All cancer patients!!

[L M C]

Someone, Somewhere must know of the CURE

[tinfoilhat]

Someone, Somewhere must know of the CURE

 

If there is a cure for cancer, Steve jobs (net worth of $10 billion when he died) would have found it and paid cash for it.

 

He's dead so I'm going to assume there isn't a cure for cancer (not that all cancer is the same but you get my drift).

[Plain Talker]

I must disagree with you Medusa, as in the case of a terminally ill patient, there can be no downside to trying this kind of treatment, as the prognosis is bleak at best. There are too many medical guidelines that stop trialled medicines making its way into mainstream treatment, and the only reason for this is red tape, ie; fear of reprisals toward the medical profession.

Evaluation can only ever be carried out by trial, and due to the ferocious nature of some cancers, this revolutionary treatment should be introduced without haste.

 

I disagree with you, kelly, and i'm sure many other people would say the same thing.

 

My ex mother in law had "stomach problems" and was turning yellow. The doc dismissed it as notning, and packed her off with antacids.

 

Eventually they agreed with her, and the rest of the family, that the yellowing was definitely not right, and actually needed investigating.

 

They operated and discovered she was riddled with cancer. The only thing they could do for her was to close her up, and pump her full of morphine, and she passed a couple of days later.

 

Any other treatment save "making her comfortable" was not practical, not feasible.

Many cancer sufferers would take that same view, of deciding no further painful and prolonged treatment should be inflicted at such a stage in the disease.

Quality of life is, for most people, far more important than quantity.

Five years, lived to the full width and breadth of those five years, is surely far preferable to, say, seven, lived with pain and suffering, with endless rounds of painful treatment, which just takes up time and strength.

I know If i was at the end, and had to choose between spending three hours in a hospital room, having an infusion of chemo, that wasn't much point, and was going to leave me sebilitated, and unable to do anything, or have that couple of hours, instead, spent lucidly, with my grandchildren, in the botanical gardens ( or other pleasant surroundings) i know I'd opt to spend the quality time with my grandies every time.

[kelly4danny]

I disagree with you, kelly, and i'm sure many other people would say the same thing.

 

My ex mother in law had "stomach problems" and was turning yellow. The doc dismissed it as notning, and packed her off with antacids.

 

Eventually they agreed with her, and the rest of the family, that the yellowing was definitely not right, and actually needed investigating.

 

They operated and discovered she was riddled with cancer. The only thing they could do for her was to close her up, and pump her full of morphine, and she passed a couple of days later.

 

Any other treatment save "making her comfortable" was not practical, not feasible.

Many cancer sufferers would take that same view, of deciding no further painful and prolonged treatment should be inflicted at such a stage in the disease.

Quality of life is, for most people, far more important than quantity.

Five years, lived to the full width and breadth of those five years, is surely far preferable to, say, seven, lived with pain and suffering, with endless rounds of painful treatment, which just takes up time and strength.

I know If i was at the end, and had to choose between spending three hours in a hospital room, having an infusion of chemo, that wasn't much point, and was going to leave me sebilitated, and unable to do anything, or have that couple of hours, instead, spent lucidly, with my grandchildren, in the botanical gardens ( or other pleasant surroundings) i know I'd opt to spend the quality time with my grandies every time.

 

The view that is held regarding Cancer is of a woeful, life ending death sentence. Even the word "Cancer" itself, is held as a word to describe something that is horrible, evil or a waste etc. If many people were to think like you suggest, then it would appear that there is no solution, and more to the point, never likely to be. There are some brilliant minds working on this, and have been for a long time, well before you or I could comprehend it. None of us would wish to see the like of your family member, and equally wouldn't want to see them suffer in order to give them an extra few days/weeks. We can only guess or google the process involved when dealing with a particular Cancer, yet we must also admit that there are people out there that are far superior than us, that are striving to find a solution. An example to this would be TB. This disease was responsible for ten-fold more deaths than Cancer to date, and although a "Cure" was found in 1906, it wasn't until after world war 2 that this miracle cure was accepted. History shows that mankind couldn't see a foreseeable cure, and many were convinced that the only answer was prevention on getting it.

Sounds very familiar to the problem of Cancer in our day and age, doesn't it? Don't smoke, don't go near sub-stations, or whatever else that Cancers are blamed on. Its just a real pity that more emphasis isn't made on cure rather than prevention. I agree with you regarding the use of Chemo at such a late stage of the disease, but as for not expanding the use and trial of any new potential treatment is just simply burying ones head in the sand, and accepting a fate that might just be changeable.

[medusa]

I must disagree with you Medusa, as in the case of a terminally ill patient, there can be no downside to trying this kind of treatment, as the prognosis is bleak at best. There are too many medical guidelines that stop trialled medicines making its way into mainstream treatment, and the only reason for this is red tape, ie; fear of reprisals toward the medical profession.

Evaluation can only ever be carried out by trial, and due to the ferocious nature of some cancers, this revolutionary treatment should be introduced without haste.

 

So a terminally ill patient is expected to take unlicensed and untested drugs which may kill them earlier than the disease would kill them? Have you not read that some trials of this drug have been stopped because of safety issues?

 

Trials need to happen in order to verify:

 

1) Whether the results achieved in the lab on individual cells can be replicated in a body, at what dosage and by what administration route,

 

2) Whether the dosages needed to achieve this result are harmful to the patient, and

 

3) Whether there's any long term issues with giving these dosages to a patient.

 

There is very little point in killing tumour cells if the result is death from something caused by really high dosages of the thing that killed the tumour.

 

People here are still taking the term 'cancer' to mean a single disease, and it's not. It's hundreds of different related diseases, which may take a lot of different treatments to cure it. For a lot of them we don't even yet understand what makes them happen in the first place.

[kelly4danny]

So a terminally ill patient is expected to take unlicensed and untested drugs which may kill them earlier than the disease would kill them? Have you not read that some trials of this drug have been stopped because of safety issues?

 

Trials need to happen in order to verify:

 

1) Whether the results achieved in the lab on individual cells can be replicated in a body, at what dosage and by what administration route,

 

2) Whether the dosages needed to achieve this result are harmful to the patient, and

 

3) Whether there's any long term issues with giving these dosages to a patient.

 

There is very little point in killing tumour cells if the result is death from something caused by really high dosages of the thing that killed the tumour.

 

People here are still taking the term 'cancer' to mean a single disease, and it's not. It's hundreds of different related diseases, which may take a lot of different treatments to cure it. For a lot of them we don't even yet understand what makes them happen in the first place.

 

If you agree with what you have written, you must surely understand two of the words you have used are fundamental in the search for solution. Terminal and Trial. Have you read previous papers in the results of trial and test for this disease? I have. And whilst I agree that there are many different types of the disease, there are only two main factors that cause it to develop. Aflatoxins and Nitrosamines. And both of these are environmentally proven to cause Cancer over a long period in up to 80% of cases. It is these two carcinogens that science is trying to suspend. So we do understand what causes them. That isn't the issue. The issue is that the risk of trial is frowned upon, and will continue to be so, until more trials are licenced. A poster said earlier, tongue in cheek, that profit keeps a cure being found, and to be fair that isn't as daft as it sounds.

[medusa]

If you agree with what you have written, you must surely understand two of the words you have used are fundamental in the search for solution. Terminal and Trial. Have you read previous papers in the results of trial and test for this disease? I have. And whilst I agree that there are many different types of the disease, there are only two main factors that cause it to develop. Aflatoxins and Nitrosamines. And both of these are environmentally proven to cause Cancer over a long period in up to 80% of cases. It is these two carcinogens that science is trying to suspend. So we do understand what causes them. That isn't the issue. The issue is that the risk of trial is frowned upon, and will continue to be so, until more trials are licenced. A poster said earlier, tongue in cheek, that profit keeps a cure being found, and to be fair that isn't as daft as it sounds.

 

So the cancer that I was researching into, which is associated pretty much exclusively with androgens and hepatitis C, how does that fit into your picture?

 

Or how about the cancer that I've spent most of my adult life fighting? I got a tumour of spindle scar cells which occurs in the abdominal cavity of multipartum women over 45, except nobody can explain why I got one in my shoulder, aged 26.

 

Aflatoxins and nitrosamines may be carcinogenic, but there are SO many other factors in play.

[kelly4danny]

So the cancer that I was researching into, which is associated pretty much exclusively with androgens and hepatitis C, how does that fit into your picture?

 

Or how about the cancer that I've spent most of my adult life fighting? I got a tumour of spindle scar cells which occurs in the abdominal cavity of multipartum women over 45, except nobody can explain why I got one in my shoulder, aged 26.

 

Aflatoxins and nitrosamines may be carcinogenic, but there are SO many other factors in play.

 

What a bitter and sour reaction??

 

Nobody has ever claimed a 100% source.

Could we not assume its part of the 20% remainder?

 

I have total and utter respect for all people afflicted by this horrid disease, and whatever reasons you have for the disassociation of the promotion of research is beyond me, as you seem to be in the position where research is exactly what you should be championing, just as I do.

You don't need sympathy. You need a voice that is louder than your own. And that is what I and many thousands of others are involved with. And without research, the prognosis is hardly great, is it?

[Plain Talker]

There's nothing bitter and sour about medusa's reaction. Whst she says has a very sound basis.

[medusa]

What a bitter and sour reaction??

 

Nobody has ever claimed a 100% source.

Could we not assume its part of the 20% remainder?

 

I have total and utter respect for all people afflicted by this horrid disease, and whatever reasons you have for the disassociation of the promotion of research is beyond me, as you seem to be in the position where research is exactly what you should be championing, just as I do.

You don't need sympathy. You need a voice that is louder than your own. And that is what I and many thousands of others are involved with. And without research, the prognosis is hardly great, is it?

 

I'm not bitter or sour- I'm a scientist who doesn't believe in assuming that there is one cause unless the evidence says that there is only one cause.

 

You also seem to think that I'm against research. I'm not- I am just against expecting people who are terminally ill to take a medication before all of the safety and dosage data is collected from in vitro studies or animal models first.

 

You're right- I don't need sympathy and I fail to see what purpose you think a voice louder than my own would do in the circumstances. I've got a degree in biochemistry and mammalian molecular biology and if my opinion is going to be changed then it will be changed by a calm and reasoned discussion, not by someone shouting me down.

 

I'm advocating research- I'm just not advocating pumping terminally ill people full of this stuff in the hopes that it works. Proper science and robust study techniques produce strong results which can be replicated and proven, and only THEN will we be ready for the sort of research that you are suggesting on volunteers.