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 08-09-2016, 03:53 PM
 
4,629 posts, read 10,515,895 times
Reputation: 10329

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 80skeys View Post
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.
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.

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.

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.
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.
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?
It hasn't and you have yet to post a reference backing this meaningless made up "statistic"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2016, 03:58 PM
 
4,629 posts, read 10,515,895 times
Reputation: 10329
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?


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.
Adults can make decisions about their own bodies....

Minors can't.....and neither can negligent parents who make "choices" for their children that would obviously do harm...

8 months from adulthood is 8 months from adulthood.....are exceptions made for voting, getting license, buying alcohol? NOPE

What would have been criminal would have been allowing this "child" and her alleged parent refuse treatment for a clearly treatable disease...

Also thank you for confirming again how little you know about anything.....

Keep preaching about the "cure" for the disease you never had....typical of the alternative crowd....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2016, 06:50 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,549 posts, read 26,166,023 times
Reputation: 26569
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80skeys View Post
Pages 473 - 542 indeed are a compendium of statistics and references
Those pages are footnotes.

Quote:
The book gives an accurate (which is to say, very sobering) picture of the effectiveness of modern cancer treatment.
In no way does the book support your argument that there is no treatment for cancer.

Quote:
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.
Chemotherapy works during replication of the cell. Different drugs hit different parts of the cycle. Cells that replicate less often spend more time in certain stages of replication during which some drugs will not work.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-chemo...-growing-cells

Quote:
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.
Use of multiple drugs together actually helps reduce resistance. The drugs are used together because they are synergistic. Take acute lymphocytic leukemia for example, the one my son had.

He participated in one of the initial trials for L-asparaginase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asparaginase

"The rationale behind asparaginase is that it takes advantage of the fact that acute lymphoblastic leukemia cells and some other suspected tumor cells are unable to synthesize the non-essential amino acid asparagine, whereas normal cells are able to make their own asparagine; thus leukemic cells require high amount of asparagine. These leukemic cells depend on circulating asparagine. Asparaginase, however, catalyzes the conversion of L-asparagine to aspartic acid and ammonia. This deprives the leukemic cell of circulating asparagine, which leads to cell death."

He also took vincristine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincristine

"Vincristine works partly by binding to the tubulin protein, stopping the cell from separating its chromosomes during the metaphase; the cell then undergoes apoptosis.[14]
Because vincristine's mechanism of action targets all rapidly dividing cell types, it not only inhibits cancerous cells but can also affect the intestinal epithelium and bone marrow."

And methotrexate:

"For cancer, methotrexate competitively inhibits dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR), an enzyme that participates in the tetrahydrofolate synthesis."

All three of those drugs work by entirely different mechanisms.

Your statement that "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." is false. There is no "single protein pathway" and the drugs used are not "simple chemicals."

Quote:
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.
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.
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?
Chemo and surgery can be extremely targeted. For some cancers, surgery alone may be curative if done early enough.

You might want to look at what the author of Emperor of All Maladies has to say about chronic myelogenous leukemia and a drug called Gleevec (imatinib). See page 437. While it does not cure CML, it can be taken for years with remarkably few side effects. A single, targeted drug.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imatinib

Bluedevilz has already shown you that cancer does not cause one in three human deaths.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2016, 08:15 PM
 
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
4,888 posts, read 8,913,675 times
Reputation: 2439
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedevilz View Post
It hasn't and you have yet to post a reference backing this meaningless made up "statistic"
FastStats - Deaths and Mortality


Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Those pages are footnotes.
Which contain (suprise suprise): references to scientific papers where one can look at all the statistics that are cited in the book.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2016, 08:19 PM
 
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
4,888 posts, read 8,913,675 times
Reputation: 2439
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2016, 08:33 PM
 
17,637 posts, read 12,245,599 times
Reputation: 12870
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php
Quote:
Can cancer be prevented?
A substantial proportion of cancers are preventable, and all cancers caused by cigarette smoking and heavy use of alcohol could be prevented. Smoking contributes to an estimated 80% and 90% of deaths in men and women respectively.

The World Cancer Research Fund has estimated that up to one-third of cancer cases that occur in economically developed countries like the US are related to being overweight, obese, inactive (sedentary) or having poor nutrition. These are all potentially preventable.

Particular cancers are related to infectious agents such as human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) - these may be prevented through behavioral changes and use of protective vaccinations and antibiotic treatments.

Many of the more than 3 million skin cancer cases that are diagnosed annually could be prevented by protecting skin from excessive sun exposure and avoiding indoor tanning.

Screening offers the ability for secondary prevention by detecting cancer early, before symptoms appear. Early detection usually results in better outcomes and a decreased need for extensive and invasive treatment.

Screening for colorectal and cervical cancers can prevent cancer by allowing for detection and removal of pre-cancerous lesions.

To improve early detection of potential tumors, people are encouraged to regularly carry out personal examinations of their breasts, skin and testicles (where applicable).

With testing and treatment numerous cancers are highly beatable just as an aside
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2016, 08:49 PM
 
4,629 posts, read 10,515,895 times
Reputation: 10329
Awesome.....

You posted the same thing twice and were too lazy to actually highlight the relevant statistics...which is meaningless by the way and does not support your prior statements because it doesn't include the total number of deaths

Lets review...

You have stated multiple times on this thread, as if it were fact, that cancer(s) account for 1/3 of all deaths as in 33% and this ratio has not changed in 100 years...

This is from the 90+ page document you linked without even bothering to look at it apparently...

Number of deaths from ALL causes in 2013 2,596,993

Number of deaths from MALIGNANCIES in 2013 584,881

I'll even do the math for you.... Deaths from cancer in 2013 as a percent of the total....22.5%

THAT number is certainly less than 33% and jibes with what I had previously posted of a range of 20-25% depending on gender.

So thanks for backing up MY numbers

As for that previously described (erroneous) percentage that you have been throwing around and stating it hadn't changed in 100 years (apparently it has)

THIS tidbit also comes from the link you provided from CDC

"Rates for the two leading causes—heart disease and cancer— continued their long-term decreasing trends. Significant decreases also occurred for stroke and Alzheimer’s disease. Significant increases occurred in 2013 from 2012 for Chronic lower respiratory diseases, Influenza and pneumonia, Septi* cemia, Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, hypertension, and Parkinson’s disease."

Wait....what?

Decreasing trends?

I thought the percentage hadn't changed in likely 100 years...

THIS is why its a good idea to actually READ the links you provide to try and back up a position rather than just doing a Google search and throwing up a couple of random links you THINK support your position....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2016, 09:10 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,549 posts, read 26,166,023 times
Reputation: 26569
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80skeys View Post
FastStats - Deaths and Mortality

Which contain (suprise suprise): references to scientific papers where one can look at all the statistics that are cited in the book.
From your link, and the table in the next post you made:

2,626,418 total deaths in 2013, of which 591,699 were due to cancer. That means that 22.52% were due to cancer, not 1/3, as you have claimed.

The fact is that by focusing on the fraction of deaths attributable to cancer you are using the wrong statistic, because it ignores population. That fraction will vary depending on what happens to other causes of death on the list, even if the number of cancer deaths does not change at all. For example, suppose there were 63,000 fewer accidental deaths. Cancer deaths would then be 22.58% of the total.

The proper way to look at whether cancer deaths are decreasing or not is to adjust for population.

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ld/all.html

Since 1991 there has been a steady decrease in the death rate from cancer per 100,000 population:
from 215.1 to 163. That's an over 24% drop. That is due both to prevention (such as reduced smoking and colonoscopic removal of polyps) and improved treatment.

You said that those pages contained a "compendium of statistics". They do not. They are footnotes. Some of them may contain references where statistics might be found but that is not the same as containing the statistics themselves. You also still fail to realize that the book does not support your thesis that cancer cannot be treated, and today, often cured. Quite the contrary.

Edited to say I see bluedevilz beat me to it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2016, 09:57 PM
 
2,442 posts, read 1,801,339 times
Reputation: 4644
If we're going to cite the emperor of all maladies, then how about childhood ALL? Was a death sentence before chemo, now 85% five year survival.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2016, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 49,604,613 times
Reputation: 24548
Mt BIL has chemo eliminate his cancers and a friend is living on continuous chemo for his blood marrow cancer.


I think this kid should compare dying of cancer with almost dying of cancer by undergoing the torture of Chemotherapy.
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