Chemotherapy, cure all?

Chemotherapy, where did it come from, and why? Does it really help or does it make things worse. I researched a huge amount before starting my chemo journey and found answers I didn't like, it seems I am not alone but what do you do, go for the hope or go for the crossed fingers.

Chemo treatments are poison, injected into the blood stream, and I am yet to find anything that points to the ability to cure tumours in this way. There is plenty of evidence to suggest it slows or freezes growth, but generally during the time of treatment, once treatment stops the process then starts again and the cells divide and mutate. Chemo cannot cure cells that have metastised, and the recent NHS investigation into cancer and chemo supports this, with patients being offered treatment because there is nothing else, and because hope helps build strength. At what point though will we be offered something better, as just accidentally finding a drug that supresses growth surely is not enough.

I don't understand the routine of chemo post surgery, as the risk to the patient is huge, infections, blood poisoning, deafness, joint pain, kidney failure, yet we do not know if doing nothing and letting the body sort itself out works, because the majority of patients accept treatment. I did, I followed the advice of my surgeon, and I accepted the advice of the medical team, but after just one dose of chemo I stopped. The symptoms, the risk, the damage to my body and generally how ill I felt decided for me. So then my chemo exploration began, although I had listened to those who had accepted treatment and this steered me away from the fingers crossed option, once I stopped the chemo I decided to find out more. It seems the drug market is lucrative, and that the chemo offered is a synthetic alternative to the natural resources originally used. Natural resources became too expensive, yet although there is no evidence to suggest that the synthetic option is not as food, one has to ask would you prefer something natural or engineered pumped into your body, I know what my choice would be.

There are of course many who are a testimony to the fact that they went through the whole rigorous routine and lived to tell the tale, some many years in remission. However, would they have been in remission without this testing treatment? Who knows. Chemo shrinks the tumour, making surgery easier, does it create long term damage, does having the treatement without the potential for cure mean that time of life is wasted in a gruelling process only to have bad news at the end. Well, nothing in life is certain, I guess I'm looking for answers where there are none.

Treatment of cancer cells in the lab are effectively killed off, so why are they so difficult to treat within the body, is the rapid natural revitalisation too busy accepting in the invader and making them feel at home. The cure must be out there somewhere and it's unlikely to be in a lab, more likely to be outside somewhere in the land, within something common across the world, hopefully one day someone will find it, mean time I'm still open minded about chemo, but I also believe it to be buyer beware. An article in the Lancet showed that a survey of doctors highlighted nearly 90% would refuse chemo, makes you think.

It's been a long journey for me so far and I'm about to write a blog about Ovarian cancer, and my experience. I read a blog yesterday, written by a young girl who didn't survive the journey, it was difficult to read in places yet it was also inspirational. I hope my story will inspire others even if I appear to have not taken the traditional route, I surely can't be the only one.