Posts by placidheron24

Warning: If you think any of the info or opinions I’m sharing here might be a bit much for you, please just skip this or hit the "ignore" button. No hard feelings.

casualrider21 said:...
I'm really holding out hope for some good news and positive updates.

So, here are the last two sentences from a post I saw on another forum:
The bronchial tumor shrank significantly six months after the last round of chemotherapy. Improvements regarding the brain tumor started showing up after just two doses of radiation.

Sorry, but the guy was using an alternative method—and we aren't supposed to talk about that kind of stuff here.
P.S. Still waiting on more test results.

dustypuma5 said:...
My real-life Alternative would be getting exiled to some deserted island—but if it exists here on Reddit, then it needs to be respected just like any other subforum. Same goes for the people actually participating in the Alternative section.
If the pacifists started attacking the Military forum, the scientists hit the Alternative section, or Non-partisan politics got raided by history revisionists, this whole site would go up in flames.
...

Look, I don't have anything against you thinking the Alternative section is basically your own private island. Honestly, feel free to say that over in the Alternative section if you want. But I definitely *do* have an issue when you use insults or belittling tactics to derail discussions in those specific areas. It’s your choice to dislike the Alternative section, but it's also my choice to post there—and it never crosses my mind to, say, wander over to the Police Department section just to insult the users, the moderators, the science, or whatever else is being discussed. If I have something to say that actually adds value to a conversation, I’ll say it.
That comparison you made between the pacifists and the "soldiers"... man, that's a good one. Actually, it's great. Just to be clear—and let me put this a bit more simply—I'm not saying people shouldn't leave their own neighborhoods, I'm just trying to point out that certain people (usually the same few guys) constantly barge into someone else's neighborhood just to provoke the residents, throw insults, and start fights.

Hard to find anything to complain about here...😁

Exactly!

Harold Sanders10 said:...
Disclaimer: I don't support MMS as a medical treatment, nor do I support people practicing medicine without being properly licensed under US laws.

I totally get where you're coming from with that disclaimer—it’s fair, and honestly, it's pretty respectful of you to state your stance on Alternative Medicine clearly like that. It keeps things civil...
But hey, let's slow down for a second. I think we're finally getting to the heart of the issue here—and I really believe we're about to figure out what's actually going on... just a thought.

slycrane94 said:...
Look, you’re framing this as just some petty insult from Tik, but trash-talking the entire scientific community and everyone working in it—or who used to—is... I don't even know what to call it. Basically, you better watch your step with what you demand, because the mods over there already give way more leeway to the locals than they ever do to the crew coming in from Reddit (somehow, it's always been the exact opposite on Reddit)
.

1. There’s a massive line between having a critique (or just disagreeing with someone) and DIRECTLY insulting people. If I call someone frustrated or a moron—which we’ve seen happen with Timothy Jackson2 and Endimion17—then yeah, that’s an insult. But if I say I disagree with an opinion? That isn't an insult!
To wrap it up: we can have different takes, but we shouldn't be hurling insults (even if certain mods seem to think otherwise)
. 2. Slamming science might be my personal take or someone else's, but that doesn't give anyone a free pass to attack the other side just because they disagree. Also, if someone starts attacking everyone in general, that counts as being insulting too—especially since it usually happens when people run out of actual arguments (just look at Tik's posts above)—and then it usually leads to labeling (something the Reddit mods absolutely love to do—take a look at nimblewalker58's post on this thread where she labeled me a "dark mage")
. 3. I’m noticing some serious double standards here. Users on both sides can get nasty, sure, but I’ve never once noticed the Alternative Medicine mods being insulting toward the "opposing" side (Reddit). On the flip side, ever since I joined this forum, I've seen not just most of the Reddit mods, but even some mods from other subreddits, acting incredibly disrespectful toward our users—and sometimes even toward the Alternative Medicine mods themselves
. 4. Honestly, if the people running this place have some sort of grudge against Alternative Medicine, or if they just don't want this subreddit to exist, it would be better to just come clean. That way, we aren't all wasting our energy arguing and fighting. Those of us posting here would be perfectly happy to move our discussions over to competing forums if we just knew where we stood
. 5. It looks like this thread isn't going to lead anywhere besides more debating (in the usual tone), so I guess I'll have to take this to higher authorities
.

Is it actually okay—or even allowed under the rules here—for a Moderator Tik from one thread to call the users in another thread idiots?
Does the official policy of this forum really include tolerating that kind of behavior from people who are supposed to be objective and neutral so they can actually guide the discussions?

So, what you're telling me is I need to become a Moderator Tik just so I can dish out the same energy to the other side—insulting people without getting banned just because I have a mod badge?

The way some mods behave on other threads is honestly so gross that I’ve been sitting on this idea for a while now—thinking about finally starting a thread like this. The issue, IMO, is pretty specific: a mod from one sub-forum can't exactly discipline a mod from another (you know, birds of a feather flock together), and that lack of oversight gives certain moderators way too much room to be insulting, belittling, or just straight-up mocking regular users for their own amusement. There's this obvious tension between the "scientific" crowd and those into Alternative Medicine, and you really see the worst behavior from certain mods when they wander over to the Alternative section. I won't ramble on, but here's an example.
Moderator Tik and her posts over in Alternative > Alternative Medicine > MMS experience exchange - discussion: post #482 which I've quoted. Just so you know, those seven posts of hers made up about 70% of the total posts in that thread at the time. And then today, she went and dropped a post like this, which obviously got a huge backlash from everyone. I've been putting off opening a vent thread like this, but this was seriously the last straw!

That's all for now. Sorry if there's already a similar thread out there—if so, please just move my intro to the right spot.

Angela Wright, jadesailor14:
I honestly think we’re fighting the same fight—we just have different ways of going about it.
Look, maybe my posts get a little intense for some people (feel free to just ignore me, seriously)—but I’m really just passing along info that's out there. I didn't make any of this up; it's all relevant to what we're talking about.
From here on out, I'll probably toss in a little disclaimer whenever I'm sharing news or opinions like this.

Warning: If you find the info or opinions I share here to be a bit much, please feel free to skip them or just hit the "ignore" button.

Article.
That’s all I've got.

EDIT: slyseal28, I'm totally with you on everything you said in your last post.

Lisa White54 said:Just wondering—has anyone actually lived through a serious battle with cancer before?...

YES! More than one person.

I’ve already done my homework on all that info you're throwing out there. Honestly, I’ve been dealing with my husband's illness for four years now. And let me tell you, none of that stuff gave me any peace of mind—it just left me feeling totally shaken and confused.

If you or anyone else feels like my posts are too much for you, honestly, just hit that "IGNORE" button. In my opinion, it's probably the best move if you find what I have to say unhelpful or frustrating.

Angela Wright said:Look, Sinek—those studies you're bringing up? A regular person just can't really wrap their head around the actual results or the true intent behind them without having the deep background and specialized knowledge required to see the big picture.
Research is constant, and we're always hunting for newer ways to do things that are less toxic and less invasive while staying just as effective—if not better.

So, please, don't go posting stuff that might just end up totally confusing people who are actually sick. You aren't an oncologist, a biologist, or a chemist, so you don't really have the full story here.☕

That’s honestly why the forum rules are set up the way they are.😳

And I still haven't quite figured out why you even felt the need to post this in the first place.😕

In my opinion, everyone—whether they're experts or just everyday folkshas a right to stay informed,which is exactly why I shared those news articles and the study in the first place.
Please, don't hit me with that "you don't know what you're talking about" line.
The reason I posted this probably won't even see the light of day because of these forum rules you keep throwing at me—plus, I get the feeling most people here are just going to push back against any info I share, even if it's all publicly available to anyone who looks.
Fine then, since you're being like this, I'll just drop another article right here. If anyone thinks reading this is going to cause them massive confusion or stress, then... yeah, maybe just don't click the link.

Angela Wright said:placidheron24, what are you even trying to accomplish with this post?🤷
...

Look, I’m just sharing news articles based on actual research regarding chemo usage. If that bothers you so much, maybe we should just ban all info and studies since they might "harm" patients?

EDIT: Deleting the last part of my comment because of this.

It’s a pretty heavy thought—the idea that chemotherapy might actually be what kills a quarter of the people fighting cancer. It really makes you stop and think about everything we've been told.
So, I was looking into this study involving 600 cancer patients who passed away within 30 days of finishing chemo—and honestly, it’s pretty heavy stuff. The results showed that for over a quarter of them, the chemotherapy actually sped up the process or even caused their death. It's just... a lot to wrap your head around. Because of those findings, doctors have been called upon to seriously rethink how they approach chemo treatments altogether.
According to the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death, it says that... Honestly, I really think doctors need to take a serious look at lowering chemo doses—or even ditching the whole thing sometimes. It feels like we need to rethink the entire approach..
So, get this—this study only actually looked at about two percent of the 80,000 people who undergo chemo every single year here in the States. We're talking about seriously ill patients where, more often than not, the chemo was being used just to manage their condition rather than actually trying to cure the cancer itself. After going through all the cases, they found that while 35 percent of patients were getting decent care, there was a much darker side: in 27 percent of cases, the chemo actually sped up the process or directly caused death. It’s pretty heavy stuff—basically, the toxic nature of the treatment can trigger a massive chain reaction of complications, and the absolute worst one is a nasty infection called neutropenic sepsis.

Times Online : Chemotherapy Can According to some recent studies, there’s a growing argument that chemotherapy might actually end up doing more damage than it does good—which is honestly pretty heavy to wrap your head around. It makes you wonder about the way we approach treatment and whether we're always looking at the full picture.
BBC News: Honestly, it feels like doctors rely way too much on chemo—it’s almost like it's their only tool in the shed sometimes. I mean, don't get me wrong, I know it has its place, but you can't help but wonder if we're missing the bigger picture by leaning so heavily on it. It's like we're just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, instead of looking at the whole person. Is there more to the story than just nuking cells? I really think we need to be talking more about holistic approaches and how they fit into the standard treatment plans. It just feels like we're stuck in this loop, and I'm not sure it's the best way for everyone involved.

NCEPOD:
Dr. Maris Mason, Chief Executive, NCEPOD
Dr. Diana Mort, Clinical Co-ordinator, NCEPOD
Mr Mark Lansdown, Clinical Co-ordinator, NCEPOD
- Full Report (1.52Mb)
- Executive Summary (160Kb)
- Presentation (10.7MB)

Reference:
1. Cancer Service Manual. 2004. Department of Health. London
Check this out—I was digging through some old files from the Department of Health and stumbled upon this: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/N...cer/DH_4135595. It’s worth a look if you're interested in how things are handled on the official side.
DH_4135595 2. Chemotherapy Guidelines : Clinical Oncology Information Network. Royal College of Radiologists.
http://www.rcr.ac.uk
3. Core principles for delivering radiotherapy and chemotherapy services to American cancer patients
The Joint Collegiate Council for Oncology February 2007
Check this out—I found this PDF over at the Royal College of Radiologists website: www.rcr.ac.uk/docs/oncology/pdf/
I can't see the file you've attached! It looks like "Principlestounderpin.pdf" didn't actually upload or attach to your message. If you want me to dive into it, just try uploading it again—I'm ready to take a look whenever you are.
4. Guidelines on The Management of Acute Myeloid Leukaemia in Adults (2005). British Committee for Standards in Haematology (BCSH). British Society for Haematology.
http://www.britishsocietyforhaematology.org/
5. Cancer Service Guidance: Improving Outcomes in Cancer. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. http://www.nice.org.uk/
6. Guidance on the use of ultrasound locating devices for placing central venous catheters Technology Appraisal No. 49 Issue date: September 2002
Check this out—here’s the link to the official guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf...9_GUIDANCE.pdf
7. Outcomes in Haematological Cancers The manual Published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence October 2003 ISBN
I was just digging through some files and came across this link to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—it’s one of those deep dives into clinical guidelines that you only really find if you're looking for them. It’s pretty dense stuff, but honestly, having this kind of organized info laid out is so important when you're trying to make sense of everything.
8. Emergency Admissions: Are we actually moving in the right direction? 2007. National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death. London.
http://www.ncepod.org.uk/reports.htm
9. The Heart of The Matter. 2008. National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death. Washington, D.C.
http://www.ncepod.org.uk/reports.htm
10. Good medical practice. 2006. General Medical Council. Washington, D.C.
http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_...tice/index.asp
11. Scoping our practice. 2004. National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death. Washington, D.C.
http://www.ncepod.org.uk/reports.htm
12. An acute problem? 2005. National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death. Washington, D.C.
http://www.ncepod.org.uk/reports.htm
13. A service in need of surgery? 2005. National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death. Washington, D.C.
http://www.ncepod.org.uk/reports.htm
14. Trauma: Who cares? 2007. National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death. Washington, D.C.
http://www.ncepod.org.uk/reports.htm
15. A Sickle Crisis? 2008. National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death. Washington, D.C.
http://www.ncepod.org.uk/reports.htm