our weekly radio show where we interview some of the world’s most innovative oncologists and researchers – Navigating the Cancer Maze on VoiceAmerica


    Quote Comment
  18. 268
    Sara Says:

    I see you are obviously very passionate about health and healing and mainstream medicine. To some extent I agree – your point of view is very necessary amongst this proliferation of “cancer thrivers” who turned their journey into business and influence many while not being responsible enough.

    However – mainstream medicine is playing the same game although in a bit less obvious way. Angelina Jolie got a green light from mainstream medicine to cut off her both healthy breasts “just in case” . It was not only personal decision – she made it VERY public and basically marketing for that kind of prevention. She will not stop there . Her (also healthy) ovaries are next.

    Did you write with equal passion and dedication about harming decision of Angelina? How many people she influenced ? How many healthy breasts will be cut off? What kind of influence does it make on female psyche ? Who benefits and how ? Are those decision really “personal”? Why mainstream medicine supports it ?


    Quote Comment
  19. 269
    DV82XL Says:

            Sara said:

    Did you write with equal passion and dedication about harming decision of Angelina? How many people she influenced ? How many healthy breasts will be cut off? What kind of influence does it make on female psyche ? Who benefits and how ? Are those decision really “personal”? Why mainstream medicine supports it ?

    The point here being M. Jolie is not going to die for sure as a consequence of this procedure. But having said that, there is an endless parade of people in the entertainment industry that elect to go through all sorts of medical procedures, mostly for cosmetic reasons that have a real and measurable risk, and no, broadly speaking, those are not justifiable. Furthermore they do encourage others to do the same by setting a poor example, or in some cases directly, and indeed this is questionable.

    So while your observation has merit, it is really a different conversation altogether, although there are parallels.


    Quote Comment
  20. 270
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Sara said:

    I see you are obviously very passionate about health and healing and mainstream medicine. To some extent I agree – your point of view is very necessary amongst this proliferation of “cancer thrivers” who turned their journey into business and influence many while not being responsible enough.

    However – mainstream medicine is playing the same game although in a bit less obvious way. Angelina Jolie got a green light from mainstream medicine to cut off her both healthy breasts “just in case” . It was not only personal decision – she made it VERY public and basically marketing for that kind of prevention. She will not stop there . Her (also healthy) ovaries are next.

    Did you write with equal passion and dedication about harming decision of Angelina? How many people she influenced ? How many healthy breasts will be cut off? What kind of influence does it make on female psyche ? Who benefits and how ? Are those decision really “personal”? Why mainstream medicine supports it ?

    Her decision was not one taken lightly. Her breasts may have been healthy, but she carried a gene which gave her an exceptionally high likelihood of breast cancer.

    She came to the decision to have the breast tissue removed with the consultation of doctors and with valid information. There is no single one-size-fits-all approach for women with her gene. Some elect to go forward with very frequent breast exams to try to catch the cancer early. Others decide that they won’t chance it and have their breasts removed.

    I cannot imagine the difficulty of making such a decision. But I support any woman who is faced with such a difficult decision and does what she feels is her best option, based on the medical recommendations.


    Quote Comment
  21. 271
    Emmy Says:

    Angelina Jolie chopped her breasts because she had an 87% risk of developing breast cancer due to a defective BRCA1 gene. She had two choices: die peacefully of old age her 90s or die a painful death in her 40s.

    What’s more, “her maternal family history warranted genetic testing for BRCA mutations: her mother, actress Marcheline Bertrand, had breast cancer and died from ovarian cancer, while her grandmother had ovarian cancer. Her aunt, who had the same BRCA1 defect, died from breast cancer three months after Jolie’s operation.”

    If she wants to get rid of her ovaries too, I can’t blame her. Besides, she has 6 kids; 3 of them biological. The ovaries did their duty, and there’s always more adoption.


    Quote Comment
  22. 272
    Minako Says:

            Emmy said:

    Angelina Jolie chopped her breasts because she had an 87% risk of developing breast cancer due to a defective BRCA1 gene. She had two choices: die peacefully of old age her 90s or die a painful death in her 40s.

    Eh. I don’t dispute Ms Jolie’s choice but you’re jumping to conclusions there. 87 isn’t 100, and even if she were to get cancer that doesn’t necessarily mean death. Having her breasts removed doesn’t mean she’s going to have exclusively good health for the next 50 years either. Chill out.


    Quote Comment
  23. 273
    Nicole Says:

            Martha said:

    I can’t believe anyone could be so cold and heartless as to come straight out and predict her death like that.

    Okay, so you were right?

    You want a medal or something for that?

    Three years ago you said she would die and she did. What have you won?

    You heartless, uncaring, inhuman person.

    Very well said above, and completely agree with you! And another point to add, is even with chemo, radiation or amputation, lots of others have still died. So what if she didn’t go that route and who says she would have survived had she done that, which she did try chemo and radiation at the beginning and it came back. She chose the best course of action for her, and I would have chosen the same. I rather be healthy and have my two arms, then go through surgery, then recovery, and then having to re-learn how to do everything with one arm, and again no guarantee of it not returning, and her surviving cancer. Jess was one amazing person, and she will be greatly missed.


    Quote Comment
  24. 274
    BMS Says:

            Nicole said:

    Jess was one amazing person, and she will be greatly missed.

    And she’s now eligible for a Darwin Award to boot.


    Quote Comment
  25. 275
    Rose Says:

            Nicole said:

    Very well said above, and completely agree with you! And another point to add, is even with chemo, radiation or amputation, lots of others have still died. So what if she didn’t go that route and who says she would have survived had she done that, which she did try chemo and radiation at the beginning and it came back. She chose the best course of action for her, and I would have chosen the same. I rather be healthy and have my two arms, then go through surgery, then recovery, and then having to re-learn how to do everything with one arm, and again no guarantee of it not returning, and her surviving cancer. Jess was one amazing person, and she will be greatly missed.

    I am getting a little tired of explaining this, but since you brought it up (again), I will once more explain the reality and truth of how this all goes down: chemo and radiation are not “cures” for cancer. They are simply evidence-based medicine that offers enough in the way of a positive outcome that is it worth it to administer treatments using them. That does not mean that the people getting the treatments will not die from cancer; it merely means that a certain percentage of patients have a chance of their cancer going into remission, or of significantly extending their lifespan. Oncologists are ethical and honest professional who tell you this.

    So no one says that Jessica would have survived using conventional treatment. No one EVER claimed that was a fact. What conventional treatment (amputation) offered Jessica was a chance to have a full life. Without it, she had absolutely, positively no chance at a full life.

    Personally I think it is crazy not to take that chance in exchange for your arm, but that’s just me. I agree with you that if someone would rather have a few years with both arms, then fine, go right ahead. But here is the thing you simply must get into your head: Jessica Ainscough was convinced that she had a third option, and that the third option was that she was going to cure her cancer naturally using Gerson.

    All we are trying to point out here is that, subjectively to Miss Ainscough, she did NOT choose to spend her final few years on earth with two arms over amputation. That was not the choice she subjectively thought she had made for herself. She thought that she was choosing a full life with both arms, period. That was what she thought she was doing when she chose quackery.

    And that is what I am here on this blog leaving comments, because this sad case shows just in what way quackery is so dangerous. Quackery promised Jessica that it would cure her cancer, and so when Jessica was faced with the decision to lose her arm and have a chance at a normal lifespan, or reject the amputation and live five years with both arms, she was incapable of making either choice, because she had been lied to and was told that she had a third, totally non-existent option. In choosing the third option, she inadvertently chose to die of cancer within a few years with both arms intact. Again, I cannot emphasize this enough: Jessica Ainscough did not believe subjectively that she was choosing death in five years with two arms; she thought she was choosing a long life, cured of cancer, with two arms intact.

    Quackery stole Jessica’s choice from her. How on earth none of you can see how f*cked up beyond belief that is, I will never be able to understand.


    Quote Comment
  26. 276
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Nicole said:

    She chose the best course of action for her, and I would have chosen the same. I rather be healthy and have my two arms, then go through surgery, then recovery, and then having to re-learn how to do everything with one arm

    Well, you can call it the “best course of action for her” but it didn’t end up effectively treating the cancer.

    She also didn’t live a healthy life. from all accounts, her arm was rather useless the past couple of years and her death was not a pleasant one. I do hope she was getting plenty of pain killers, because a slow moving cancer like that is a hell of a way to die without them.

    But look, I’ve said this before. If she had said “It’s my body and I choose to fie young and keep my arm.” I would have had a hard time arguing with that. If she had been honest and said “I know not treating the cancer appropriately will kill me but I would rather die than lose an arm” then I couldn’t fault her for that.

    She maintained, all along, that she was going to live and “heal” her cancer. She said she was “thriving.” Clearly she was not. She said that cancer was just her body’s way of telling her she needed better nutrition and detoxing. Obviously, it was not.

    But the worst part is she made a career out of going around telling people not to treat their cancer but to put coffee in their rectums instead.


    Quote Comment
  27. 277
    MarkyMarkH Says:

    I can’t say for sure what I would have done at 20, if I were female and looked anything like that. Body image in young people is so important. When I had cancer at 35, I chose surgery, radiation and medication. I’m alive and disease free at 52, but I didn’t have to have a disfiguring forequarter amputation to achieve it. I still would have gone through with her surgery, but that would be my choice, and mine alone.

    There are two distinct arguments here, assuming that we need to discuss her sad death at all.

    The first is she chose to live her life looking as beautiful as she did with full intact function,for as long as she wanted. It was a brave choice, and she should be applauded for it. Many would chose longevity over everything. She chose form and function, probably also believing that this choice reduced her time, but maintained the highest quality of life possible for her. She chose a form of treatment where there is no evidence of benefit, based almost entirely on belief systems, rather than scientific evidence. Again, her decision, and a brave one at that. Millions die every day from something, at least she had some autonomy to chose the way she went out. Tragic, but very brave.

    The second is where the problem is: the marketing and profiting from this type of treatment and its potential effect on vulnerable people at a particularly desperate time of their life. I’ve read comments in this blog, saying that the author has somehow publicised what should have been a private death. But her life was anything but private. On the contrary, she became a staunch advocate for this treatment with no scientific training, using carefully crafted language designed to persuade others to follow in her footsteps. The author here has a right to comment in the public arena, however distasteful his matter-of-fact style appears. So many people tried to contact her and at times, she appeared not only to ignore them, but to conceal her problems and their messages from her blog. How very, very dangerous that is.

    Its a shame too, because her brave fight with cancer will be forgotten long before the furore surrounding the circumstances of her death. This may be remedied by legislation in the future as we remember her legacy may be to actually end expensive non-helpful treatment, no matter how much better a patient feels on it.

    Denial isn’t so much that people don’t know what’s going on. Its when everyone knows what is happening, but for some reason, nobody’s doing anything about it. Was this young lady in denial about her prognosis? Probably, but she took her chances and she knew the risks, may she rest in peace. Should she have been promoting this treatment as her condition deteriorated before her eyes? No, but by that stage it was probably all she and her remaining family had left to hold onto. A lose-lose situation all around.


    Quote Comment
  28. 278
    brenRaRa Says:

    I came across this story by chance. Very sad. I looked at the Gerson website and was shocked by the completely unfounded (one could say fraudulent) claims it makes to heal the body and ‘treat cancer’. It sells a cancer juicer for $2,400. I have never had cancer and can’t imagine the desperation and shock of receiving a diagnosis. There should be a disclaimer/warning on the Gerson website to protect people and save lives.


    Quote Comment
  29. 279
    DV82XL Says:

            MarkyMarkH said:

    The first is she chose to live her life looking as beautiful as she did with full intact function,for as long as she wanted. It was a brave choice, and she should be applauded for it.

    THIS IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED AND WE ARE GETTING VERY TIRED OF REPEATING IT! SHE DID NOT MAKE A CHOICE TO LIVE HER LAST FEW YEARS INTACT, SHE BELIEVED SHE WAS GOING TO BE CURED BY FOLLOWING AN ALTERNATIVE THERAPY.

    PLEASE STOP TRYING TO SPIN THIS INTO SOMETHING IT WAS NOT

    As well she maintained publicly that others would be cured by following the same path, and that, and that alone, is the reason it is a topic for discussion here.


    Quote Comment
  30. 280
    BMS Says:

            MarkyMarkH said:

    The first is she chose to live her life looking as beautiful as she did with full intact function,for as long as she wanted.

    No, she didn’t. She chose coffee enemas.

    If there is anything worse than dying from cancer, it has to be dying from cancer while shooting coffee up your butt the whole time. This wasn’t a “brave choice,” it was a foolish choice. Millions might die every day, but very few die looking so damn silly.


    Quote Comment
  31. 281
    Rose Says:

            BMS said:

    No, she didn’t. She chose coffee enemas.

    If there is anything worse than dying from cancer, it has to be dying from cancer while shooting coffee up your butt the whole time. This wasn’t a “brave choice,” it was a foolish choice. Millions might die every day, but very few die looking so damn silly.

    I wrote a post about this because I thought that it needed to be clearly and expressly stated: Jessica Ainscough did not have a choice because the flinger’s of woo stole it from her. Once the fantasy-based medicine jerks convince you of their message, the choice – whether it be foolish or brave – is no longer yours.

    http://realitybasedmedicine.blogspot.com/2015/03/jessica-ainscoughs-stolen-choice.html


    Quote Comment
  32. 282
    BMS Says:

            Rose said:

    Jessica Ainscough did not have a choice because the flinger’s of woo stole it from her.

    Good point. She could have used the services of a good deprogrammer.


    Quote Comment
  33. 283
    DV82XL Says:

    Jessica Ainscough died following something called ‘Gibson Therapy’ which was promoted by one Belle Gibson. Since Ainscough’s death several Australian bloggers have made a project out of exposing this woman as a fraud, and the results are spectacular. It would seem just about every claim this person made about herself was an outright lie, including it would seem that she had cancer at all. She is not even a chief (which was her initial claim to fame) and has a past littered with similar mendacity.

    And she is feeling the heat. She has sockpuppeted her own Facebook page, and when that didn’t work, has been carrying out a scorched earth policy. The end is very near.

    You can read about it here over at Reality Based Medicine. Be sure to read the comment threads as much of the dirt is coming out there as people take a closer look at this fraud’s life.

    As an aside, it is too bad that Steve (DrBuzz0) is on hiatus due to other commitments because if anyone deserves to be in on the kill it is him for keeping this story in play for so many years.


    Quote Comment
  34. 284
    Betty Says:

    This the reason so many people seek alternative modalities!
    https://4timesandcounting.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/collateral-damage/

    What part of this sounds like ANY quality of life?!!


    Quote Comment
  35. 285
    DV82XL Says:

            Betty said:

    What part of this sounds like ANY quality of life?!!

    What part of dead is any life whatsoever?

    Is cancer a serious condition? Yes it is? Can the treatments be harsh, with bad side-effects? Yes But when the only other option is death you take what you can get. Alternative treatments might not be as hard on you, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THEY DO NOT WORK

    If you want to fogo treatment and die, go right ahead, no one here will try and stop you, but that is not what happened. Jessica Ainscough rejected her one chance of survival to follow a useless treatment regime that she believed would cure her and advised others to do the same. It is this and, this alone that we have issue with.


    Quote Comment
  36. 286
    sciencebased Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Jessica Ainscough died following something called ‘Gibson Therapy’ which was promoted by one Belle Gibson. f

    NO NO NO. Ainscough was doing GERSON therapy, a pseudoscientific program created by Charlotte Gerson many decades ago. Nothing to do with Belle Gibson who has NO such therapy named after her. Please try and keep up, and read things properly and carefully if you are going to comment about them on blogs that pride themselves on evidence-based content.


    Quote Comment
  37. 287
    DV82XL Says:

            sciencebased said:

    NO NO NO. Ainscough was doing GERSON therapy, a pseudoscientific program created by Charlotte Gerson many decades ago. Nothing to do with Belle Gibson who has NO such therapy named after her. Please try and keep up, and read things properly and carefully if you are going to comment about them on blogs that pride themselves on evidence-based content.

    My error. Thanks for correcting me.


    Quote Comment
  38. 288
    Shawn Says:

            Alberto said:

    Many great successes? That is just an opinion. The real story is in the numbers. You receive money for treating patients with chemo and rads. You have a conflict of interests pip. A third independent party is needed to evaluate effectiveness of surgery, drugs and radiation against cancer.

    Except that it’s proven and a well known fact that people who receive chemotherapy and radiation tend to survive longer than people who don’t treat their cancer at all. Look at Jess. She received chemo in her arm and the cancer disappeared for a year. She then took the advice of a quack and her cancer killed her. There is absolutely no proof that the treatment regimen that she poisoned the world with, ever cured cancer and in fact, several renowned people have said that her treatment regimen is dangerous and potentially deadly on its own.


    Quote Comment
  39. 289
    PlacidAir Says:

            DV82XL said:

    What part of dead is any life whatsoever?

    Is cancer a serious condition? Yes it is? Can the treatments be harsh, with bad side-effects? Yes But when the only other option is death you take what you can get. …

    Sorry, but no. Existence alone is not LIVING. I have stage 4 lobular breast cancer, a slow-growing form that was only diagnosed as stage 4 a couple of weeks ago. In less than a year I have had a double-mastectomy with 24 lymphnodes removed, a salpingo-oopherectomy, chemo therapy and am currently on anastrozole. Because my cancer doesn’t create masses, but puts out single cells that cannot be found via imaging, it is hard to track, impossible to check the effectiveness of any given treatment and there is little available via allopathic medicine to treat it beyond blocking the hormones and hoping it doesn’t start feeding on something else instead. This particular form of cancer “likes” to go to different areas than ductal cancer does, it likes to go into the ovaries (which I had “prophylactically” removed to get rid of the cancer’s “food”), and was found there, it likes to invade stomachs, intestines, omentum, eyes and brains. So every stomach ache, every headache, every time my eyes blur because I’m tired, or because the clouds just parted and I’m momentarily blinded by the sun — I have a brief moment of having to wonder if it’s progression of the cancer. I am still pretty functional, but the lymphedema and neuropathy in my primary arm and hand from the surgery and chemo have disabled me and made it impossible for me to work at my job as a computer geek…. my primary hand is not trust-worthy, I cannot feel the home keys on the keyboard and cannot properly control a mouse. I spend a great deal of time proof-reading and correcting what I’ve typed.

    3 weeks after I was diagnosed, a dear friend of mine died of stage 4 breast cancer, also hormone receptor positive. She went through multiple surgeries, multiple rounds of chemo, multiple rounds of radiation and 2 years of absolute Hell as her body betrayed her a little bit more, and a little bit more, and a little bit more. Eventually she developed a tumor on her lung that was pressing on her heart and the fluid retention from her heart not being able to pump properly built up and when it rose to her lungs (after weeks of building up starting from her feet up and enlarging her body to almost twice her normal size — despite hospitalization and repeated efforts to get the fluid out of her), she lost the battle — in pain and with her skin stretched to a point where even the slightest pressure made her cry out.

    That is NOT “living”, and I will not be going that way. When my disease progresses to a point where it is clearly a downward and painful slope, I will be moving to a State that allows for a physician-assisted exit. This disease has already taken too much away.

    I am doing everything I can to fight this at this point, other than the arm and hand issues and bouts of exhaustion, most of the time I feel relatively decent and still have a sense of humor. I am working with my cancer doctors and my primary care doctor, as well as researching anything I can do holistically. Every herb and supplement I’m taking, I’ve been able to validate as being known to help slow-down or kill cancer cells — with that validation coming from the NIH website, Sloan-Kettering’s site, or the Mayo Clinic site — and my tumor markers are actually down further now almost 6 months after the end of chemo than they were immediately after. Tumor markers aren’t 100% reliable — but with a form of cancer that is too small and too low-metabolism to show on PET scan, CT or MRI — well, it’s pretty much all I have to hang my hat on. CTC testing is also considered “iffy”, but might give us SOMETHING to look at. I’ve been battling auto-immune issues for 30 years and have been told that my immune system may have been attacking various things (for instance my thyroid) because there were some cancer cells in there — yes, it’s that slow growing and they found 24 dirty lymphnodes during the mastectomy.

    I keep reading comments about “a longer life”, as if that’s the only thing that counts — and honestly, as someone who’s seen it up close too many times (I’ve seen other loved ones die slowly and painfully from cancer) — longer is not always better and for me living BETTER is the goal. We’re all going to die sometime and I have no idea whether I’ll be gone in 6 months, or 20 years (if I’ve been walking around with it this long, who says I can’t keep doing it). What I DO know is that I’m not willing to spend years dying in pieces and suffering the whole time. Quality of life has value and just because we CAN extend someone’s life doesn’t mean they MUST or SHOULD make that choice simply because someone else thinks they should, or someone who’s never been in their shoes is naive enough to believe that being locked in a failing body is somehow better than the alternative.

    I point blank asked my oncologist if we’re now just in a state of waiting to see which organ accumulates enough cancer cells to hit the “tipping point” first and kill me — the answer was “yes”. Extend this when it gets worse and I’m becoming totally non-functional or going blind? HELL NO.

    And yes, I know I typed a lot here — it took me about 5x longer than it would have pre-mastectomy, and I’ve had to go back and correct my typing many times….. hopefully I got all the typos.


    Quote Comment
  40. 290
    DV82XL Says:

            PlacidAir said:

    Quality of life has value and just because we CAN extend someone’s life doesn’t mean they MUST or SHOULD make that choice simply because someone else thinks they should, or someone who’s never been in their shoes is naive enough to believe that being locked in a failing body is somehow better than the alternative.

    I think everyone understands the point you are trying to make, and agrees with you in principle, but that was not what was going on in this case. Ainscough was not making the choice between treatment and quality of life. She believed that she could beat her cancer with a quack therapy and worked to convince others that this was the correct path to take because she thought it was going to cure her. This is the issue here, it is the only issue we have problems with.

    Please look at the rest of the passage you quoted of mine:

            DV82XL said:

    … Alternative treatments might not be as hard on you, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THEY DO NOT WORK

    If you want to fogo treatment and die, go right ahead, no one here will try and stop you, but that is not what happened. Jessica Ainscough rejected her one chance of survival to follow a useless treatment regime that she believed would cure her and advised others to do the same. It is this and, this alone that we have issue with.


    Quote Comment
  41. 291
    Vicki Ryan Says:

    How does “mind your own ****ing business” sound?


    Quote Comment
  42. 292
    DV82XL Says:

            Vicki Ryan said:

    How does “mind your own ****ing business” sound?

    When someone goes public, it becomes everyone’s business, how dare you suggest that we refrain from making comment?


    Quote Comment

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string LA8Vro to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam