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.
Re the bolded (and I realize the OP is no longer among us), how can Cancer be a byproduct of aging when there are children dying of various cancers by the time they are 3?
This is what I weeded through 3 pages to say. I suspect the o.p. was... ... you know what. Why, I don't really know, but at least one other poster agrees with them. That's really too bad. Another poster says an authority thinks that 5% to 10% of cancers are genetic. And the other 90%?! I'd say the point is pretty well made, no?
Seriously, is it even a question at this point? If I had to explain it to a child I might put it like this: an Albino will sunburn in 10 minutes outdoors in NYC, and instantly in Cancun, but an African won't get sunburned in NYC, period, and maybe not until after 3 hours in full sun in Cancun, but even the Albino won't get sunburned indoors! My mother had 3 sisters die from breast cancer. In all three it metastasized to their livers. But only the three (out of 8) that smoked got cancer! The genetic pre-disposition to Breast Cancer had to be present in at least three more of those sisters, but it took a trigger to actually bring on the disease in any of them.
Those triggers are becoming evermore present in our environment. You don't get cancer the instant you come in contact with a trigger. Your fast dividing cells need either a threshold concentration of the trigger (or carcinogen) or instead of concentration then a long period of "dwell". American women were developing enough dwell time with industrial carcinogens to make breast cancer a real problem by age 70. As the amount of industrial carcinogens rises in the environment that age has been dropping. There are parts of the world where breast cancer is unknown, until those women emigrate to America. Their genes didn't change, their time-zone did!
The o.p. knew that. But for anyone else who didn't, I hope this post served some useful purpose.
P.S. to the quoted above... adults that get cancer have usually passed the point where there bodies are growing. A cancer may, or may not be "aggressive" enough to make it immediately terminal. In a child or young adult, all bets are off. Their bodies are literal powerhouses for the processes that advance a cancer. Pfizer is not up to this. Eradicating cancer is not going to be a pharmaceutical breakthrough. We either clean up this planet, or we watch while cancer picks off those we love (or us) one by one.
I agree with much of what you've said, but I do have a quibble with a couple of points:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
There are parts of the world where breast cancer is unknown, until those women emigrate to America. Their genes didn't change, their time-zone did!
This is not true, to the best of my knowledge. There are no countries where breast cancer (or any specific type of cancer) is unknown. Less common, of course, but not unknown. Or if you think you know of such a part of the world, please share it.
Quote:
My mother had 3 sisters die from breast cancer. In all three it metastasized to their livers. But only the three (out of 8) that smoked got cancer! The genetic predisposition to Breast Cancer had to be present in at least three more of those sisters, but it took a trigger to actually bring on the disease in any of them.
How do you know that three other sisters had a genetic predisposition to breast cancer? Are you just assuming, or were they tested? I have such a predisposition, and I can tell you the names of the genes if you are curious, but my three sisters have all been tested and don't have those genes. It would be foolish to look at me and my particular inherited genes and assume that some of my sisters must also have them.
This is what I weeded through 3 pages to say. I suspect the o.p. was... ... you know what. Why, I don't really know, but at least one other poster agrees with them. That's really too bad. Another poster says an authority thinks that 5% to 10% of cancers are genetic. And the other 90%?! I'd say the point is pretty well made, no?
Ultimately all cancer is genetic. At the level of the cell the processes that control growth have gone awry. However, not all cancers are heritable. Beast and ovarian cancer are; cervical cancer is not.
I have no idea what point you think you are making.
Quote:
Seriously, is it even a question at this point? If I had to explain it to a child I might put it like this: an Albino will sunburn in 10 minutes outdoors in NYC, and instantly in Cancun, but an African won't get sunburned in NYC, period, and maybe not until after 3 hours in full sun in Cancun, but even the Albino won't get sunburned indoors! My mother had 3 sisters die from breast cancer. In all three it metastasized to their livers. But only the three (out of 8) that smoked got cancer! The genetic pre-disposition to Breast Cancer had to be present in at least three more of those sisters, but it took a trigger to actually bring on the disease in any of them.
Not all breast cancer is due to inherited genes, and not everyone with the genes that predispose to breast cancer will get it. As has been pointed out, there is no guarantee that all of your aunts have the gene. They might not, and the only way to know is to be tested - which they should consider doing if they have not already done so.
Quote:
Those triggers are becoming evermore present in our environment. You don't get cancer the instant you come in contact with a trigger. Your fast dividing cells need either a threshold concentration of the trigger (or carcinogen) or instead of concentration then a long period of "dwell". American women were developing enough dwell time with industrial carcinogens to make breast cancer a real problem by age 70. As the amount of industrial carcinogens rises in the environment that age has been dropping. There are parts of the world where breast cancer is unknown, until those women emigrate to America. Their genes didn't change, their time-zone did!
The o.p. knew that. But for anyone else who didn't, I hope this post served some useful purpose.
Breast cancer risk increases with age as the opportunity for genetic mistakes that lead to cancer increases. Simple aging is a risk factor all by itself, and in some countries life expectancy is short enough that fewer women age into the high risk group.
No one knows for sure what environmental factors are responsible for the change in breast cancer risk when women migrate, but there is research going on to try to find out. Industrial carcinogens are less likely to be a factor than changes in diet, trends toward fewer pregnancies (and delayed childbearing), shorter duration of breast feeding, and potentially increased longevity.
P.S. to the quoted above... adults that get cancer have usually passed the point where there bodies are growing. A cancer may, or may not be "aggressive" enough to make it immediately terminal. In a child or young adult, all bets are off. Their bodies are literal powerhouses for the processes that advance a cancer. Pfizer is not up to this. Eradicating cancer is not going to be a pharmaceutical breakthrough. We either clean up this planet, or we watch while cancer picks off those we love (or us) one by one.
Two vaccines have the potential to prevent millions of cancer cases and deaths: the hepatitis B vaccine and the HPV vaccine. Avoiding sun exposure can reduce the risk of skin cancer, including melanoma. Avoiding obesity can reduce the risk of some cancers, including breast. Not smoking greatly reduces the risk of lung and other cancers. Diagnostic colonoscopy can find precancerous polyps, removal of which can reduce the number of colon cancers. Blaming cancer on "industrial carcinogens" is short sighted.
We are already seeing pharmaceutical breakthroughs. Great strides have been made in the treatment of childhood cancers. In particular, five year cure rates for some leukemias and Hodgkin disease are at or above 90%. For acute lymphocytic leukemia, ALL, five year survival essentially translates to a cure. My older son was 13 years old when he was diagnosed with ALL. He is now 41.
There is great interest in novel methods of cancer treatment, including immunological approaches, such as the drug President Carter took for his melanoma.
Do we need to clean up our environment? Yes, but that will not, in and of itself, eliminate cancer.
Ultimately all cancer is genetic. At the level of the cell the processes that control growth have gone awry. However, not all cancers are heritable. Beast and ovarian cancer are; cervical cancer is not.
I have no idea what point you think you are making.
As audacious as it sounds, I think that my theory of how this works is more correct than most of the medical community admits. They (and you) think that of the cancers (5%-10%) considered 'genetic' in origin, a congenital, or acquired defect, in DNA leads to a cancer tumor. I think it is actually the opposite. I think that every one of us is subject to identical risk given identical location and/or lifestyle the same way that everyone lying out in the sun on Negril beach is a potential sunburn case. People who get cancer get it because they lack the gene or genes that would protect them! It is NOT because they inherit, or acquire, a gene defect that causes cancer. It is a subtle distinction, but key. Instead of looking for genes that cause a particular cancer, we should be looking for the gene(s) that prevent it!!
Not all breast cancer is due to inherited genes, and not everyone with the genes that predispose to breast cancer will get it. As has been pointed out, there is no guarantee that all of your aunts have the gene. They might not, and the only way to know is to be tested - which they should consider doing if they have not already done so.
Your paragraph completely cancels itself. You have made the exact case that many doctors are now making for PSA tests. They are increasingly being considered meaningless because some men with a PSA of 2 have cancer, and men with a PSA of 8 don't. Why test??!! Women are removing their breasts at age 30, because they have the BRC(?) gene, and there is nebulous coincidence of the presence of this gene and a 100% (or even 90%) risk of contracting cancer. In any case, if a woman did decide to test her DNA and found that this gene was present, rather than a per-emptive double mastectomy... well if it were me, I would be purchasing a water filter, buying organic milk and meats going forward, and moving out of NYC, in that order! Breasts are useful things I should think. We are really heading down a dark alley when we start thinking of self-mutilation because of gene testing. I mean... what if we find that there is some genetic link between some gene and lung cancer?
Breast cancer risk increases with age as the opportunity for genetic mistakes that lead to cancer increases. Simple aging is a risk factor all by itself, and in some countries life expectancy is short enough that fewer women age into the high risk group.
All cancer risk increases with age because the dwell time of your cells and carcinogens stored in your fat cells crosses some unknown threshold which undoubtedly is highly individual. Those "genetic mistakes" what do you think causes them? Simple aging? I think not. In fact, I doubt, that you will find any alteration in the genes of someone that has contracted a cancer from environmental causes. I am certain if this was the case it would have been reported.
No one knows for sure what environmental factors are responsible for the change in breast cancer risk when women migrate, but there is research going on to try to find out. Industrial carcinogens are less likely to be a factor than changes in diet, trends toward fewer pregnancies (and delayed childbearing), shorter duration of breast feeding, and potentially increased longevity.
The changes in cancer profile of emigrees is not likely to be linked to any of the causatives you cite. I despair watching the medical community flail around at this and that and that... duration of breast feeding... <smh>. My wife has had three women friends get cancer in their late 20's early 30's. Never married, no children. All Ashkenazi as it happens. So... its 'genetic'. How convenient. But consider the Albino that cannot get sunburned (skin cancer) if they remain indoors!
Two vaccines have the potential to prevent millions of cancer cases and deaths: the hepatitis B vaccine and the HPV vaccine. Avoiding sun exposure can reduce the risk of skin cancer, including melanoma. Avoiding obesity can reduce the risk of some cancers, including breast. Not smoking greatly reduces the risk of lung and other cancers. Diagnostic colonoscopy can find precancerous polyps, removal of which can reduce the number of colon cancers. Blaming cancer on "industrial carcinogens" is short sighted.
Really? The HPV vaccine that American parents won't let their girls take because it is recommended that they do so around age 14? They have no reticence about vaccinating their infants for Hep C though. The Hep B vaccine? Is that the one that requires 8 injections spread over a year? One of them does. Millions? What is the incidence of Liver cancer or Cervical cancer compared to Breast, Prostate, Pancreatic or Lung cancers? You are getting somewhere with the preventative measures that you mention, but... how do I say this... isn't that kind of like telling people to "drive carefully" instead of engineering cars that can survive a 10 car pile-up?
We are already seeing pharmaceutical breakthroughs. Great strides have been made in the treatment of childhood cancers. In particular, five year cure rates for some leukemias and Hodgkin disease are at or above 90%. For acute lymphocytic leukemia, ALL, five year survival essentially translates to a cure. My older son was 13 years old when he was diagnosed with ALL. He is now 41.
I should give up. I am out educated, out classed, and outnumbered. You're right. We are winning. We've got Cancer licked. Give us a few more years and Cancer will become as treatable as the Common Cold, Ebola, or ALS. Sorry Suzy, I don't think the medical or pharmaceutical community have a clue as to how to treat cancer or any other serious malady that afflicts humanity. They get lucky from time to time, and stumble on something that appears to alleviate suffering for a few, for a time. And they profit handsomely from these occasional breakthroughs. I would have far more respect for the Allied Health industry if they would admit just how much work still needs to be done, instead of publishing 5 Year Survival rate data. What rot. Unfortunately for me because of my work, I come in daily and weekly contact and anecdotal acquaintance with far more people than the average person or medical professional. I know how many people relapse after seven or more years. I have a better idea than many of just how pervasive this cancer stuff is, and how many people it destroys financially, even if (for the short term) they are classified as 'survivors'.
I just kind of stumbled into this forum. I am not likely to return soon. The subject is very much outside my field of expertise. But this I know: in the short term, i.e. the foreseeable future, try not to get cancer. I stumbled on the website of a Dr. David Brownstein, and my wife and I are doing a LOT of the things he recommends to minimize cancer risk. Things my own medical professionals, that I pay, do not advise me to do, or eat, or supplement. To be fair, Brownstein also has his hand out, his site is more infomercial than I am personally thrilled with, but he offers a LOT of information for free. He is worth a look.
There is great interest in novel methods of cancer treatment, including immunological approaches, such as the drug President Carter took for his melanoma.
Its kind of sad that immunological approaches are considered "novel". Personally, I think that when (if) we ever understand the immune system. Really understand the immune system. Understand the immune system the way an automotive engineer understands an internal combustion engine. When (if) we can make the immune systems of anyone and everyone jump, sit, beg, and shake hands on command... that's when we won't have disease anymore. Period. Not Cancer, not Diabetes, not Colds, or Flu... nothing. No maladies will be able to afflict humans when we know how to tell our immune systems how to defeat their agents.
The problem there is that the bumblings and stumblings that presently pass for breakthroughs make profits for Pharmaceutical companies in the many, many, ten thousands of percent! Why would a Pharma company go the extra 100 miles to work up an immuno system based wonder drug when they are making 85,000% profit on something based on some molecule found in Almond Seed extract? The shareholders would revolt. The cure for cancer is an immediate moratorium on specious research on legacy cancer technologies and also aggressive, Federally mandated price caps on those legacy technologies.
Do we need to clean up our environment? Yes, but that will not, in and of itself, eliminate cancer.
It is the only thing that is going to work. Neither you or I will be able to afford a real cancer break-through if ever there is one. No health network on earth would authorize it. Not even with Federal oversight. So, a medical cure for cancer is of no use to anyone that is not a multi-millionaire. For the rest of us a cancer cure looks like the Mother of All Beach Clean-ups. That should be Federally mandated as well but, sadly, our Federal is as much under the thumb of seriously wealthy individuals as anything else in this world. People move to Pendelton, OR and fortify bunkers against Armageddon. My Apocalypse is less about the collapse of civilization, and more about the increasing deterioration of our environment. If you don't already read Dr. Brownstein you should start.
Ultimately all cancer is genetic. At the level of the cell the processes that control growth have gone awry. However, not all cancers are heritable. Breast and ovarian cancer are; cervical cancer is not.
I have no idea what point you think you are making.
If you do not, then you really should not be discussing the topic until you do. A medical condition is inherited if one or both of your parents, depending on the condition, had a gene which code for that condition and passed it to you, depending on whether one copy of the gene is needed for the condition to be expressed or not. Examples: sickle cell anemia, hemophilia.
The genetics of heritable cancers are more complex. You may get one of the genes for a cancer but the cancer may or may not be expressed. That is because for every gene one copy is switched on and one is switched off: the bad gene may be switched off. Or, you may need two copies of the gene for it to have an effect and you only inherited one. Or, you may need more than one gene for the cancer to happen. Or, there may be another cofactor needed. For example, you may have a gene that predisposes to lung cancer, but you do not get lung cancer unless you smoke. If you have genes that predispose to lung cancer you may get it even if you do not smoke.
A gene that predisposes to cancer may not be inherited. It may have been due to a mutation that happened at the time of conception. For example, a small number (less than 1%) of the two breast cancer genes are due to spontaneous mutations; they were not inherited from a parent, but a cancer due to them is still genetic.
I say at the cellular level all cancer is genetic because whatever causes the cancer does so by altering the genetic material in the cell. Genetic material from viruses, such as HPV, can actually be integrated into the DNA of infected cells and alter the reproduction of those cells. Radiation damages DNA. Tobacco contains many substances that can cause cancer, by altering the genes in affected cells.
Quote:
As audacious as it sounds, I think that my theory of how this works is more correct than most of the medical community admits. They (and you) think that of the cancers (5%-10%) considered 'genetic' in origin, a congenital, or acquired defect, in DNA leads to a cancer tumor.
You are misinformed. You do not understand that genetic does not mean inherited. Some cancers are due to inherited genes. Others are due to genetic changes induced by factors such as viruses, radiation (including sunlight), or chemicals. Cancers do indeed happen due to alterations in DNA that lead to abnormal cell growth.
Quote:
I think it is actually the opposite. I think that every one of us is subject to identical risk given identical location and/or lifestyle the same way that everyone lying out in the sun on Negril beach is a potential sunburn case. People who get cancer get it because they lack the gene or genes that would protect them! It is NOT because they inherit, or acquire, a gene defect that causes cancer. It is a subtle distinction, but key. Instead of looking for genes that cause a particular cancer, we should be looking for the gene(s) that prevent it!!
The genes that promote cancer are being identified, however. Do you think BRCA1 and BRCA2 do not promote breast cancer? The mechanisms by which they do have been described.
Quote:
Not all breast cancer is due to inherited genes, and not everyone with the genes that predispose to breast cancer will get it. As has been pointed out, there is no guarantee that all of your aunts have the gene. They might not, and the only way to know is to be tested - which they should consider doing if they have not already done so.
Your paragraph completely cancels itself. You have made the exact case that many doctors are now making for PSA tests. They are increasingly being considered meaningless because some men with a PSA of 2 have cancer, and men with a PSA of 8 don't. Why test??!! Women are removing their breasts at age 30, because they have the BRC(?) gene, and there is nebulous coincidence of the presence of this gene and a 100% (or even 90%) risk of contracting cancer. In any case, if a woman did decide to test her DNA and found that this gene was present, rather than a per-emptive double mastectomy... well if it were me, I would be purchasing a water filter, buying organic milk and meats going forward, and moving out of NYC, in that order! Breasts are useful things I should think. We are really heading down a dark alley when we start thinking of self-mutilation because of gene testing. I mean... what if we find that there is some genetic link between some gene and lung cancer?
No, the statement is absolutely true.
The argument against PSA testing has nothing to do with whether a certain value suggests cancer. It has to do with the fact that many prostate cancers are indolent and would never cause symptoms or spread. The hazard of not testing PSA is missing a fatal prostate cancer.
The association of BRCA1 and BRCA2 with breast cancer is not "nebulous coincidence". The way those genes promote breast cancer is known - at the molecular level. If you have them, living in a bubble will not make them go away.
The decision to proceed with prophylactic surgery is up to the patient. Many women, having had an explanation of the risks - which can be complicated - choose the surgery, knowing the risk is not 100%.
Quote:
Breast cancer risk increases with age as the opportunity for genetic mistakes that lead to cancer increases. Simple aging is a risk factor all by itself, and in some countries life expectancy is short enough that fewer women age into the high risk group.
All cancer risk increases with age because the dwell time of your cells and carcinogens stored in your fat cells crosses some unknown threshold which undoubtedly is highly individual. Those "genetic mistakes" what do you think causes them? Simple aging? I think not. In fact, I doubt, that you will find any alteration in the genes of someone that has contracted a cancer from environmental causes. I am certain if this was the case it would have been reported.
No, aging itself causes changes in the DNA of cells across multiple divisions of those cells. Here is one way it can happen:
Passage of time can certainly increase the probablity of being exposed to a carcinogen.
Certainly the genetic alterations caused by carcinogens has been reported. I already mentioned that DNA from carcinogenic viruses can be inserted into the DNA of infected cells. Ultraviolet radiation causes mutations in skin cells.
Here is a discussion of how benzene causes leukemia:
No one knows for sure what environmental factors are responsible for the change in breast cancer risk when women migrate, but there is research going on to try to find out. Industrial carcinogens are less likely to be a factor than changes in diet, trends toward fewer pregnancies (and delayed childbearing), shorter duration of breast feeding, and potentially increased longevity.
The changes in cancer profile of emigrees is not likely to be linked to any of the causatives you cite. I despair watching the medical community flail around at this and that and that... duration of breast feeding... <smh>. My wife has had three women friends get cancer in their late 20's early 30's. Never married, no children. All Ashkenazi as it happens. So... its 'genetic'. How convenient. But consider the Albino that cannot get sunburned (skin cancer) if they remain indoors!
You deny that never having been pregnant is a risk factor for breast cancer? That breast feeding lowers risk? You need to actually study it a bit.
Do you know any albinos who have never been outdoors? The skin cancers they get are still due to genetic damage in the skin done by UV light, the same as in non-albinos.
Quote:
Two vaccines have the potential to prevent millions of cancer cases and deaths: the hepatitis B vaccine and the HPV vaccine. Avoiding sun exposure can reduce the risk of skin cancer, including melanoma. Avoiding obesity can reduce the risk of some cancers, including breast. Not smoking greatly reduces the risk of lung and other cancers. Diagnostic colonoscopy can find precancerous polyps, removal of which can reduce the number of colon cancers. Blaming cancer on "industrial carcinogens" is short sighted.
Really? The HPV vaccine that American parents won't let their girls take because it is recommended that they do so around age 14? They have no reticence about vaccinating their infants for Hep C though. The Hep B vaccine? Is that the one that requires 8 injections spread over a year? One of them does. Millions? What is the incidence of Liver cancer or Cervical cancer compared to Breast, Prostate, Pancreatic or Lung cancers? You are getting somewhere with the preventative measures that you mention, but... how do I say this... isn't that kind of like telling people to "drive carefully" instead of engineering cars that can survive a 10 car pile-up? [b]
Millions of American parents have given their children (girls and boys) the HPV vaccine. It may be started as early as age 9 but is usually administered at age 11 or 12 in two doses over six to twelve months. originally three doses were given, but follow up studies showed two were just as effective. Older adolescents and adults should still get three doses.
There is no vaccine for hepatitis C, unfortunately.
The hepatitis B vaccine is given in three doses over 6 to 18 months. The adult schedule is three doses over 6 months.
Perhaps you can tell us what vaccine requires eight doses in a year. I am not aware of any.
HPV does not cause just cervical cancers. It also causes cancers of the vagina, vulva, penis, anus, rectum, and oropharynx (back of the throat, including the base of the tongue and tonsils), totaling about 31,000 per year. Over 40,000 will be diagnosed with liver cancer and about 29,000 will die from it per year. Those numbers are just in the US. In the US more liver cancers are associated with hepatitis C, but worldwide 600,000 die from it annually, 80% due to hepatitis B.
So yes, over time the hepatitis B and HPV vaccines will prevent millions of cancers and cancer deaths.
Do you really think that engineering cars to withstand accidents is better than preventing accidents in the first place? Honestly?
Quote:
We are already seeing pharmaceutical breakthroughs. Great strides have been made in the treatment of childhood cancers. In particular, five year cure rates for some leukemias and Hodgkin disease are at or above 90%. For acute lymphocytic leukemia, ALL, five year survival essentially translates to a cure. My older son was 13 years old when he was diagnosed with ALL. He is now 41.
I should give up. I am out educated, out classed, and outnumbered. You're right. We are winning. We've got Cancer licked. Give us a few more years and Cancer will become as treatable as the Common Cold, Ebola, or ALS. Sorry Suzy, I don't think the medical or pharmaceutical community have a clue as to how to treat cancer or any other serious malady that afflicts humanity. They get lucky from time to time, and stumble on something that appears to alleviate suffering for a few, for a time. And they profit handsomely from these occasional breakthroughs.
President George H. W. and Mrs. Barbara Bush lost a child to leukemia in 1953. Robin was three years old, and there was no treatment for it. When my son was diagnosed, five year survival was about 75%. Now it is over 90% (at St. Jude's, about 94%), and most five year survivors become long term survivors like my son.
Overall, the death rate for cancer in the US is down 25% between 1991 and 2014. That is due to a combination of prevention (fewer people are smoking and more are getting colonoscopies, for example) and advances in treatment.
The breakthroughs are not due to luck, and they benefit more than a few, curing many.
Quote:
I would have far more respect for the Allied Health industry if they would admit just how much work still needs to be done, instead of publishing 5 Year Survival rate data. What rot. Unfortunately for me because of my work, I come in daily and weekly contact and anecdotal acquaintance with far more people than the average person or medical professional. I know how many people relapse after seven or more years. I have a better idea than many of just how pervasive this cancer stuff is, and how many people it destroys financially, even if (for the short term) they are classified as 'survivors'.
Sorry, the five year survival data you dismiss are based on many more people than your acquaintances, no matter how many people you meet.
Quote:
I just kind of stumbled into this forum. I am not likely to return soon. The subject is very much outside my field of expertise. But this I know: in the short term, i.e. the foreseeable future, try not to get cancer. I stumbled on the website of a Dr. David Brownstein, and my wife and I are doing a LOT of the things he recommends to minimize cancer risk. Things my own medical professionals, that I pay, do not advise me to do, or eat, or supplement. To be fair, Brownstein also has his hand out, his site is more infomercial than I am personally thrilled with, but he offers a LOT of information for free. He is worth a look.
Brownstein is a quack. His primary goal is selling you stuff.
There is great interest in novel methods of cancer treatment, including immunological approaches, such as the drug President Carter took for his melanoma.
Its kind of sad that immunological approaches are considered "novel". Personally, I think that when (if) we ever understand the immune system. Really understand the immune system. Understand the immune system the way an automotive engineer understands an internal combustion engine. When (if) we can make the immune systems of anyone and everyone jump, sit, beg, and shake hands on command... that's when we won't have disease anymore. Period. Not Cancer, not Diabetes, not Colds, or Flu... nothing. No maladies will be able to afflict humans when we know how to tell our immune systems how to defeat their agents.
Why would a new tool to treat cancer be sad?
We are already using immune modulating medications to treat many diseases.
Quote:
The problem there is that the bumblings and stumblings that presently pass for breakthroughs make profits for Pharmaceutical companies in the many, many, ten thousands of percent! Why would a Pharma company go the extra 100 miles to work up an immuno system based wonder drug when they are making 85,000% profit on something based on some molecule found in Almond Seed extract? The shareholders would revolt. The cure for cancer is an immediate moratorium on specious research on legacy cancer technologies and also aggressive, Federally mandated price caps on those legacy technologies.
Could you please give us an example of what you consider to be "specious research"? What "molecule found in Almond Seed extract" is being sold at 85,000% profit?
Quote:
Do we need to clean up our environment? Yes, but that will not, in and of itself, eliminate cancer.
It is the only thing that is going to work. Neither you or I will be able to afford a real cancer break-through if ever there is one. No health network on earth would authorize it. Not even with Federal oversight. So, a medical cure for cancer is of no use to anyone that is not a multi-millionaire. For the rest of us a cancer cure looks like the Mother of All Beach Clean-ups. That should be Federally mandated as well but, sadly, our Federal is as much under the thumb of seriously wealthy individuals as anything else in this world. People move to Pendelton, OR and fortify bunkers against Armageddon. My Apocalypse is less about the collapse of civilization, and more about the increasing deterioration of our environment. If you don't already read Dr. Brownstein you should start.
There are already effective cancer treatments. They are covered by commercial insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid.
The drug President Carter took is very expensive. The company that makes it has a patient assistance program. They give it away - that means it is free - to people who cannot afford it.
I had a patient when I was med student who was an interesting example of this theory..
She was 94, was a chronic chain smoker...anywhere from 1-2 packs/day of cigarettes, since age 16. When I saw her, she was still actively smoking, but had dwindled her consumption down to 1/2 pack/day. She came into the hospital b/c she had the flu. This woman had seen a doctor for years, regularly, and at the most was once put on cholesterol medication. She smoked and smoked and was counseled extensively, according to what she told me, to stop smoking. But she never did...
She left the hospital days later in nearly great condition...or as great as one can be at age 94.
She never had cancer or any other issues one would think she'd have as a result of her tobacco abuse.
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.
