Suzanne Somers thinks Patrick Swayze could have been alive today if he would have used alternative methods to treat his pancreatic cancer instead of chemotherapy.

The former "Three's Company" star, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1991 and rejected chemotherapy in favor of natural treatments, reportedly told Toronto-based columnist Shinan Govani that it was Swayze's chemotherapy treatments, not pancreatic cancer, that ended his life prematurely.

"They took this beautiful man and they basically put poison in him," she reportedly said. "Why couldn't they have built him up nutritionally and gotten rid of the toxins in his body? I hate to be this controversial. I'm a singer-dancer-comedienne. But we have an epidemic going on, and I have to say it."

Swayze died on Monday at age 57.

http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/09/18/suzanne-somers-chemotherapy-patrick-swayze/

Who's to say? Everyone's body is different and responds in different ways. Michael Landon had the same disease as Patrick Swayze, went the alternative treatment route, and still died. Plus both men were longtime heavy smokers and both drank quite heavily. In the Barbara Walters interview, Patrick Swayze admitted still smoking even after his diagnosis. So who really knows??

Sad to say but he probably would have died regardless of what treatment he tried. :(

Sad to say but he probably would have died regardless of what treatment he tried. :(
He lived almost 2 years after his diagnosis. That's a lot longer than he was expected to live - seeing how it is one of the deadliest forms of the disease.

Sad to say but he probably would have died regardless of what treatment he tried. :(

Yeah I agree with you. Patrick Swayze had a very deadly diesease that's very hard to cure no matter what you do.

What school did Suzanne get her medical degree from? Oh right! She doesn't have one. Shut up Suzanne!!!

What school did Suzanne get her medical degree from? Oh right! She doesn't have one. Shut up Suzanne!!!
If I were her, I'd be careful about what I'd say about toxins in the body seeing as she has WAY overbotoxed herself. :eek:

Audrey Hepburn died of cancer (I think she had colon cancer, which she contracted while overseas doing UNICEF work) in 1993 and she refused to take chemotherapy, because of the side effects. I think chemo can help, but it depends on how far along the cancer is. Pancreatic cancer is basically a death sentence, although it's wonderful that Patrick Swayze survived with it for two years. That's incredible.

I know a doctor who goes very much into chemo and he definitely has helped some patients. The all-natural thing is fine, but as others said certain cancers are notoriously difficult if not impossible to overcome...
One woman I met, if I recall had ovarian cancer and she defeated it through chemo. She then went on to be healthy in every way.

I know a guy who sent both his sister and nephew to Mexico for alternative treatments and they both died - the sister died right there within days. To survive as long as Swayze did, in my opinion Somers should not be commenting.

I think Suzanne need to STFU!!! It is none of her business how he treated his condition, it was a miracle he made it past the six month mark!!! Maybe hormone therapy would have sent him to the grave earlier. She seems to think that something that worked for her will work for everyone else, well guess what, it doesn't!!!

I think it's really insensitive of Suzanne to make these comments so soon after Patrick's death.

Yeah, this was a bit insensitive of her, especially so soon after his death. As much as she sounds like she wants to be, she's no doctor. Chemo works for some people and natural methods work for others. Sometimes, no methods work. That's just how it is, I guess. So, she really has no right to sit there and say that the reason he died is because he didn't choose the right method.

My aunt had breast cancer about ten years ago now and went through chemotherapy. She's fine today, and she didn't use natural methods to get there. Again, works for some doesn't work for others.

I think it's really insensitive of Suzanne to make these comments so soon after Patrick's death.
I agree. At least out of respect for Patrick's widow, she should've kept her comments to herself. :mad:

If I were her, I'd be careful about what I'd say about toxins in the body seeing as she has WAY overbotoxed herself. :eek:

Really? :lol:

She's no doctor, but she need to call one to help fix that over-done mug of hers if that's the case! Before she even recommends any type of treatments to anyone! :lol:

I heard that Whoopi laid into her good for saying this. Whoopi was PISSED, Suzanne later apologized

I heard that Whoopi laid into her good for saying this. Whoopi was PISSED, Suzanne later apologized
I never thought I'd say this - BUT I AGREE WITH WHOOPI!! :clap :clap :clap

Hey guys!

Chris Mann here. Glad to hear you guys are keeping Three's Company alive (thanks, Pavan!) and still discussing Suzanne and her controversies.

I thought you all might be interested in reading my blog about Suzanne's "chemo-killed-Swaye' comment ... and how, for better or worse, she may be positioned to be the voice of change that Farrah Fawcett strived to be in the fight against cancer.

Here's the link: http://retroalitytv.blogspot.com/2009/09/post-swayze-chemo-comment-fallout-can.html

If you get a chance, check this out. Would love to hear your comments on my blog, if you have the time to share!

Take care,
Chris

P.S.: I also wrote this recently about the late, great John Ritter: http://retroalitytv.blogspot.com/2009/09/jack-of-hearts-remembering-john-ritter.html

I read the blog and agree with you 100%, Chris. Suzanne should stick with her QVC line, etc.

This is so true!

Suzanne oughta visit a psychiatrist and plastic surgeon herself before even make claims like that.


and Chris Mann, I also can't wait to hear the story about Bob Barker and his former models.

i'm no fan of suzanne, but i really don't think she meant any harm with what she said. being a cancer survivor herself, its not as if she's speaking out of her a$$ about it. i do think her statement was ill timed and insensitive however.



i happen to agree though that in the case of cancer, the "cure" is worse than the disease as the old saying goes. now a great deal of time the treatments are successful and lead to remission when the cancer is caught early, however when the cancer is terminal it only adds to the suffering in a battle that has an inevitable end to it.

marvin's late wife went through chemo and radiation when she battled lung cancer and after watching what she went through he said that if his bladder cancer ever went terminal he would not go through chemo because of what he witnessed first hand.and like suzanne he often referred to his late wife's treatments as putting poison into her. which in fact it is.




the purpose of the chemo is to kill the cancer cells, however it kills perfectly healthy and normal cells as well in the process as the toxins can't distinguish between them. the hope is that the cancer cells will die and not return while the healthy cells will regenerate. in the meantime though its killing the white blood cells that fight infection and leaves the person's immune system vulnerable not to mention the side effects like loss of appetite that leave the patient looking hallowed.






not to say that the treatment suzanne's suggesting is the cure all for every case but i think she was trying to make the point that america is narrowminded when it comes to alternative medicine and that the medical community has basically shunned the thought of it. and a lot of that is due to big business, the money government agencies and pharmaceutical companies have invested in precription drugs and treatments. pharmaceutical drugs are a billion dollar industry with lots of money at stake and because of this reason research into alternative medicine is being held back for the sake of corporate greed.

What school did Suzanne get her medical degree from? Oh right! She doesn't have one. Shut up Suzanne!!!

You go Marvo!!!!!!!!!!!! :typing: :rock:

I agree.................

i'm no fan of suzanne, but i really don't think she meant any harm with what she said. being a cancer survivor herself, its not as if she's speaking out of her a$$ about it. i do think her statement was ill timed and insensitive however.
Somers has done massive harm to those who buy into her ignorance.

First, by her own admission, Somers was diagnosed with Stage I breast cancer that had not spread to any lymph nodes, and was not located in a part of the breast where cancer is highly aggressive. This is the best possible scenario other than not having cancer at all. For a substantial percentage of localized Stage I cancers that have not entered lymph nodes, the protocols and guidelines for treatment are that surgery to remove the tumor and radiation to kill any straggling cells is perfectly sufficient to CURE. Chemotherapy is often either entirely optional or not even recommended because studies show it to have very questionable or no added benefit over surgery + radiation.

I should point out this is not some *new* guidance. They were curing the same Stage I breast cancer 20 years ago with the same treatment protocol. Somers was among that extremely fortunate percentage who really catch their cancer in the most early stage, where the chances of a cure are very high with relatively conservative treatment.

To hear Somers describe it, she was diagnosed with a very dangerous cancer (i.e. Stage III or IV) and rejected the advice of her doctors, decided in favor of natural treatment because she was concerned about the risks of chemotherapy, crediting her 'natural' treatments with saving her life. This is absolutely false or at least a blatant distortion. Somers had the recommended surgery and radiation - THAT cured her cancer and saved her life. She would have been told from the start that chemo was either optional or not necessary.

She then goes on in her book and numerous TV appearances to strongly suggest her case proves that chemotherapy is not needed to treat or cure cancer in most cases, but utterly fails to distinguish between her easily curable Stage I cancer with no lymph node involvement, where chemo is generally optional or perhaps even not recommended, and more advanced stages (or different types) of cancer where chemo is required or indisputably beneficial to have any fighting chance.

Swayze had Stage IV pancreatic cancer. The difference between Somers' cancer and Swayze's is like the difference between falling down a flight of stairs from the very bottom step and falling from the very top step. One is highly curable with conservative treatment and the other is almost always a death sentence no matter what you throw at it. I have not yet decided whether Somers is really that dishonest or just really that stupid, but in either case her advice is just dangerous.

Here's the thing folks, cancer is not cancer is not cancer. OK? Can we get our minds around the fact that something like cancer is complicated and cannot be reduced to simplistic one-sentence answers or explanations? The cancer that you get in your arse is not the same cancer you get in your brain. The cancer you get in your breast is not the same you get in your retina. The cancer you get in your blood cells is not the same as you get in your lungs. Stage I cancer is not the same as Stage IV cancer.

Different cancer types, locations, and stages respond differently to different treatments. Some cancers respond extremely well to some chemotherapy agents but not others. Some cancers do not respond at all to any known chemotherapy agent. People who get chemotherapy when the studies indicate no benefit are receiving it because they demand it. Look at Farrah Fawcett, she traveled the globe throwing lots of money at anyone who would pump her body full of something - anything! Just tell me it might work and I'll give you $100,000 for it.

She was told numerous times by ethical qualified specialists that no known approved therapy would help her. She wanted...no...she demanded alternative or experimental treatments, anyway (and had the money to pay for them). Doctors weren't pushing this stuff on her. The doctors (the ethical ones) were telling her that she should get her affairs in order and prepare for end-of-life because the science showed that no current approved treatments could help her.

America is narrow-minded about alternative medicine is because you can fit the verifiable successes of alternative medicine on the back of a postage stamp. Modern conventional medicine cures cancer, not in a handful of poorly documented cases or unverifiable anecdotal cases, but in THOUSANDS of verifiable cases every year with REPEATABLE results. In cases where cancer cannot be cured, conventional medicine substantially prolongs life with a reasonable quality of life in THOUSANDS of verifiable cases every year with REPEATABLE results.

Sure, convention medicine doesn't cure them all, but is the standard to be perfection? Because if so, then alternative medicine has a perfect record of FAILURE. Alternative medicine cures NONE and substantially prolongs the life of NONE.

So the record for Team Conventional every year could hypothetically be represented as 1000-1000-1000 (1000 cured, 1000 lives extended substantially, 1000 lost).

By comparison, the record for Team Alternative would have to be represented 0-0-1000 (NONE cured, NO lives extended substantially, 1000 lost).

Golly Jee, I think I need to "expand my mind" to learn how to tell a winning team apart from the worst team in the league who hasn't won a freaking game in its entire history.

^ My sentiments exactly. Her cancer and his is like comparing apples and oranges. Different types, different stages, etc. Suzanne should stick to her Vegas show and her QVC line instead of trying to be America's health guru. :rolleyes:

I have always hated Suzanne. She always talks out of her @ss. Once again she proves me right. She needs to go retire somewhere and not be seen or heard.

^ Her health is her own business - but I say she should keep her mouth shut about everyone else's!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Well hey folks, Suzanne's word here HAS to be right - afterall, she's the only woman on earth who had liposuction to correct a mastectomy.

I'm surprised she didn't say Botox could have saved him. ;)

Well hey folks, Suzanne's word here HAS to be right - afterall, she's the only woman on earth who had liposuction to correct a mastectomy.

I'm surprised she didn't say Botox could have saved him. ;)
So am I!! :eek: :crazy:

Who would she have said that Botox could have saved?

I was in the doctor's office yesterday and someone was quoting Suzanne Somers!:rolleyes:

I was in the doctor's office yesterday and someone was quoting Suzanne Somers!:rolleyes:
Oh, no. :eek: :rolleyes: