After I read all the posts from people who are being really beaten down by their treatment, there is one almost universal thread -- they are being given cisplatin. Why is this drug being used when others exist which do not have as severe side effects and do as well (as far as the literature seems to indicate) as a radio-sensitizer for the radiation (which is the main work-horse in the treatment)?

This is not a rhetorical question -- would like to hear a rationale. The only one I have been given (in questioning several MO's) is that the drug has "more data" or "more history" which is not the same as "significantly more effective."

I hope that Michael rallys and comes through this with an successful outcome -- after all he has been through he deserves it!

Gail