Lynn Redgrave died, but she was cured of breast cancer. How can that be?
The paper said the actress died after 7 years of fighting breast cancer. But she was a cancer surviver and cured after 5 years she was still living. If she was cured, why did she die of the cancer?
Cancer - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Quite possibly the original breast cancer was "cured," but in the meantime metastasized to other areas of the body, which is what cancer frequently does. She was a great actress, I'll never forget her as "Georgy Girl."
2 :
no one is ever cured of cancer. the correct term is remission. she was in remission for 7 years but cancer can return at any time and in any place.
3 :
The medical community has decided to create an illusion that we are making progress using the 3 methods of "curing" cancer that has been legally accepted in the United States for the last approximately 100 years. Billions of dollars have been poured into this feeble attempt and it is failing miserably, but that is not something the medical community can tolerate. So they have done some things with the statistics that borders on shameful. Cancer is the ONLY disease that uses a 5 year survival rate as the criteria to say a person is "CURED." The time starts when you are diagnosed. So now they are pushing everyone to get diagnosed early on the idea that you have a better chance of being cured. Well that's clever. Since it takes about 8 to 10 years for cancer to be growing before it is typically able to be diagnosed and another 10 years to die from it if you get NO treatments, the earlier you are diagnosed, the better statistic you will be. Redgrave died 7 years after she was diagnosed, so she was CURED according to the way she will be listed. If they had diagnosed her a few years later, she would not be a good statistic and have to be labeled as NOT CURED. She had breast cancer and the typical chemotherapy and radiation treatments statistically only cure 1.4% of those people. Living 7 years from diagnosis, she gets the distinction of her relatives of saying she beat the odds and was part of the 1.4% cured. I challenge any person here on this forum or anywhere to show us all credible evidence that ADVANCED BREAST CANCER TUMOR PATIENTS BEING TREATED WITH CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE DO BETTER OR LIVE LONGER THAN UNTREATED. Where is the study that shows that? In fact, you will NOT see the real data, but only carefully massaged data that gives the results that promotes huge donations of money that is being poured down a rat hole and wasted on research that is just NOT WORKING. Even the "cancer studies" are being manipulated to present a favorable impression that Cancer cures are making lots of progress, when in real life, it is just the opposite. It's now very common for these guys to make insults on our intelligence by using some ridiculous "Relative Benefit" study, and not the true data by using ONLY an "Absolute Benefit" study, like the major trickery used for Tamoxifen where the Absolute Benefit was 1.5% and the Relative Benefit was 49%. These guys are using the Relative Benefit and this is simply deceptive and wrong. When looking at data being presented, it is important to make sure honesty and true numbers are what you are looking at. There are several cancers to consider when establishing the percentage of cases that are lumped into the 2 - 3% cure rate that chemotherapy & radiation are showing. Here is that data showing the % cured (defined using the word cured to mean that ridiculous 5 year survival rate) for a specific cancer using the conventional chemotherapy & radiation or surgery. The study that was done was called "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies. This study took every randomized controlled clinical trial performed in the U.S. from 1990 to 2004 and the results showed the above Cancer cure statistics: Uterus: 00.0%; Stomach 00.7%; Colon 01.0%; Breast 01.4%; Head & Neck: 01.9%; Lung 2.0%; Rectal 3.4%; Brain 3.7%; Esophagus 04.9%; Ovary 08.9%; Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma 10.5%; Cervix 12%; Testes 37.7%; Hodgkin's 40.3%. Now realize that Testes and Hodgkin's only represents 2% of the total cancers. To put an even better perspective on this understand that ANY drug evaluated by the medical community that shows less than 30% effectiveness is considered to be LESS THAN A PLACEBO. So, a sugar pill is just as effective as about 98% or more cancer treatments used today! ! ! You will be interested to know that the AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY in 2007 said "Surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy... seldom produce a cure." That was a quote from the "CANCER FACTS & FIGURES 2007." I do wish the medical people would STOP using the word CURE for cancer at the 5 year survival rate. This is deceptive and degrading to real credible science. CURE in all other diseases, except Cancer, is defined as "ELIMINATION OF DISEASE." Why NOT be honest for a change about what is really going on? Instead of trying to hide the real facts, let's examine what is really working and what isn't. Drug companies love the fact that the typical cancer patient will waste $500,000 to fight cancer with these concoctions that are worse than sugar pills. The most effective ways to treat cancer is what is being done outside the U.S. It is illegal for anyone to use any cancer treatment that does not involve chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery! All other treatments are considered illegal and a person can be put in jail for using, promoting, or experimenting, yet many of these treatments are getting tremendous successes. The average person fights off about 6 events of cancer in their lifetime. The body eliminates cancer cells each day as part of the immune system defenses. Our bodies are designed to do that. Giving people poisons to fight cancer and destroying the immune system is as ridiculous today as it was when the top allopathic doctors decided to drain 1/2 of the blood out of the body of George Washington to cure a sore throat. That didn't work, so the next day they gave him 650 mg. of mercury thinking that would do it. It did, HE DIED. That was chemotherapy, or more aptly put, chemical poisoning. To get far better answers to a "cancer cure," you should investigate the GERSON CLINIC in San Diego that has a facility across the border in Mexico where they can treat people by supporting a good immunity and detoxification that really works. good luck to you
4 :
You don't go into remission, you survive. All that means is we are blessed enough that the rotten mutated cell has gone into hiding only to sneak up on us somewhere else. I don't believe anyone is ever truly cured of breast cancer or any cancer. The 5 yr mark is a joke. That's what they told my sister when she reached her so called 5 yr mark only to get brain cancer. Pathology on her brain tumor showed, guess what, breast cancer cells. See, Lynn Redgrave may have survived breast cancer, but those sneaky no good cells went somewhere else. Don't be fooled by those saying "cured" ADD Spicey, If you had all the money in the world, it cannot buy you life. When it's your time to go, it's time and you cannot say no.
5 :
If the paper said she had been fighting it for 7 years how could she be cured 5 years ago? That makes no sense at all.
6 :
The medical community is a bunch of spineless jerks that cannot possibly admit that after all of the tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars, at the end of the day she still died, too young, from cancer. Does that look like the medical community did the job that they were paid for? If you paid that much money, wouldn't you expect to live?????
7 :
Unfortunately, there is no "cure" for cancer. Patients may have cancer eliminated by surgery, chemo, and radiation with long term remission resulting. However, a "cure" remains elusive to medical science. The obituary for Lynn Redgrave stated that she was 67, but did not specify cause of death.
8 :
Breast cancer is never considered 'cured'; it can return at any time. It is a common misconception that all cancers are considered cured if there has been no recurrence or metastasis within 5 years of diagnosis and treatment. This IS the case for a few types of cancer; if they haven't returned within 5 years, experience shows they are not going to return, and they can therefore be considered 'cured'. Cervical cancer and testicular cancer are examples. Many other cancers, breast cancer among them, are NOT considered cured after 5 years because they can return even years later. Most recurrences of breast cancer occur within 2 years of diagnosis. After 5 years, the chances of recurrence or metastasis are statistically much reduced, which is why it is still a significant landmark for women who've had breast cancer - I partied when I passed the 5 year stage. Thereafter, the risk of recurrence falls with every passing year. But t can never be considered cured. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about cancer and five year survival, as Onlymatch4u's hopeless confusion of 5 year survival stats and 'cure' shows. I was diagnosed with breast cancer the same year Lyn Redgrave was, six and a half years ago. I have no sign of cancer, but no doctor has EVER used the word 'cured' to me. Instead they say 'no evidence of diseae' (or NED, my favourite word. Whatever source you got the information that Redgrave was 'cured of breast cancer' from was wrong and ill-informed. There is no 'all clear' with breast cancer.
Read more discussions :
