Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=suzy_q2010;42871742]With modern diagnostic methods and treatment, more people with cancer are being diagnosed earlier when treatment is more likely to be effective.
Possibly. But when cancer first starts, unless it's readily visible (on the skin) it doesn't cause symptoms, which means most people don't know about it until it's large enough to cause symptoms.
Quote:
Certainly the body eliminates abnormal cells that could become cancers, But that is not what we are talking about when we use the word cancer.
But it is what we're talking about. The body does have mechanisms for eliminating cancer cells, but these may become ineffective for whatever reason.
Quote:
We mean tumors that are invading tissue and spreading to lymph nodes and other organs. I am skeptical that true invasive cancer will ever spontaneously go away without any treatment.
Yep, once it's gotten pervasive it's unlikely. actually this is a tautology - in order for a cancer to actually spread, means the body's mechanisims for dealing with it must not be working.
Quote:
If it happens, it's so rare that declining treatment in hopes that a cancer will just disappear is very unwise.
I agree. But at the same token, depending on what kind of cancer you have, treatment itself may not help.
Quote:
You underestimate the effectiveness of treatment.
With 1/3 of all deaths due to cancer, it's obvious that cancer treatment in general is not effective.
Cancer is a much more difficult and slower proposition. Because it is a group of many different diseases there is no "magic bullet" that will fix it.
the fact that science and medicine still do not understand cancer is the main reason why there is no cure.
Quote:
None of this though negates the slow and steady progress that has been made in terms of curing cancer.
The progress you refer to is more akin to developing different types of hammers instead of using a sledgehammer for everything, but it's still just a primitive way to deal with something that we don't understand.
Possibly. But when cancer first starts, unless it's readily visible (on the skin) it doesn't cause symptoms, which means most people don't know about it until it's large enough to cause symptoms.
Many cancers can be caught before they cause symptoms, including colon cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, and prostate cancer. We have screening tests for all of those.
Quote:
But it is what we're talking about. The body does have mechanisms for eliminating cancer cells, but these may become ineffective for whatever reason.
Scavenging up single abnormal cells is not the same as treating an established cancer.
Quote:
Yep, once it's gotten pervasive it's unlikely. actually this is a tautology - in order for a cancer to actually spread, means the body's mechanisims for dealing with it must not be working.
Obviously if it's spread it has escaped the body's coping mechanism. That's why it's cancer.
Quote:
I agree. But at the same token, depending on what kind of cancer you have, treatment itself may not help.
With 1/3 of all deaths due to cancer, it's obvious that cancer treatment in general is not effective.
You keep speaking of cancer as if it is one disease. It might help you to understand malignancy better if you stop doing that. It is not one disease, and many cancers are treated quite successfully, with the successes increasing steadily over a relatively small time interval. The five year survival for the leukemia my son had has gone from 75% to over 90% in the 23 years since he was diagnosed.
Quote:
Figure 5 doesn't compare survivability between patients who are treated versus patients who are not treated.
Treatments that don't produce a survival advantage do not make it into general use. New treatments have to be shown to be superior to older ones in clinical trials. The vast, vast, vast majority of people with untreated cancer do not survive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80skeys
the fact that science and medicine still do not understand cancer is the main reason why there is no cure.
The progress you refer to is more akin to developing different types of hammers instead of using a sledgehammer for everything, but it's still just a primitive way to deal with something that we don't understand.
Cancer is not one disease. The fact that you make the statement that "science and medicine still do not understand cancer" shows us that you are the one who does not understand cancer. The pysiology of many cancers is understood on a molecular level.
Some cancers are indeed curable. My own 40 year old son who was diagnosed with leukemia when he was 13 years old is just one of many.
80skeys also keeps harping on the notion that a lot of people die of cancer. Well yeah - a lot of people don't think to get tested in time to catch it while it's treatable. And a lot of people don't get treated. And - here's the sad thing - a lot of people get treated, but only after their immune system is so whacked from being sick, that their fragile bodies can't handle the treatment.
Everyone else - those who get it detected early, those who accept treatment the moment it's recommended, those whose bodies aren't so ravaged by cancer that there's nothing useful to treat anymore, and those whose bodies aren't so sick from their organs shutting down that treatment won't just make it worse - all those other people - are more likely to get better from treatment, than if they didn't have any treatment at all.
What this 1/3 statistic shows is that too many people are waiting to get the mammogram, are ignoring suspicious lumps and skin changes, are not getting their prostate checked at annual physicals, are not getting a baseline colonoscopy at age 50, are not getting regular pap smears before menopause, and who, once they've been diagnosed with cancer, choose to die instead of undergo appropriate treatment.
So - with 1/3 people dying to cancer, it's clear that the mortality rate would improve if those dead people had done these things:
1) get regular appropriate screenings at the appropriate age and appropriate frequency
2) the second there's any sign of abnormality, get diagnosed
3) the second they learn the diagnosis is positive, take action with the appropriate treatment at the appropriate time for the appropriate duration.
Combine all three of those things together, and you have an improved mortality rate.
So - with 1/3 people dying to cancer, it's clear that the mortality rate would improve if those dead people had done these things:
1) get regular appropriate screenings at the appropriate age and appropriate frequency
2) the second there's any sign of abnormality, get diagnosed
3) the second they learn the diagnosis is positive, take action with the appropriate treatment at the appropriate time for the appropriate duration.
Combine all three of those things together, and you have an improved mortality rate.
Very well said!
I would add:
4) do not smoke or use any tobacco products
5) take the hepatitis B vaccine (and vaccinate your children for it)
6) if you are eligible, take the HPV vaccine (and vaccinate your children for it)
7) eat your fruits and veggies
8) exercise
We seem to have three or four posters extremely emotionally invested in proving that cancer is curable, and that's fine, but it's not what the post is about.
We seem to have three or four posters extremely emotionally invested in proving that cancer is curable, and that's fine, but it's not what the post is about.
True or false. The statistics show that approximately 2 out of every 3 people survive cancer.
Let's be clear about something. There are a few cancers, including Hodgkin's, that respond well to treatment and have a very high survivability index. Indeed Hodgkin's is one of the only cancers about which this can be said. There are also some cancers which have a high probability of long term survival with no treatment.
Also there are many cancers, some of which are much more common than Hodgkin's, which have much worse or even very poor 5-year survivability outlooks.
Hodgkin's accounts for about 0.5% of all cancers and has a five-year survivability of 90%+.
leukemia accounts for 3% of all cancers and has a five-year probability of survival of 50%.
liver cancer accounts for 2.1% of cancers and has a 17% five-year survival rate
lung cancer (of which 83% is caused by smoking and 17% has other causes) accounts for 13% of all cancers and has a 17% five-year survival
oral cancer accounts for 4% of cancers and has a 63% survivability at 5-years.
Let's be clear: Leukemia isn't one disease, there are many types and survivability ranges from near 100% to dismal.
We seem to have three or four posters extremely emotionally invested in proving that cancer is curable, and that's fine, but it's not what the post is about.
From the original post:
"Interestingly, I've seen literature suggesting that not exposing yourself to these poisons may result in a longer (and certainly better, without all the harmful side effects) life and, in some cases, even remission."
It seems that curability of cancer was indeed addressed in the post that opened the thread.
Perhaps you would like to share this "literature" with us?
No one else seems to share your peculiar viewpoint on bravery and cowardice concerning people who choose to treat or not treat cancer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
