America's 40 year war on cancer

[zzontar]

Personally I see dogs as being very limited in terms of the types and size of cancer that they can detect and will stick with the far more reliable medical tests available.

Look at the statistics I posted on how accurate the dogs are. Now look at this:

http://cancermisdiagnosisguide.com/cancer-statistics/

Misdiagnosis of Cancer Statistics

The curability of most cancers is much better when the cancer is caught in early stages. Unfortunately, misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis of cancer are very common. Misdiagnosis or a delayed diagnosis can cost the patient extra time and money, allow the patient’s health to deteriorate, and put the patient’s life at risk. Many deaths could be prevented if the rate of misdiagnosis was not so high.

It is estimated that approximately 10 to 20 percent of all cases of cancer are misdiagnosed. One study found that about 28 percent of the mistakes made out of 583 cases were life threatening or life altering. It is estimated that at least 40,000 cancer patients die each year as a result of misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. Many cases of misdiagnosis go unreported, so the statistics surrounding cancer misdiagnosis are rough estimates based on the number of cases that are reported.

... or how about mammograms?

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... grams.aspx

"Screening led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent. This means that for every 2000 women screened for 10 years, one will have her life prolonged, and 10 healthy women who would not have been diagnosed if they had not been screened, will be treated unnecessarily."

... from the first link on dogs:

Yes, dogs can smell cancer. They can even smell it “in situ”, or at stage zero.

Donald, which more reliable method are you referring too, and with the stats in front of you, please tell the women out there why a mammogram would be better than using dogs to detect breast cancer.

[Donald G]

by zzontar » Yesterday, 9:32 pm

Donald, which more reliable method are you referring too, and with the stats in front of you, please tell the women out there why a mammogram would be better than using dogs to detect breast cancer.

If you go back and read what I actually wrote I said that "I" would continue to use what to me are standard more reliable ways of being checked for cancer. IMO few dogs can be so trained. Everyone gas the right to decide the issue for themselves. That includes the option of using a dog to determine if they have cancer.

Why would you suggest I explain my personal decision to anyone else ??

[zzontar]

If you go back and read what I actually wrote I said that "I" would continue to use what to me are standard more reliable ways of being checked for cancer. IMO few dogs can be so trained. Everyone gas the right to decide the issue for themselves. That includes the option of using a dog to determine if they have cancer.

Why would you suggest I explain my personal decision to anyone else ??

I was wondering what you consider to be a more reliable way of checking for cancer. If you think you do know of a more reliable way, why wouldn't you want to share that with anyone?

[Donald G]

by zzontar » Jan 21st, 2016, 8:42 am

I was wondering what you consider to be a more reliable way of checking for cancer. If you think you do know of a more reliable way, why wouldn't you want to share that with anyone?

Articles like the following from people who have first hand knowledge of dogs that seem able to sniff cancer cause me to consider other forms of medical testing more accurate on the average.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20/health/ca ... ling-dogs/

[zzontar]

From your link:

Over the years, she has been able to detect cancer correctly more than 95% of the time. That's better than some lab tests used to diagnose cancer.

I'd still like to know which method you think is more reliable.

Dr. Sheryl Gabram thinks she knows why. The Emory University surgeon published a study four years ago showing that a machine, like a dog, could reliably detect the smell of breast cancer from patients' breath samples. Excited about their success, her team sought money for more studies. They failed.

"We submitted everywhere and could never get it funded to move the research any further," said Gabram, the surgeon-in-chief at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta and director of the hospital's AVON Comprehensive Breast Cancer Center.

The problem, she thinks, is that while cancer-smelling dogs (or machines) make for great headlines -- one of her own patients received a great deal of publicity -- it's not always easy to envision how sniffing out cancer could be used commercially.

Hmm, so there's an accurate, inexpensive way of detecting cancer with no side effects and they can't figure out a way to use it commercially... how about instead of mammograms for starters?... oh right... where's the money in that.

[zzontar]

Something to consider next time you want to donate to cancer:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/cancer-so ... -1.1080909

CBC's Marketplace analyzed the Canadian Cancer Society’s financial reports dating back a dozen years. It discovered that each year, as the society raised more dollars, the proportion of money it spent on research dropped dramatically — from 40.3 per cent in 2000 to under 22 per cent in 2011.

http://survivornet.ca/en/cancer_basics/ ... ast_cancer

Research on metastatic cancers in general is low, in fact, only 5 percent of cancer research funds are spent on metastases while it kills 90% of all cancer patients [1]

So when it's all said and done, of all the billions and billions of dollars donated, next to none of it is spent researching metastatic cancer that's killing 90% of cancer patients. The way it works now is insanely criminal IMO

I'm not saying people shouldn't donate, but they should have a say in where the money goes, especially when you're talking hundreds of billions of dollars.

[Donald G]

by zzontar » Jan 23rd, 2016, 7:31 pm

I'd still like to know which method you think is more reliable.

According to the string on the information provided by actual "cancer dog" trainers and handlers, medical testing is still more reliable than dogs. Also it seriously depends on the size and location of the cancer growth as to whether a highly trained dog (7 years) can identify that cancer exists.

Right now ''dogs can detect cancer" is in the same bracket as "marijuana cures cancer".

Some dogs, sometimes, some cancers, under certain conditions would be more accurate.

[zzontar]

According to the string on the information provided by actual "cancer dog" trainers and handlers, medical testing is still more reliable than dogs. Also it seriously depends on the size and location of the cancer growth as to whether a highly trained dog (7 years) can identify that cancer exists.

Right now ''dogs can detect cancer" is in the same bracket as "marijuana cures cancer".

Some dogs, sometimes, some cancers, under certain conditions would be more accurate.

Could you please provide links on which dogs cannot be trained and which methods are more reliable with less misdiagnosis or side-effects?

Dogs can detect cancer, it's a fact. I'm not saying marijuana cures cancer, I'm saying it can. Do you think chemo and radiation cures cancer?

[zzontar]

Donald, could you also provide a link to a more accurate test than the one i provided?
http://ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/30 and also a link where it takes 7 years to train a dog? From the link:

Conclusion: Training was efficient and cancer identification was accurate; in a matter of weeks, ordinary household dogs with only basic behavioral “puppy training” were trained to accurately distinguish breath samples of lung and breast cancer patients from those of controls.

[Donald G]

I have already posted one article from a cancer dog with seven years training who agrees with what I have said.

"Dogs can identify cancer" is IMO a meaningless statement that lacks any identification of which specific dogs, which specific cancers, under what conditions, what actual tests have been run and what were the conditions and results of the testing.

The most that can be said is that a few unidentified dogs have been able to identify certain unidentified cancers under certain unidentified conditions. Everything beyond that is largely conjecture, including whether any breed(s) of dogs was/were involved in the observations that resulted in the comment that "dogs can accurately identify cancer 95% of the time".

Exaggeration ... ?? Very much so but IMO presents future possibilities.

[zzontar]

This is the only link I can find that you provided on dogs on this thread:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20/health/ca ... ling-dogs/

... and this is the headline:

Meet the dogs who can sniff out cancer better than some lab tests

Links Donald, links

[zzontar]

I have already posted one article from a cancer dog with seven years training who agrees with what I have said.

Most dogs are that way, you tell them anything and they just look at you like they agree... but I would definitely count that as any kind of proof.

[Donald G]

by zzontar » Today, 4:23 pm

Most dogs are that way, you tell them anything and they just look at you like they agree... but I would definitely count that as any kind of proof.

WADR for your many comments I will rely on the information from those actually involved in the testing and trials of the capabilities of dogs to detect cancer and other medical conditions for reliable information. As they themselves say, and the far from conclusive information they have surfaced to date indicates, such dogs are not available at the moment and in trials strictly to try to determine the presence of lung and breast cancer. Both cancers could be said to be on the outside of the body due to the airways.

[zzontar]

WADR for your many comments I will rely on the information from those actually involved in the testing and trials of the capabilities of dogs to detect cancer and other medical conditions for reliable information.

I gather you don't read the links I post so here it is:

Background: Lung and breast cancers are leading causes of cancer death worldwide. Prior exploratory work has shown that patterns of biochemical markers have been found in the exhaled breath of patients with lung and breast cancers that are distinguishable from those of controls. However, chemical analysis of exhaled breath has not shown suitability for individual clinical diagnosis. Methods: The authors used a food reward-based method of training 5 ordinary household dogs to distinguish, by scent alone, exhaled breath samples of 55 lung and 31 breast cancer patients from those of 83 healthy controls. A correct indication of cancer samples by the dogs was sitting/lying in front of the sample. A correct response to control samples was to ignore the sample. The authors first trained the dogs in a 3-phase sequential process with gradually increasing levels of challenge. Once trained, the dogs’ ability to distinguish cancer patients from controls was then tested using breath samples from subjects not previously encountered by the dogs. The researchers blinded both dog handlers and experimental observers to the identity of breath samples. The diagnostic accuracy data reported were obtained solely from the dogs’ sniffing, in double-blinded conditions, of these breath samples obtained from subjects not previously encountered by the dogs during the training period. Results: Among lung cancer patients and controls, overall sensitivity of canine scent detection compared to biopsy-confirmed conventional diagnosis was 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99, 1.00) and overall specificity 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96, 1.00). Among breast cancer patients and controls, sensitivity was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.75, 1.00) and specificity 0.98 (95% CI, 0.90, 0.99). Sensitivity and specificity were remarkably similar across all 4 stages of both diseases. Conclusion: Training was efficient and cancer identification was accurate; in a matter of weeks, ordinary household dogs with only basic behavioral “puppy training” were trained to accurately distinguish breath samples of lung and breast cancer patients from those of controls. This pilot work using canine scent detection demonstrates the validity of using a biological system to examine exhaled breath in the diagnostic identification of lung and breast cancers. Future work should closely examine the chemistry of exhaled breath to identify which chemical compounds can most accurately identify the presence of cancer.

How you find this test unreliable is beyond me.

[Donald G]

Zzontar ...

All of your collective information says that you personally believe that using dogs to identify cancer is the best option available. Those who have worked with the cancer sniffing dogs disagree, as per the two articles that I posted. I agree with them.

Lets leave it at that. It is what it is at the moment and may or may not change in future. Given that machines already exist that can "sniff" hundreds of identified chemicals or substances that exist only in PARTS PER BILLION I expect that if "scent" is used to identify medical diseases or conditions at some point in the future it will be done by machines rather than dogs.