Cancer Research - Advances or Not?

After reading the article, it sounds to me like the writer is trying to call "Bullsh**", on the rosy reports from the Gov that say the "war is being won".

My sister's husband had a brain tumor, that was completely removed 10 years ago. Unfortunately, the surgery did more damage than the tumor. And the "state of the art", hasn't changed much. It sounds as if early detection is still the best bet. Then it can be operated on, without damaging the surrounding tissue to much.

I have a friend that I work with, whose wife just went through the same procedure. They couldn't get all of the tumor. So he is looking into cyberknife surgery (http://www.accuray.com/) for her. I hope it works; for both their sakes. In the meantime, he and his wife are doing things like taking Cruises, that they have been putting off for years.

Hope I didn't depress you as much as I did myself. There is SOME progress being made; it just isn't as dramatic and upbeat, as some reports make it sound.

Call me cynical, but I think the most telling statement the article made was: "With government financing for cancer research frozen since 2003, critics say the pace of progress could slow even more as young researchers leave the field.". Which sounds to me like politically acceptable population control. Hope I'm wrong.

Hang in there Case

Having much experience with various Cancers & treatments in my family.

And Having been thru the time tested versions of Surgery then Chemo & Radiation therapy for colon rectal cancer myself and survived.

And just a few years ago a experimental treatment for a small tumor in my spinal column at the base of my skull. That I was worried that the surgery to remove would do more damage than good.

The tumor in my spinal column hasn't gotten any better but it hasn't gotten any worse either. And when they originally found it they said a year to live at the most.

I can safely say that there are advancements being made but they are slow in coming.

I like to say "If it weren't for Cancer in my family, we would live for ever." Seems to be the only disease that we die of. Lost 3 grand parents, 2 brothers, 1 sister, 1 father and probably soon my mother. Among many other aunts & uncles & cousins to one form of cancer or another.

But they still insist that its not a genetic disorder. Guess they say that because of the many different types that each of us have or had.

Really sorry to hear of your predicament scotchdrnkr, my experience is nothing compared to yours.

It was never a genetic issue in my family, none of my wifes family ever had( read known about) cancer. Unfortunately we have a 14 year old daughter who now lives with cancer in the family for whom the story has significantly changed.

She will have to be checked from the age of 18 to catch it early if it happens. Fingers crossed it does not but she will still have to go for the check ups so the stress related to that is going to be there.

I know there has been a lot of improvements and they have followed eachother faster and faster as well. It is just too close to our heart to see the media "rape" a story with such ridiculous science and evidence. It upsets me so I lash out.

Thank you for your reply, It is much appreciated and I wish you and your family well.

I believe that IF funds have been frozen, a big reason why they have been frozen--that is frozen in the US--is because of the Bush administration setting in place a huge roadblock to cancer research advancement and that is the halting of funding for embryonic stem cell research. However advances are being made in that field that sidestep the current legistration such as

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/science/23cnd-stem.html

Which describes how stem cells have been duplicated without destroying embryos.

Another advancement that is extremely helpful is the use of nanoparticles that target only mestastic cells and have a high success rate.

http://news.med.cornell.edu/wcmc/wcmc_2005/03_16b_05.shtml

I also read an article in the past month or so that stated they had found some sort of protein/hormone that is absent in patients that have prolonged cancer, I forget the name of the protein/hormone currently, but they took the similiar gene that causes the production of this protein/hormone that occurs in mice, and introduced the protein/hormone into the mice and the cancerous cells disapeared. It sounded a highly uninvasive method that had few side effects with very promising results.

So, unless there is some large anonymous funds donor, I find it hard to believe that if funds have completely frozen from the government since 2003, that these types of advancements are still being made. As for cancer, advancements ARE being made, and I believe cancer treatment is becoming less harsh, with a slowly declining death rate percentage. Slow, but deffinitely present.

Recently saw a news release on the Internet indicating that there may shortly not be a need for embryonic stem cells. The news release was aimed at having women donate their placenta directly after delivery of the baby. It suggested there were far more stem cells available there than from the embryos.

I share the concern of the one poster who has had numerous family members pass away from the disease. I have had several close relatives succumb to cancer also. My son-in-law has been involved as a cancer researcher for several years and I like to discuss the subject with him for the sake of my knowledge base. It seems that much is known, but there are so many mechanisms involved whereby cancers can occur and grow that the task is ominous. From my perspective, I believe cancer to be genetic in many cases, especially since cell reproduction seems to become less accurate as we age. I suspect some cancers even come about because of the inaccuracies in cell reproduction, in spite of the many different checks and balances built into the system.

Although there is proof behind cancer being genetic, it has also been shown that cancer cells are generated when a defect happens in the replication, and a lot of times this is either because of foreign chemical introduction, bombardment from the various types of wave radiation that is all around us, or lack of a certain chemical/protein/hormone that induce the production of cancer cells.

Catch falls in our body are made to protect ourselves from defective replications. Defects only pass through at the most at 1 in several million cell reproductions--usually tens of billions, and for those single defects that often occur in sections of our genes that do not affect our lives (well over 50% of our genetic material) the ability to create cancerous cells with those odds is small, so many researchers believe that certain chemicals mixed with excess energy from the waves that surround us has been the big culprit behind the "cause" of cancer.

Although certain types of cancer are prevalent in various families,these are typically specific types of cancer, not cancer as a whole. For example, prostate cancer may be prevailent in your family but no one in your family has ever had a brain tumor, or breast cancer. But all the same it is still just prevalent, not imminent. There have been countless cases where only the grandmother will have breast cancer, and maybe one other relative will also have it. Keep in mind that sometimes your cousins, or other relatives that have cancer also have various genes and odds that they had to be the one in their family. there are many sides of probability involved in genetics, not necessarily genetic inheritance. genetic inheritance affects the odds that you have, but does not determine whether or not you will get cancer.

Cancer as a whole is not from genetic inheritance, but rather from polution, (environmental and wave radiations) substance abuse by the individual and on a corporate level, and general lack of maintainance of our bodies. The way you take care of yourself will certainly affect whether you will be diagnosed with cancer.

Sorry for the bluntness of my post to any of you that have someone affected by cancer in your family and may have become upset at my post.

Thank you for your post biggjoshie,

I would like to ask you how do you take care of yourself?

Before reading on I would like to ask you to think about that in earnest.

In a world where everything is wrapped in plastic, where mobile phone masts are emitting radio waves, where electricity pylons emit magnetic waves, where governments make legislation affecting your wellbeing, where gasses are pumped into the atmosphere by industry, where...........................................................................................................................

you seem to have very little to say about what you are surrounded by.

In one sentence you state the influences around you as a major cause of cancer but you then follow through with making a statement that almost sounds like an accusation to the individual concerned.

I don't get that myself. Cancer is now so prevalent that every person alive at least knows somebody who had cancer. Most know somebody that died from it. Can you put your hand on your heart and tell us that you really believe what you just said?

Certainly, I mean we are surrounded by all these toxic un niceties and the amounts are steadily rising. Why do you think there are so many more cases of cancer, and different kinds of cancer. I am sorry if my words made you think that the individual is at fault here,it was deffinitely not my aim to target cancer patients and put them at fault. I am saying there are cerainly things that can be done by the individual that help to lower the odds of getting cancer throughout our lives, from maintaining a healthy diet to lowering one's personal contribution to pollution, through cutting down on buying unneeded consumer items-to walking 20 minutes to work every day rather than drive your car to help lower congestion and pollution. but here I digress because there are countless things that can be done to try to better our surroundings, and I try to stay away from the treehugger attitude when talking about cancer. However these things would not hinder any better global health.

I guess my main point was much too subtle, and that instead I should have said that polution of any kind is not helping your chacnes of avoiding cancer. The second point I intended to convey was that the individual does have some say throughout their lives to help prevent cancer from invading their bodies.

Ok, that is much better balanced and sounds quite acceptable to me. I am sorry to have "hacked" on that point but it worries me sometimes how elementary aspects of statements are glossed over.

I understand you now and I fully agree. Our environment does not help a lot but we can still do a lot towards helping ourselves with regards to cancer and indeed other illnesses.

Take care,

Case491

I agree with how we take care of ourselves & our environment having a lot to do with the particular Cancer we have.

I for the most part take care of my body. Other than my drinking of alcohol I try not to put any more poisons into my body than I can help. I eat as healthy as I can. Lots of Fresh Fruits & Veggies maybe to much red meat. But for the most part healthy stuff. But I still have to deal with the disease.

My brother who passed at the age of 30 was what I considered oner of the Healthiest people I've ever met. Till he got Cancer.

He never drank alcohol or smoked. Played so many sports that we never saw him except when he came home to eat, take a shower or sleep. He didn't even have the body shape of our family. We are all tall skinny bean poles. He was tall and all muscle as wide as he was tall. So either the environment or genetics caused his cancer.

My father smoked & drank since he was a teenager in the army. And died with his favorite pipe in one hand and a beer in the other. He Had lung, prostrate, and colon cancer. His cancers probably came from the way he treated his body.

Hi to all,

cancer is not a single illness but more that 1200 different illnesses!

And any one of these in the course of progressing disease is developing in an unpredictable manner that is judged on a statistical basis or - if better medical support is existing - is judged on the basis of biomedical markers and chromosomal analysis. But nobody can precict which course the illness will take.

The farther the chromosomes have developed away from the healthy set of code the worse the outlook.

You are right that progress of development of new meds is much too slow.

To blame is the FDA and similar other government instititions in other countries.

Also for treatment of final illnesses as cancer in late stages when conventional established therapy is no longer giving results, in this desperate situation the doctors are not allowed to use new an unproven meds but have to wait for years and 200 to 300million $ spent for evaluation of safety of use: it is necessary to prove that these new meds do no harm to the patients.

This is ridiculous but established policy. The patients are in desperate need for saving their lives and the meds are tested if safe to anybody!

See for the story of "Provenge" this year.

Worse than this is the stora of USPIO (search for Barentsz in Nijmwegen in Holland),

this new imaging method can detect metastasis of prostate cancer (may be others too) as small as 2mm, where conventional methods are limited to 8mm (30times the volume!), so very often too late. There was an experimental trial in the US that was suspended by the FDA because there was 1 unexpected death during his imaging. This imaging is done by ultrafine magnetic particles that attach to the cancer cells. 1 unexpected and unexplained death is very bad but what about the lives that are not saved because metastatic disease has spread to many other sites because accepted diagnostic tools are so inferior?

So the best you can do is to intensify pressure on government officials to change this practice!

And if you hav some venture capital to invest then go to immvarx.com

And don't believe too much to public rumor: there is a warning to stay away from sunlight because too severe exposure is triggering maligneous melanoma , the black skin cancer, very, very dangerous.

But enough sunlight will cause enough synthesis of vitamine D3 and this will prevent nearly 50% of cancers of most of our inner organs. See LEF.org for compiled experience, search pubmed.gov for any information you need, use quosa.com to organise this search and you will know more than most docs.

And don't forget to put pressure on your government!

RHABE

case491:

About 30,000 American men die of prostate cancer each year. About 600 will die this week. The good news is that, for future years, almost all of them could be saved by taking the correct action starting now. The technology exists, but the will-to-win doesn't. Here's how it COULD be:

1) Beginning at age 40, or earlier if there's a family history, all men could be effectively screened, using PSA and DRE's (Digital Rectal Exams), for early cancer.

2) Suspicious results could be followed up with biopsies and appropriate scans.

3) Diagnosis could be followed by immediate surgery or radiation to remove or destroy the tumor(s) before they metastasize, resulting in a cure.

That's how it COULD be, and almost all of the 30,000 lives per year would be saved. Here's how it really IS:

1) "Experts" bicker endlessly about recommending general screening because of cost, possible false positives, and questions as to whether it really extends life (more on that later).

2) Once diagnosed, patients are advised that there is really no need to rush into the risks and side effects of treatment because there is "no proven survival benefit" for early treatment (WRONG!!!). "Watchful Waiting" and other euphemistic terms entice patients to indulge in a particularly dangerous form of Russian Roulette in order to continue the good life for a few more months or years. Meanwhile the cancer is growing in size and aggressiveness and, at some moment, will metastasize and the battle will be lost.

Why is there this "disconnect" between what could be and what is? Several reasons. One of them is obvious from the foregoing material. If you take the trouble to find the cancer early, then do nothing until it's too late, is it surprising that survival statistics don't show a clear benefit for early screening? That's normal practice.

There's too much more to this to include here, but one major root cause is the perception in the medical world that prostate cancer is very slow growing and probably won't kill you...... but they aren't mathematicians or statisticians. They proceed as though it's true of ALL patients. For most patients, in the beginning, it is true, but those 30,000 people aren't being killed by an indolent, passive disease. They are dying in pain from an aggressive cancer that can double as frequently as every 10 days and can mutate to defeat any known treatment.

There's enough more to this story to fill a book, but I tried that and found that few people turn to an engineer for cancer information.

Best Regards.

DickL