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.
Her cancer relapsed. It happens, but does not mean her front line treatment was a wash. It's still very curable, even with a relapse. Since her initial treatment, there is even a new chemo protocol that is less toxic to address relapse. Unfortunately, though, her only shot at living to see her 20s will involve a stem cell transplant.
I had the same cancer as Cassandra. In fact, mine was far, far worse and I had far less support during chemo - I did it on my own while working full time. I am in full support of the state saving her from killing herself.
This started in January 2015 when she was still a Minor of 17. She is no longer a Minor but legally an Adult now. The State cannot save Adults from killing themselves by refusing life saving treatments, whatever their reasons or how old they are. PERIOD. It is now Cassandra's choice, and nobody else's, to determine what she wants to do. Would you take away these rights and give the power and determination of that to Doctors and the State? Absolutely, not.
The latest news that has come out (about two months ago) about this young women is that a new mass has been found in her lungs.
Once a cancer cell line has become stable, then it is impossible to prevent it from recurring if every single cancerous cell is not killed or removed from the body. And since removing every such cell is virtually impossible, this is why cancer patients usually experience relapses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFlyingBird
I guess but with a cancer survival rate of 85%
completely false. There is no such thing as a blanket statement "85% survival rate." If you're talking about all cancers across the board, this is definitely not the case. Even if you are talking about the most common cancers, it is not the case. Furthmore, you need to define what you mean by "survival rate." Are you talking greater than 10 year survival? Most cancers have a high 5 year survival rate, even if they are left completely untreated, so talking about 5 year survival rates is misleading.
85% >10year survival rate is virtually unknown except in a very few well-known cancers that respond well to chemo, or in a few other cancers that are known to last a long time with little effect on the body, or a few cancers that are caught very early and excised very early. In other words, to get the "85%" rate you're talking about, there are a lot of "or's" "buts" and "exceptions.".
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFlyingBird
It happens to DESTROY CANCER CELLS and save many people's lives as well
In most cases, it only temporarily destroys cancer cells (along with healthy cells), and obviously fails to destroy all cancer cells in th body. It may prolong someone's life by a year, but in most cases does not cure cancer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCN
I think chemo will some day be as obsolete as bleeding was in the past.
You are basically correct. But I would qualify it by saying that it is possible in certain (very few, unfortunately) types of cancer to design (or stumble upon) a chemical that targets the cells' protein pathways in such a way that it effectively blocks that cancer's ability to trigger cell division. This is the case with a couple of cancers that for all practical purposes have been considered curable. The problem is: these particular cancers are very simple and special cases. The complexity of most other cancers is so daunting that it has thwarted people's attempts to develop the same type of treatment.
Quote:
Good diet and exercise and nutrition would in my opinion be a better medical treatment than chemo.
Unfortunately good diet and exercise has no beneficial effect whatsoever on cancer. Once a cancer cell has become stable, it basically is an independent entity that only requires nutrients for it to continue replicating. There are many laboratories that possess cancer cells lines that have been continuously replicating since the 1960s, decades after the patients passed away.
Quote:
I read that the man who discovered cancer said it was caused by a lack of oxygen to the area where the cancer started to grow.
Yes, if you start on a "high oxygen" lifestyle, you will decrease the chances of cancer, but increase the aging process. Catch-22.
Quote:
We had a patron who was given up for cancer start her own treatment with vitamin therapy and she cured herself.
I hate this type of anecdote, because it invariably does not provide the complete story. There are certain cancers that are very slow growing, non-invasive, and if left alone, don't cause harm in the body. A person can live 10 or 20 years without knowing about them. There are other types of cancers that start, and then go away on their own. In fact this process is probably happening to most of us without us ever being aware of it. So what likely happened in the person you mention, is one of these two scenarios.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charolastra00
I had the same cancer as Cassandra. In fact, mine was far, far worse and I had far less support during chemo - I did it on my own while working full time. I am in full support of the state saving her from killing herself.
It's great that you were cured. But statistics are what is important here. The numbers to look at are: what percentage of people with cancer X and treatment Y lived for longer than 10 years after treatment?
completely false. There is no such thing as a blanket statement "85% survival rate." If you're talking about all cancers across the board, this is definitely not the case. Even if you are talking about the most common cancers, it is not the case. Furthmore, you need to define what you mean by "survival rate." Are you talking greater than 10 year survival? Most cancers have a high 5 year survival rate, even if they are left completely untreated, so talking about 5 year survival rates is misleading.
85% >10year survival rate is virtually unknown except in a very few well-known cancers that respond well to chemo, or in a few other cancers that are known to last a long time with little effect on the body, or a few cancers that are caught very early and excised very early. In other words, to get the "85%" rate you're talking about, there are a lot of "or's" "buts" and "exceptions.".
Taken when viewing cancer patients as a whole across the entire population, I think you make some accurate statements, but childhood cancers are very different from adult cancers, and they do have an extremely high cure rate ("cure" as in gone forever, never to return). And, this cure rate has doubled, if not tripled, in the past 30 years. It's done so because of the fact that childhood cancers are different diseases than adult cancers, and most respond more readily to treatment. The big success in treating childhood cancers, however, comes from the fact that treatment is almost always done in large academic centers and is very coordinated with nearly all patients on nationwide protocols that are overseen by a large national group. Faculty often know each other all since it's a small specialty, and work very closely with one another in different centers to share data. Adult cancers are treated in a much more disjointed fashion, which sometimes lessens the ability to share best practices.
What many childhood cancer survivors (like all cancer survivors) do have, is long term health issues, like cardiac problems, infertility, greatly increased risks for other cancers etc, and these health issues often don't present until many decades after treatment.
At least the above is my conclusion based on what I learned while working in one of the largest pediatric cancer centers in the world, and having a close family member who is a childhood cancer survivor.
Last edited by Texas Ag 93; 07-11-2016 at 10:50 AM..
Once a cancer cell line has become stable, then it is impossible to prevent it from recurring if every single cancerous cell is not killed or removed from the body. And since removing every such cell is virtually impossible, this is why cancer patients usually experience relapses.
completely false. There is no such thing as a blanket statement "85% survival rate." If you're talking about all cancers across the board, this is definitely not the case. Even if you are talking about the most common cancers, it is not the case. Furthmore, you need to define what you mean by "survival rate." Are you talking greater than 10 year survival? Most cancers have a high 5 year survival rate, even if they are left completely untreated, so talking about 5 year survival rates is misleading.
85% >10year survival rate is virtually unknown except in a very few well-known cancers that respond well to chemo, or in a few other cancers that are known to last a long time with little effect on the body, or a few cancers that are caught very early and excised very early. In other words, to get the "85%" rate you're talking about, there are a lot of "or's" "buts" and "exceptions.".
In most cases, it only temporarily destroys cancer cells (along with healthy cells), and obviously fails to destroy all cancer cells in th body. It may prolong someone's life by a year, but in most cases does not cure cancer.
You are basically correct. But I would qualify it by saying that it is possible in certain (very few, unfortunately) types of cancer to design (or stumble upon) a chemical that targets the cells' protein pathways in such a way that it effectively blocks that cancer's ability to trigger cell division. This is the case with a couple of cancers that for all practical purposes have been considered curable. The problem is: these particular cancers are very simple and special cases. The complexity of most other cancers is so daunting that it has thwarted people's attempts to develop the same type of treatment.
Unfortunately good diet and exercise has no beneficial effect whatsoever on cancer. Once a cancer cell has become stable, it basically is an independent entity that only requires nutrients for it to continue replicating. There are many laboratories that possess cancer cells lines that have been continuously replicating since the 1960s, decades after the patients passed away.
Yes, if you start on a "high oxygen" lifestyle, you will decrease the chances of cancer, but increase the aging process. Catch-22.
I hate this type of anecdote, because it invariably does not provide the complete story. There are certain cancers that are very slow growing, non-invasive, and if left alone, don't cause harm in the body. A person can live 10 or 20 years without knowing about them. There are other types of cancers that start, and then go away on their own. In fact this process is probably happening to most of us without us ever being aware of it. So what likely happened in the person you mention, is one of these two scenarios.
It's great that you were cured. But statistics are what is important here. The numbers to look at are: what percentage of people with cancer X and treatment Y lived for longer than 10 years after treatment?
LOL well you are picking the wrong person to debate cancer treatment with. I am going to leave it though. Not the point of this thread and people like you cant be reasoned with
Once a cancer cell line has become stable, then it is impossible to prevent it from recurring if every single cancerous cell is not killed or removed from the body. And since removing every such cell is virtually impossible, this is why cancer patients usually experience relapses.
This is why treatment is given in multiple cycles. Relapses are not the same as recurrences. Relapse happen soon after or during treatment and, with respect to blood cancers, are treated by changing the drugs used. Recurrences occur after some time interval with no evidence of disease.
Quote:
completely false. There is no such thing as a blanket statement "85% survival rate." If you're talking about all cancers across the board, this is definitely not the case. Even if you are talking about the most common cancers, it is not the case. Furthmore, you need to define what you mean by "survival rate." Are you talking greater than 10 year survival? Most cancers have a high 5 year survival rate, even if they are left completely untreated, so talking about 5 year survival rates is misleading.
The figure given was for the cancer Cassandra has, which is the topic of discussion here.
Quote:
85% >10year survival rate is virtually unknown except in a very few well-known cancers that respond well to chemo, or in a few other cancers that are known to last a long time with little effect on the body, or a few cancers that are caught very early and excised very early. In other words, to get the "85%" rate you're talking about, there are a lot of "or's" "buts" and "exceptions."
As this link shows, for many cancers the chance of surviving another five years if you make it to five year survival is very high, exceeding 90% for many cancers.
"The 1-year relative survival rate for all patients diagnosed with Hodgkin disease is now about 92%; the 5-year and 10-year survival rates are about 86% and 80%, respectively. Certain factors such as the stage (extent) of Hodgkin disease and a person’s age affect these rates."
Quote:
In most cases, it only temporarily destroys cancer cells (along with healthy cells), and obviously fails to destroy all cancer cells in th body. It may prolong someone's life by a year, but in most cases does not cure cancer.
Some cancers are more curable than others, but millions of people have indeed been cured.
Quote:
You are basically correct. But I would qualify it by saying that it is possible in certain (very few, unfortunately) types of cancer to design (or stumble upon) a chemical that targets the cells' protein pathways in such a way that it effectively blocks that cancer's ability to trigger cell division. This is the case with a couple of cancers that for all practical purposes have been considered curable. The problem is: these particular cancers are very simple and special cases. The complexity of most other cancers is so daunting that it has thwarted people's attempts to develop the same type of treatment.
There are a wide range of cancers that respond to treatment, often a mix of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. Some cancers are easier to treat than others. You greatly underestimate the ability to cure cancers with those modalities. In addition, the newest modality in the cancer treatment armamentarium is immunotherapy, such as the drug President Carter took for his melanoma.
Curable cancers are not "very simple and special cases."
Quote:
Unfortunately good diet and exercise has no beneficial effect whatsoever on cancer. Once a cancer cell has become stable, it basically is an independent entity that only requires nutrients for it to continue replicating. There are many laboratories that possess cancer cells lines that have been continuously replicating since the 1960s, decades after the patients passed away.
There are also cell lines derived from normal tissue that have been continuously replicating for decades. They have been manipulated in the lab to do so.
I hate this type of anecdote, because it invariably does not provide the complete story. There are certain cancers that are very slow growing, non-invasive, and if left alone, don't cause harm in the body. A person can live 10 or 20 years without knowing about them. There are other types of cancers that start, and then go away on their own. In fact this process is probably happening to most of us without us ever being aware of it. So what likely happened in the person you mention, is one of these two scenarios.
Each of us produces potentially cancerous cells every day. That does not mean we "have cancer". Many cancers are present for many years before we know we have them, but once they cause symptoms, most will progress and be fatal if not treated.
If it is "non-invasive" it is not cancer - yet - but "pre-invasive" cancers do often become invasive. That is why we treat pre-invasive conditions of the cervix and try to find and remove precancerous colon polyps.
Your comment implies that since people might live "10 or 20 years without knowing about" a cancer, that many would live that long after being diagnosed. That's not true. Look at what happens to women who refuse treatment for breast cancer, for example:
If you look at figure 1b, more than twice as many women who rejected medical treatment for their breast cancer were dead at five years than those who accepted treatment.
Quote:
The numbers to look at are: what percentage of people with cancer X and treatment Y lived for longer than 10 years after treatment?
A significant number, which varies with the specific cancer and which you significantly underestimate. See the link above.
Taken when viewing cancer patients as a whole across the entire population, I think you make some accurate statements, but childhood cancers are very different from adult cancers, and they do have an extremely high cure rate ("cure" as in gone forever, never to return). And, this cure rate has doubled, if not tripled, in the past 30 years. It's done so because of the fact that childhood cancers are different diseases than adult cancers, and most respond more readily to treatment. The big success in treating childhood cancers, however, comes from the fact that treatment is almost always done in large academic centers and is very coordinated with nearly all patients on nationwide protocols that are overseen by a large national group. Faculty often know each other all since it's a small specialty, and work very closely with one another in different centers to share data. Adult cancers are treated in a much more disjointed fashion, which sometimes lessens the ability to share best practices.
What many childhood cancer survivors (like all cancer survivors) do have, is long term health issues, like cardiac problems, infertility, greatly increased risks for other cancers etc, and these health issues often don't present until many decades after treatment.
At least the above is my conclusion based on what I learned while working in one of the largest pediatric cancer centers in the world, and having a close family member who is a childhood cancer survivor.
I wish the Media and the ads for the Cancer treatment centers would give a disclosure on this as do ads for pharmaceuticals we see advertised all the time. Most people have no idea of the side effects that go along with Cancer treatment.
As I see it, the issue here is not just whether or not people should take a chance on these Cancer drugs but whether or not they have the right to refuse them. If the patient is given the odds of survival along with all knowledge of the side effects of the drugs they will be given and chooses to reject the the treatment, it should be their right to do so.
I wish the Media and the ads for the Cancer treatment centers would give a disclosure on this as do ads for pharmaceuticals we see advertised all the time. Most people have no idea of the side effects that go along with Cancer treatment.
As I see it, the issue here is not just whether or not people should take a chance on these Cancer drugs but whether or not they have the right to refuse them. If the patient is given the odds of survival along with all knowledge of the side effects of the drugs they will be given and chooses to reject the the treatment, it should be their right to do so.
No question the chemo has potentially devastating affects on health later in life, but if the prognosis is good, treatment is better than the alternative. I would think that detailed discussion of the risks and long term side effects would be discussed by the Oncologist. It certainly should be.
They go to great efforts to track these childhood cancer survivors. There are long term survivors clinics at many of the big centers, and a comprehensive LT survivors study. My family member has received questionnaires about his health status several times a year for almost 20 years now.
I wish the Media and the ads for the Cancer treatment centers would give a disclosure on this as do ads for pharmaceuticals we see advertised all the time. Most people have no idea of the side effects that go along with Cancer treatment.
As I see it, the issue here is not just whether or not people should take a chance on these Cancer drugs but whether or not they have the right to refuse them. If the patient is given the odds of survival along with all knowledge of the side effects of the drugs they will be given and chooses to reject the the treatment, it should be their right to do so.
Really hate to even mention this..BUT just like Politicians demand.. "PAYFOR" ability to gain access to treatment or legislations that COST $$$
Then gain..for the freedom for adults and their family supporters..realize..the treatment has NO guarantee's ..Thus after years of treatments ( tho will say many treatments have advanced..THO too costly to endure yet another disappointment and continuing sufferings
Just when Humanity realize..SOMETIME the Pain and suffering Physically, mentally emotionally OUTWEIGHS what some rationalize as Never give up mentality.. $$ and continuous setbacks and suffering by patient and Family MUST be Considered.
Yike's I trained back in the late '60's and was taught back then " Conservative/Compassionate Care" back then..WHY can't some of the ideologues accept the fact they cannot force their refusals to allow freedom of choice??? Somethings missing...Walk a block in those shoes..these ideologues would or should UNDERSTAND!!
Heck..WE don't think twice about euthanizing a beloved pet ..WHY?? because they are suffering..and the cost of maintaining is fruitless..and they still suffer..BUT for Human's..NOPE, ADVID deniers for freedom to chose their own path means NOTHING!! Power for some odd reason has always escaped my common sensical knowledge base. Take care of a person suffering..and watch the family react/patient's wants and needs..MOST don't want to die..BUT Geesh..Suffer like these folks..Wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy!!
Kind of makes us older folks remember just what Kevorkian was trying to say!
Choosing to die with Dignity has NOTHING to do with Government..IT's a personal choice!! Denying that ability to chose is simply making something wrong with Life Dignity choices..
.It's always bothered me..throughout my whole career...Sure wouldn't ever take it onto my own self to make that decision..THAT's because I do respect the individual decision..It's simply respecting and supporting the patient and family..has NOTHING to do with Government deciding.. At least in Canada..it isn't about the Costs..as All care is covered in situations like this..BUT in USA..Often it is a factor~~
The girl is now an adult and the state can no longer force her to undergo any type of treatment. It will now be her choice and she stated in the news that she will persue alternatives. I think the state did more harm then good to this girl in their decision to forcefully remove her from her home, her family and hold her in a hospital against her will for 5 months while being forced to undergo chemo.
I wish the Media and the ads for the Cancer treatment centers would give a disclosure on this as do ads for pharmaceuticals we see advertised all the time. Most people have no idea of the side effects that go along with Cancer treatment.
As I see it, the issue here is not just whether or not people should take a chance on these Cancer drugs but whether or not they have the right to refuse them. If the patient is given the odds of survival along with all knowledge of the side effects of the drugs they will be given and chooses to reject the the treatment, it should be their right to do so.
I see we are at it again on this old thread.
No. The issue is whether parents ought to have the right to make a decision with probable lethal consequences for a minor child.
Adults (and I understand this girl is now an adult) have the right to accept or reject medical treatment as they please.
I'm sure that some cancer survivors do have issues as a result of the disease and the medication used to treat it.
I fall back though on the fact that without this treatment this disease is virtually 100% fatal. At the time doing something about it was an exigency. There comes a point when you have to act and further debate is harmful. Sometimes, its wonderful to think your greatest worry are problems that may occur in the future.
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.
It is now Cassandra's choice, and nobody else's, to determine what she wants to do. Would you take away these rights and give the power and determination of that to Doctors and the State? Absolutely, not.
