U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-07-2016, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
4,888 posts, read 8,906,945 times
Reputation: 2435

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedevilz View Post
So once again, the person who wants others to "reference" their statements offers nothing but pomposity and ignorance...No insights....no facts....
Read The Emperor of All Maladies
Quote:
Chemo fails for all other cancers?? Reference please....
Chemo actually cures some subtypes of childhood leukemia and Hodgkin's because these subtypes are the most simplest cancers of all: a single, simple protein is responsible for disrupting normal controls on cell division, and it was a matter of finding a chemical that blocks this protein. This has been known for 30 years.

This doesn't work for other cancers because they arise out of a far more complex system of protein pathways. So complex, in fact, that 30 years after the discovery of these pathways, we still have been unable to map them out for most cancers. Which means that, while we have a targeted cure for a few certain lymphomas or leukemias, we do not have a targeted cure for other kinds of cancer.

Cancer is a disease of randomness and chance. In the vast majority of cases, it arises due to random mutations or errors that occur during cell division. This is why the "age-curve" exists: the older we get, the greater the likelihood of cancer. In fewer cases it is the result of carcinogens with a propensity to cause such errors or mutations.

Once your body has a stable cancerous cell, the only way to cure yourself is to eliminate every single cancerous cell in your body. Unless you have a targeted cure, this is a virtually impossible task, unless you happen to achieve it very early on when it is localized and assuming you know exactly where all the cancer cells are, or otherwise through dumb luck. Through sheer luck via surgery and chemical bombardment, if you happen to eliminate all cancerous cells in your body, then you are cured. But without knowing exactly where the cancer cells reside, and without having a targeted chemical, this is extremely difficult. If you miss even one cancerous cell, it will continue to replicate and eventually become thousands and millions of cancer cells. This is why recurrence happens in so many patients, because the treatments fail to kill all the cancer cells.

This is also why some patients are cured, or at least prolonged. Through dumb luck all cancerous cells are killed. Or at least kept at bay for a couple years before they have mutated into cell lines that are able to resist chemo.

Depending on the type of cell where the cancer starts, this greatly affects the behavior of the disease. Some will remain localized and unobtrusive for long periods of time. Others will be noticeable and cause grave effects quickly. This is why *general* statements like about 5- year survivability are meaningless. Many cancers with no treatment whatsoever have 100% 5-year survavibility. This is becoming increasingly transparent the better our technology gets for detecting cancer: we are now able to detect and monitor it early. In doing so, we are able to see that many people have a slow-progressing prostate cancer that does not necessarily require treatment.

The more we learn, the more complex it gets.

But let's take a look at the simplest fact of all: 1/3 of us will die from cancer. This number has remained steady over the past 70-80 years (ever since human's average life expectancy has broken the pre-1900s 40-50 year barrier).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-07-2016, 05:08 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,515 posts, read 26,128,168 times
Reputation: 26486
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80skeys View Post
Read The Emperor of All Maladies
Chemo actually cures some subtypes of childhood leukemia and Hodgkin's because these subtypes are the most simplest cancers of all: a single, simple protein is responsible for disrupting normal controls on cell division, and it was a matter of finding a chemical that blocks this protein. This has been known for 30 years.
This is your first fallacy. Hodgkin and childhood leukemia are not treated with single drugs. Multiple drugs attacking different pathways are used. Radiotherapy is also incorporated into many protocols.

Quote:
This doesn't work for other cancers because they arise out of a far more complex system of protein pathways. So complex, in fact, that 30 years after the discovery of these pathways, we still have been unable to map them out for most cancers. Which means that, while we have a targeted cure for a few certain lymphomas or leukemias, we do not have a targeted cure for other kinds of cancer.
Fallacy number two.

Many other cancers are treated primarily with surgery. Chemo is used as an adjuvant to try to eliminate metastases and reduce the risk of recurrence. It it not expected to cure the primary tumor, though sometimes it is used before surgery to shrink the primary tumor and make it easier to resect. The surgery itself may or may not be curative.

Quote:
Cancer is a disease of randomness and chance. In the vast majority of cases, it arises due to random mutations or errors that occur during cell division. This is why the "age-curve" exists: the older we get, the greater the likelihood of cancer. In fewer cases it is the result of carcinogens with a propensity to cause such errors or mutations.
And some cancers are due to a genetic predisposition, such as some breast cancers.

Quote:
Once your body has a stable cancerous cell, the only way to cure yourself is to eliminate every single cancerous cell in your body. Unless you have a targeted cure, this is a virtually impossible task, unless you happen to achieve it very early on when it is localized and assuming you know exactly where all the cancer cells are, or otherwise through dumb luck. Through sheer luck via surgery and chemical bombardment, if you happen to eliminate all cancerous cells in your body, then you are cured. But without knowing exactly where the cancer cells reside, and without having a targeted chemical, this is extremely difficult. If you miss even one cancerous cell, it will continue to replicate and eventually become thousands and millions of cancer cells. This is why recurrence happens in so many patients, because the treatments fail to kill all the cancer cells.
Obviously this is true, but treatment eliminates the last malignant cell more often than you are willing to accept. Newer treatments are being developed that are more targeted, such as the one that President Carter took for melanoma.

Quote:
This is also why some patients are cured, or at least prolonged. Through dumb luck all cancerous cells are killed. Or at least kept at bay for a couple years before they have mutated into cell lines that are able to resist chemo.
It's not dumb luck. It's the result of years of research.

Quote:
Depending on the type of cell where the cancer starts, this greatly affects the behavior of the disease. Some will remain localized and unobtrusive for long periods of time. Others will be noticeable and cause grave effects quickly. This is why *general* statements like about 5- year survivability are meaningless. Many cancers with no treatment whatsoever have 100% 5-year survavibility. This is becoming increasingly transparent the better our technology gets for detecting cancer: we are now able to detect and monitor it early. In doing so, we are able to see that many people have a slow-progressing prostate cancer that does not necessarily require treatment.
The problem here is that we cannot tell the man whose prostate cancer would never progress from the man who will be killed by his disease. How do you choose whom to treat and whom to not treat?

We need a source for those "many cancers" that have a 100% survival rate with no treatment from the time of diagnosis. Consider that there is no screening test for most cancers, so they are only diagnosed when they become symptomatic. The consideration of overdiagnosis does not apply.

Quote:
But let's take a look at the simplest fact of all: 1/3 of us will die from cancer. This number has remained steady over the past 70-80 years (ever since human's average life expectancy has broken the pre-1900s 40-50 year barrier).
Saying a third of us will die from cancer is meaningless. We all will die from something, and cancer rates are influenced by people living longer because they do not die from another disease, such as heart attack or stroke. The cause of death just gets shifted to a different category.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2016, 06:34 PM
 
4,627 posts, read 10,507,448 times
Reputation: 10324
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80skeys View Post
Read The Emperor of All Maladies
Chemo actually cures some subtypes of childhood leukemia and Hodgkin's because these subtypes are the most simplest cancers of all: a single, simple protein is responsible for disrupting normal controls on cell division, and it was a matter of finding a chemical that blocks this protein. This has been known for 30 years.

This doesn't work for other cancers because they arise out of a far more complex system of protein pathways. So complex, in fact, that 30 years after the discovery of these pathways, we still have been unable to map them out for most cancers. Which means that, while we have a targeted cure for a few certain lymphomas or leukemias, we do not have a targeted cure for other kinds of cancer.

Cancer is a disease of randomness and chance. In the vast majority of cases, it arises due to random mutations or errors that occur during cell division. This is why the "age-curve" exists: the older we get, the greater the likelihood of cancer. In fewer cases it is the result of carcinogens with a propensity to cause such errors or mutations.

Once your body has a stable cancerous cell, the only way to cure yourself is to eliminate every single cancerous cell in your body. Unless you have a targeted cure, this is a virtually impossible task, unless you happen to achieve it very early on when it is localized and assuming you know exactly where all the cancer cells are, or otherwise through dumb luck. Through sheer luck via surgery and chemical bombardment, if you happen to eliminate all cancerous cells in your body, then you are cured. But without knowing exactly where the cancer cells reside, and without having a targeted chemical, this is extremely difficult. If you miss even one cancerous cell, it will continue to replicate and eventually become thousands and millions of cancer cells. This is why recurrence happens in so many patients, because the treatments fail to kill all the cancer cells.

This is also why some patients are cured, or at least prolonged. Through dumb luck all cancerous cells are killed. Or at least kept at bay for a couple years before they have mutated into cell lines that are able to resist chemo.

Depending on the type of cell where the cancer starts, this greatly affects the behavior of the disease. Some will remain localized and unobtrusive for long periods of time. Others will be noticeable and cause grave effects quickly. This is why *general* statements like about 5- year survivability are meaningless. Many cancers with no treatment whatsoever have 100% 5-year survavibility. This is becoming increasingly transparent the better our technology gets for detecting cancer: we are now able to detect and monitor it early. In doing so, we are able to see that many people have a slow-progressing prostate cancer that does not necessarily require treatment.

The more we learn, the more complex it gets.

But let's take a look at the simplest fact of all: 1/3 of us will die from cancer. This number has remained steady over the past 70-80 years (ever since human's average life expectancy has broken the pre-1900s 40-50 year barrier).
Again, I ask for references and I get meandering "opinions"

You state above that "many cancers with no treatment whatsoever have 5 year survivability"

First of all, you make this statement as if it is fact when it could NEVER be proven, where pray tell are you going to get a sufficient number of "untreated" patients to test this hypothesis, ignoring the unethical nature of the question...

Secondly, it is clearly a false statement, from the previously linked UK study on 20 Common Cancers....NOT 1 has a 5 year survival rate of 100%....only 2 out of 20 are above 90%....the average is 54% 5 year survival rate and thats TREATED

MANY CANCERS have 100% survivability rate at 5 years.....that would be FALSE

Cancer survival for common cancers | Cancer Research UK

Even your last "stat" again offered in evidence as FACT without any corresponding evidence...

I say the that 1/4 men and 1/5 women will die from cancer.....apparently your number hasn't remained static
which again makes most of your opinions worthless....

Oh and here are my references for the 25% and 20% figures on cancer mortality to show you how its done

Lifetime Risk of Developing or Dying From Cancer
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2016, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Midwest, USA
706 posts, read 397,329 times
Reputation: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlvancouver View Post
Actually no. Not true at all. The medical profession is not in some master conspiracy to make people sick, and anything that was proven to cure cancer would be actively marketed.

Name one and prove it. Oh wait, you can't.

I don't disagree that pharmaceutical companies are in it for the money, but for one I'm grateful for the research that has led to vaccines and treatments that have saved and extended lives.

This annoys me as someone who lost her mother to cancer - eating broccoli or spinning counterclockwise in the spring rain wouldn't have cured it. Science kept her alive long enough to see the first five years of her grandchildren's lives. Did she eat well and take care of herself? Sure, but chemo was what allowed her to extend her life both in duration and (in her case) quality.
Your comment is all over the place. I didn't say that the medical profession was conspiring to make everyone sick, for one thing. For another thing, plants are NOT patentable. So they sometimes take isolates from the plants and base their drugs on it. Those drugs are NOT whole plants, which many times is needed to be effective.

Who said anything about spinning around in the rain to cure cancer?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2016, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Midwest, USA
706 posts, read 397,329 times
Reputation: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedevilz View Post
No what's disgusting are alternative practitioners/snake oil salesmen that foist absolute nonsense on the public based on nothing but "pseudoscience" to make it sound so convincing....

Nonsense like the Navarro Hcg test which some people actually believe is a legitimate test for cancer

Then alternative clinics that sell poison like laetrile can make their dinero and have a nonsense "test" to show it actually works...
Thank you for confirming you know nothing about alternative medicine. Bye bye now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2016, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Midwest, USA
706 posts, read 397,329 times
Reputation: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1984 View Post
Ethically yes, but legally not until she is 18 unless her parents give consent. It's just the way things are.
Her mother *did* consent to let Cassie choose. But apparently, not even *that* is enough for the "authorities".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2016, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,515 posts, read 26,128,168 times
Reputation: 26486
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedomdove View Post
Your comment is all over the place. I didn't say that the medical profession was conspiring to make everyone sick, for one thing. For another thing, plants are NOT patentable. So they sometimes take isolates from the plants and base their drugs on it. Those drugs are NOT whole plants, which many times is needed to be effective.

Who said anything about spinning around in the rain to cure cancer?
The interesting thing is that the herbal products on the shelves in your local health food store as often as not do not contain the plants listed on the label, and sometimes they contain potentially dangerous ingredients not listed on the label.

You can never be sure you are getting what you think you are, and the manufacturer does not have to show that the stuff in the bottle, whatever it is, does anything useful.

Any of the "alternatives" sold to treat cancer work just as well as spinning around in the rain would.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freedomdove View Post
Her mother *did* consent to let Cassie choose. But apparently, not even *that* is enough for the "authorities".
A competent parent does not let a minor make life and death decisions.

The court ordered Cassie to undergo treatment because she exhibited behavior that showed she was not competent to make such a decision for herself, even if her mother was willing for her to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2016, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Midwest, USA
706 posts, read 397,329 times
Reputation: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
The interesting thing is that the herbal products on the shelves in your local health food store as often as not do not contain the plants listed on the label, and sometimes they contain potentially dangerous ingredients not listed on the label.

You can never be sure you are getting what you think you are, and the manufacturer does not have to show that the stuff in the bottle, whatever it is, does anything useful.

Any of the "alternatives" sold to treat cancer work just as well as spinning around in the rain would.
Lol. That old line again? Thanks to you, also, for confirming how little you know about alternative medicine and supplements. You and old blue are really like 2 peas in a pod, eh?


Quote:
A competent parent does not let a minor make life and death decisions.

The court ordered Cassie to undergo treatment because she exhibited behavior that showed she was not competent to make such a decision for herself, even if her mother was willing for her to do so.
Oh please. You people (and the "authorities) act like it was a baby or something. She was only like 8 months away from being an "official adult". She is a very mature young lady. Both her and her mother's wishes were ignored, and that's criminal, IMO. We should be able to make our own decisions about our bodies--regardless of what people like you think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2016, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,515 posts, read 26,128,168 times
Reputation: 26486
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedomdove View Post
Lol. That old line again? Thanks to you, also, for confirming how little you know about alternative medicine and supplements. You and old blue are really like 2 peas in a pod, eh?
Litigation Trends Affecting Supplement Companies and What to Do About Them

Quote:
Oh please. You people (and the "authorities) act like it was a baby or something. She was only like 8 months away from being an "official adult". She is a very mature young lady. Both her and her mother's wishes were ignored, and that's criminal, IMO. We should be able to make our own decisions about our bodies--regardless of what people like you think.
Mature young ladies do not run away from home.

If she had had appendicitis should she have been allowed to refuse surgery because she did not want a scar on her belly?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2016, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
4,888 posts, read 8,906,945 times
Reputation: 2435
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Have you even read the book? It is not a compendium of statistics and references, and it in no way denies the effectiveness of modern cancer treatment.
Pages 473 - 542 indeed are a compendium of statistics and references.
The book gives an accurate (which is to say, very sobering) picture of the effectiveness of modern cancer treatment.
Quote:
Chemo works better for Hodgkin and other blood malignancies because the target tissue turns over rapidly and actively dividing cells are more susceptible to the drugs.
No. Hodgkin's and childhood leukemia are the result of a disturbance in single protein pathways, for which there is a simple chemical that targets the specific pathway in question. The fact that the cure works has nothing to do with the frequency of cell replication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
This is your first fallacy. Hodgkin and childhood leukemia are not treated with single drugs. Multiple drugs attacking different pathways are used.
The only reason multiple drugs are used is because cancer has the ability to hit upon resistance to drugs. With these two diseases, you can cure it with a single drug that targets the specific protein pathway. But if you don't happen to kill all the cells, then subsequent cell generations can morph into new cell lines that are different from the original cancer and do not respond to the original drug.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
It's not dumb luck. It's the result of years of research.
Chemo and surgery are not targeted approaches. They are "sledgehammer" approaches. Which means, that when they work, it is through dumb luck that they happen to kill every last malignant cell in the body.
Quote:
The problem here is that we cannot tell the man whose prostate cancer would never progress from the man who will be killed by his disease. How do you choose whom to treat and whom to not treat?
and why is this? it is because 30 years after discovering The Cure for childhood leukemia, we still don't have enough understanding to Cure other types of cancer.
Quote:
Saying a third of us will die from cancer is meaningless.
If medicine's success with cancer were such a great thing as you have been claiming, then why has cancer as a cause of death in humans remained at 1/3 for the past 100 years?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top