Anyone else having trouble with Amanda Lewis and her positions on treating breast cancer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Farrah Fawcett died of anal cancer for more or less the same reason.

I think they didn’t catch hers very early. No one was talking about anal cancer back then.

They caught it in plenty of time to have potentially cured it, but the most aggressive treatment would have involved an ostomy and she was not willing to have one. This was in 2006. She had other treatment--but not the recommended surgery--was declared "cancer-free," and then died in 2009.

She would literally rather die than have an ostomy. Absolute idiocy.

I certainly wouldn't call that idiocy, especially in someone that far into to their life.

What is “that far?”

She was 59 when she decided against treatment.

That's already towards the end of a person's natural life. So even if you survive, there's a good chance you'll just become a burden on others even sooner than most others.

Not exactly a good life.

59 is towards the end of a person’s life span? What century are you living in? That’s utterly false. You’re the person who posts on every thread that the elderly are a burden on society and should just pack it in by 60, right? It’s beyond tiresome.

[Anonymous]

A friend of mine took this approach. She’s dead now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A friend of mine took this approach. She’s dead now.

+1

I had a good friend who began chemo after her breast cancer was discovered. She was so sick from chemo, and she began "researching" alternatives online. She eventually decided to go ahead with some kind of CBD oil treatment endorsed by an online quack, halting her chemo.

It didn't work. By the time her devastated husband could persuade her to go to a real doctor, the cancer had metastasized to the bone and lungs. Her final months were terrible. She died.

She most likely would be alive today if she had kept up with the conventional treatment plan.

I think it should be criminal for people to endorse these stupid "homeopathic"/spiritual alternative treatments. I think that people who are desperate and scared after a diagnosis are not of sound mind, and it isn't fair to allow these crazies to spread their dangerous ideas in that way.

Amanda Lewis is an idiot and she should stfu in case she is influencing somebody vulnerable somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Farrah Fawcett died of anal cancer for more or less the same reason.

I think they didn’t catch hers very early. No one was talking about anal cancer back then.

They caught it in plenty of time to have potentially cured it, but the most aggressive treatment would have involved an ostomy and she was not willing to have one. This was in 2006. She had other treatment--but not the recommended surgery--was declared "cancer-free," and then died in 2009.

She would literally rather die than have an ostomy. Absolute idiocy.

I certainly wouldn't call that idiocy, especially in someone that far into to their life.

This! Everybody doesn’t think and view death the same way. I personally have thought about this, and if it wasn’t for my three kids and my husband and my siblings whose life would negatively be affected if died prematurely, I doubt that I would fight a terminal illness at my age.

How old are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Farrah Fawcett died of anal cancer for more or less the same reason.

I think they didn’t catch hers very early. No one was talking about anal cancer back then.

They caught it in plenty of time to have potentially cured it, but the most aggressive treatment would have involved an ostomy and she was not willing to have one. This was in 2006. She had other treatment--but not the recommended surgery--was declared "cancer-free," and then died in 2009.

She would literally rather die than have an ostomy. Absolute idiocy.

I certainly wouldn't call that idiocy, especially in someone that far into to their life.

This! Everybody doesn’t think and view death the same way. I personally have thought about this, and if it wasn’t for my three kids and my husband and my siblings whose life would negatively be affected if died prematurely, I doubt that I would fight a terminal illness at my age.

How old are you?

I get what this poster is saying. There is a generation that is not realistic and feels they can and should live forever. At 59 you should have more years behind you than ahead of you.

I have no desire to live to be 100 or to become a burden to my kids. Eventually your mind and body break down enough that you become a burden to those that love you no matter how healthy or wealthy you are. I feel 80s is where I want to be. That way I don't outlive all my friends and relatives. I don't want to be the last sibling standing.

If I had a really bad illness over 50 and it treatment would drastically impact the quality of my life for the rest of my life I don't think I would focus too much on treatment. I would focus on making sure the time i have is well spent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Farrah Fawcett died of anal cancer for more or less the same reason.

I think they didn’t catch hers very early. No one was talking about anal cancer back then.

They caught it in plenty of time to have potentially cured it, but the most aggressive treatment would have involved an ostomy and she was not willing to have one. This was in 2006. She had other treatment--but not the recommended surgery--was declared "cancer-free," and then died in 2009.

She would literally rather die than have an ostomy. Absolute idiocy.

I certainly wouldn't call that idiocy, especially in someone that far into to their life.

This! Everybody doesn’t think and view death the same way. I personally have thought about this, and if it wasn’t for my three kids and my husband and my siblings whose life would negatively be affected if died prematurely, I doubt that I would fight a terminal illness at my age.

How old are you?

I get what this poster is saying. There is a generation that is not realistic and feels they can and should live forever. At 59 you should have more years behind you than ahead of you.

I have no desire to live to be 100 or to become a burden to my kids. Eventually your mind and body break down enough that you become a burden to those that love you no matter how healthy or wealthy you are. I feel 80s is where I want to be. That way I don't outlive all my friends and relatives. I don't want to be the last sibling standing.

If I had a really bad illness over 50 and it treatment would drastically impact the quality of my life for the rest of my life I don't think I would focus too much on treatment. I would focus on making sure the time i have is well spent.

NP. I completely agree.

If treatment is going to be long and have a decreased quality of life, or not provide an excellent long-term prognosis, then I don't want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Farrah Fawcett died of anal cancer for more or less the same reason.

I think they didn’t catch hers very early. No one was talking about anal cancer back then.

They caught it in plenty of time to have potentially cured it, but the most aggressive treatment would have involved an ostomy and she was not willing to have one. This was in 2006. She had other treatment--but not the recommended surgery--was declared "cancer-free," and then died in 2009.

She would literally rather die than have an ostomy. Absolute idiocy.

I certainly wouldn't call that idiocy, especially in someone that far into to their life.

What is “that far?”

She was 59 when she decided against treatment.

That's already towards the end of a person's natural life. So even if you survive, there's a good chance you'll just become a burden on others even sooner than most others.

Not exactly a good life.

You’re a nut. She needed an ostomy, not a lobotomy.

Being “a burden on others” is not the determiner of whether someone is having a good life. A+ eugenics, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Farrah Fawcett died of anal cancer for more or less the same reason.

I think they didn’t catch hers very early. No one was talking about anal cancer back then.

They caught it in plenty of time to have potentially cured it, but the most aggressive treatment would have involved an ostomy and she was not willing to have one. This was in 2006. She had other treatment--but not the recommended surgery--was declared "cancer-free," and then died in 2009.

She would literally rather die than have an ostomy. Absolute idiocy.

I certainly wouldn't call that idiocy, especially in someone that far into to their life.

This! Everybody doesn’t think and view death the same way. I personally have thought about this, and if it wasn’t for my three kids and my husband and my siblings whose life would negatively be affected if died prematurely, I doubt that I would fight a terminal illness at my age.

How old are you?

I get what this poster is saying. There is a generation that is not realistic and feels they can and should live forever. At 59 you should have more years behind you than ahead of you.

I have no desire to live to be 100 or to become a burden to my kids. Eventually your mind and body break down enough that you become a burden to those that love you no matter how healthy or wealthy you are. I feel 80s is where I want to be. That way I don't outlive all my friends and relatives. I don't want to be the last sibling standing.

If I had a really bad illness over 50 and it treatment would drastically impact the quality of my life for the rest of my life I don't think I would focus too much on treatment. I would focus on making sure the time i have is well spent.

NP. I completely agree.

If treatment is going to be long and have a decreased quality of life, or not provide an excellent long-term prognosis, then I don't want it.

Breast cancer treatment is difficult but active treatment does not usually extend beyond a year and you can certainly have a good quality of life afterward, even with maintenance medication. Life is precious and time with family is precious. What’s an “excellent” long-term prognosis? Are you saying that if you were dishes with stage 3 BC in your late 50s, you would decline treatment?

[Anonymous]

^diagnosed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Farrah Fawcett died of anal cancer for more or less the same reason.

I think they didn’t catch hers very early. No one was talking about anal cancer back then.

They caught it in plenty of time to have potentially cured it, but the most aggressive treatment would have involved an ostomy and she was not willing to have one. This was in 2006. She had other treatment--but not the recommended surgery--was declared "cancer-free," and then died in 2009.

She would literally rather die than have an ostomy. Absolute idiocy.

I certainly wouldn't call that idiocy, especially in someone that far into to their life.

This! Everybody doesn’t think and view death the same way. I personally have thought about this, and if it wasn’t for my three kids and my husband and my siblings whose life would negatively be affected if died prematurely, I doubt that I would fight a terminal illness at my age.

How old are you?

I get what this poster is saying. There is a generation that is not realistic and feels they can and should live forever. At 59 you should have more years behind you than ahead of you.

I have no desire to live to be 100 or to become a burden to my kids. Eventually your mind and body break down enough that you become a burden to those that love you no matter how healthy or wealthy you are. I feel 80s is where I want to be. That way I don't outlive all my friends and relatives. I don't want to be the last sibling standing.

If I had a really bad illness over 50 and it treatment would drastically impact the quality of my life for the rest of my life I don't think I would focus too much on treatment. I would focus on making sure the time i have is well spent.

NP. I completely agree.

If treatment is going to be long and have a decreased quality of life, or not provide an excellent long-term prognosis, then I don't want it.

+2

[Anonymous]

A surprising number of people ignore lumps until they progress into advanced stages of cancer. I had breast cancer and was in BC groups and I was shocked how common "magical thinking" was. It's basically a sophisticated form of denial. People have all kinds of reasons- chemotherapy and radiation are themselves very harmful (true, yet, less likely to kill you than cancer), they are willing to roll the dice by going lumpectomy without radiation, they dont think they really need endocrine therapy, etc. Its all incredibly common thinking.

[Anonymous]

NP here. I am going through chemo for BC currently. I believe in the woo woo treatments as well as the conventional treatments. So, I am really focussed on my diet, my sleep, my exercise, yoga, breathing etc. It is hard because chemo does not leave you with much energy and most of the time you are just dealing with that.

I do believe that my body is intelligent and will heal itself given the right inputs. Unfortunately, currently, chemo remains one of the right inputs. It does not mean that I am not also doing the prayers, meditation, food and drink, socializing etc in my quest to heal. I would rather go through horrible chemo and heal, rather than not have a chance and die.

Currently, l am stage 2 and the cancer has not spread in my lymph nodes. So, I am very grateful that it was caught early enough...and that it is in my breast instead of any other organ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:… she refused a mastectomy. After years of refusing mammograms.


‘My plan at first was to get out excessive toxins in my body. I felt like my body is intelligent, I know that to be true. Our bodies are brilliantly made,” she said. “I decided to keep my tumor and try to work it out of my body a different way.”’

She progressed to stage 4 cancer - incurable- but now insists she’s ‘thriving’

This sort of nonsense infuriates me.

Why should it infuriate anyone? Isn't the poor woman dead and did she not tell everyone to keep getting regular diagnostic tests?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A surprising number of people ignore lumps until they progress into advanced stages of cancer. I had breast cancer and was in BC groups and I was shocked how common "magical thinking" was. It's basically a sophisticated form of denial. People have all kinds of reasons- chemotherapy and radiation are themselves very harmful (true, yet, less likely to kill you than cancer), they are willing to roll the dice by going lumpectomy without radiation, they dont think they really need endocrine therapy, etc. Its all incredibly common thinking.

I often ignore lumps. I have lumpy breasts and its difficult to get appointments and you get exhausted fighting/begging for help. (military insurance)

If I got breast cancer or any cancer, I'm not sure I'd fight it. I have other health issues and I'm not sure I can handle more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. I am going through chemo for BC currently. I believe in the woo woo treatments as well as the conventional treatments. So, I am really focussed on my diet, my sleep, my exercise, yoga, breathing etc. It is hard because chemo does not leave you with much energy and most of the time you are just dealing with that.

I do believe that my body is intelligent and will heal itself given the right inputs. Unfortunately, currently, chemo remains one of the right inputs. It does not mean that I am not also doing the prayers, meditation, food and drink, socializing etc in my quest to heal. I would rather go through horrible chemo and heal, rather than not have a chance and die.

Currently, l am stage 2 and the cancer has not spread in my lymph nodes. So, I am very grateful that it was caught early enough...and that it is in my breast instead of any other organ.

Why chemo if no positive lymph nodes?