America's 40 year war on cancer

User avatar
zzontar
Guru
Posts: 8868
Joined: Oct 12th, 2006, 9:38 pm

Re: America's 40 year war on cancer

Post by zzontar »

Donald G wrote:
Do you really expect the cancer rates to drop while the population increases, life expectancy lengthens and methods of detection become more accurate ??

Is that not a bit unrealistic ??


According to the stats I've dug up, from 1970-1993 the life expectancy rose approximately 5 years, and the rate of cancer went from 163 per 100,000 to 220 per 100,000. As far as early detection:

Here’s another headline: Most cancers are not found until autopsy. That’s because they never caused any noticeable symptoms. Examples abound: 30 – 40 times as many cases of thyroid, pancreatic, and prostate cancer are found in autopsy than ever presented to the doctor. According to a study cited in top British medical journal Lancet 13 Feb 93, early screening often leads to unnecessary treatment: 33% of autopsies show prostate cancer but only 1% die from it.
After age 75, half of males may have prostate cancer, but only 2% die from it. This means that the immune system can hold many problems in check, as long as it is not compromised by powerful procedures. The body has a powerful ability to encapsulate altered tissue areas, indefinitely.


That's a lot of extra money the pharmas make from people who wouldn't have needed treatment. Because there have been hundreds of billions of dollars put into research, I don't think my expectations of better results is unrealistic at all.
They say you can't believe everything they say.
Donald G
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20156
Joined: Jan 29th, 2008, 8:42 pm

Re: America's 40 year war on cancer

Post by Donald G »

by zzontar » 16 minutes ago

Donald G wrote:

Do you really expect the cancer rates to drop while the population increases, life expectancy lengthens and methods of detection become more accurate ??

Is that not a bit unrealistic ??

by zzontar

According to the stats I've dug up, from 1970-1993 the life expectancy rose approximately 5 years, and the rate of cancer went from 163 per 100,000 to 220 per 100,000. As far as early detection:


WADR I am not sure that that proves anything regarding cancer discovery, treatment or possible cures.
User avatar
Bsuds
The Wagon Master
Posts: 54849
Joined: Apr 21st, 2005, 10:46 am

Re: America's 40 year war on cancer

Post by Bsuds »

zzontar wrote:
According to the stats I've dug up, from 1970-1993 the life expectancy rose approximately 5 years, and the rate of cancer went from 163 per 100,000 to 220 per 100,000. As far as early detection:



Seems to be that they are just getting better at diagnosing Cancer sooner. The stat that people are living longer is really the good news, as long as it's a good quality of life and not just making people suffer longer!
One day you will find someone who is obsessed with you.
It will most likely be a Dog, but it is what it is.
User avatar
zzontar
Guru
Posts: 8868
Joined: Oct 12th, 2006, 9:38 pm

Re: America's 40 year war on cancer

Post by zzontar »

Bsuds wrote:
Seems to be that they are just getting better at diagnosing Cancer sooner. The stat that people are living longer is really the good news, as long as it's a good quality of life and not just making people suffer longer!


It's a fact now that cannabis oil can cure cancer with no side-effects although of course it's not a cure-all, but neither is chemo and radiation which have bad side-effects. Of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on research, you'd figure they would look into the oil a bit more... but that would mean losing mass amounts of money unless they could duplicate the effects of the inexpensive oil and put it into an expensive pill form.

As I previously posted, India can produce a cancer drug for 3% of what they sell it for here and they still must generate a profit, so it's obvious that helping cancer patients is far from the main goal here.

Even if you need vitamins because of your cancer, there are no regulations on them so you could be buying filler... this also seems criminal as it could affect one's health considerably.
They say you can't believe everything they say.
User avatar
Partmanpartfish
Übergod
Posts: 1775
Joined: Apr 5th, 2014, 4:51 pm

Re: America's 40 year war on cancer

Post by Partmanpartfish »

Sadly, after Obama's SOTU words on cancer, the right-wing crazies are already out. Soon, the wingnuts will be denying cancer even exits.

Fox News doctor tells Obama to skip the ‘war on cancer’: ‘He’s the wrong commander-in-chief’

ox News Medical A-Team member Dr. Marc Siegel suggested to the hosts of Fox & Friends on Thursday that Barack Obama should not push to cure cancer because he was the “wrong commander-in-chief” for the job.

During President Obama’s State of the Union Address on Tuesday, he announced that Vice President Joe Biden would lead a “moon shot” to find a cure for cancer.

On Thursday’s edition of Fox & Friends, host Steve Doocy argued that there was nothing special about Obama’s proposal because Republican President Richard Nixon had also “waged a war” on cancer.

“Some people when they saw this said, ‘Wait a minute, isn’t President Obama’s Obamacare kind of stifling innovation with all the penalties and taxes and regulations?'” Doocy opined.

“Absolutely,” Siegel agreed. “He’s the wrong commander-in-chief in the war on cancer.”

The doctor said that Nixon had “put his money where his mouth is” by budgeting an extra $100 million to cure cancer.

However, Siegel argued that Obama was actually hurting cancer research by insuring more Americans with the Affordable Care Act.

“Guess what won’t cover this stuff? Obamacare,” Siegel griped. “Because Obamacare is one size fits all. Obamacare is not going to say, ‘Hey, this cancer that you have that no one else has, we’re going to get insurance to cover it.'”

“Obamacare is narrow networks of doctors,” he continued. “It doesn’t include most of these major medical centers, the cancer institutes. It won’t include these treatments that are $100,000 per year. And not only that, as you just said, it stifles innovation.”

Doocy doubted that Obama was serious about curing cancer, and wondered if the idea was just an “homage to Joe” instead of an “actual effort” because the vice president’s son had recently died of cancer.

“It’s a very nice sentiment for Joe Biden,” Siegel agreed, adding that Obama was just “glomming on” to the effort so he could take credit for an eventual cancer cure.

“He wants to take a bow here,” he quipped. But he’s not really delivering.”

Media Matters pointed out that conservative media outlets had “distorted” an Associated Press report which found that only four of 19 cancer centers surveyed said that all health insurance plans had access to all treatments.

“Nothing in the AP report says that any of the cancer treatment facilities are excluded from all of the exchange plans in a given state, like the New York Post and Fox suggest,” Media Matters noted. “The truth is that a hospital being included in a particular plan’s network is a decision that’s made between the provider and the insurance company, and the choice to restrict access to certain providers, especially high-cost providers, is one that insurance companies have been making for decades.”

A press release from the White House this week revealed that President Barack Obama had budgeted a $215 million investment “to accelerate biomedical discoveries and provide clinicians with new tools, knowledge, and therapies to select which treatments will work best for which patients.”

The statement said that the effort would include “the design and testing of effective, tailored treatments for cancer by expanding genetically based clinical cancer trials, exploring fundamental aspects of cancer biology, and establishing a national “cancer knowledge network” that will generate and share new knowledge to fuel scientific discovery and guide treatment decisions.”



http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/fox-new ... -in-chief/

And they wonder why we call them wingnuts.
Donald G
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20156
Joined: Jan 29th, 2008, 8:42 pm

Re: America's 40 year war on cancer

Post by Donald G »

by zzontar » Today, 10:50 am

It's a fact now that cannabis oil can cure cancer with no side-effects although of course it's not a cure-all, but neither is chemo and radiation which have bad side-effects.


One of the most ridiculous statements consistently made regarding "marijuana" and "cancer" is that "MARIJUANA CURES CANCER".

Which of the 200 kinds of cancer are you talking about ??
Which of the 100 or so strains or blends of marijuana are you talking about ??
Are we talking on a laboratory with cells or in the human body ??
What do you mean by cure because cancer cells are in and being controlled by many bodies ??
jimmy4321
Guru
Posts: 6844
Joined: Jun 6th, 2010, 5:40 pm

Re: America's 40 year war on cancer

Post by jimmy4321 »

Those blanket statements are what make the most boisterous marijuana legalization supporters appear as kooks.
User avatar
zzontar
Guru
Posts: 8868
Joined: Oct 12th, 2006, 9:38 pm

Re: America's 40 year war on cancer

Post by zzontar »

I guess some have trouble distinguishing the difference between oil cures cancer and oil can cure cancer.
They say you can't believe everything they say.
ochema62
Newbie
Posts: 40
Joined: Dec 31st, 2006, 9:32 pm

Re: America's 40 year war on cancer

Post by ochema62 »

The notion of a silver bullet cure for cancer is a myth. Look at the billions spent on research. The focus of big pharma is the management of chronic disease such as diabetes, heart disease, hyper tension etc..
Think of the money a cancer brings in. Dr. consults, treatment via radiation, chemo and surgery. Follow up appointments. All the drugs to treat side effects.
Donald G
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20156
Joined: Jan 29th, 2008, 8:42 pm

Re: America's 40 year war on cancer

Post by Donald G »

by ochema62 » 14 minutes ago

The notion of a silver bullet cure for cancer is a myth.


I suppose that that depends on which one of the 200 different types of cancer you are talking about and where in the body the cancer is located in terms of the drug actually accessing the individual cancer cells.

Since there is documented evidence of certain types of cancer going into remission in the body of humans it is obvious that there is something in the body that "triggers" such remissions, just as there have to be body conditions that cause cancer cells to begin to reproduce out of control.

There are certain drugs, both registered and unregistered, that I believe have the potential to put cancer into remission if not actually kill individual cancer cells in the human body. IMO, for certain types of cancer located in certain parts of the human body, certain specific blends of the 200 chemicals and compounds contained in marijuana seem to help the body deal with cancer growths in some people.
User avatar
zzontar
Guru
Posts: 8868
Joined: Oct 12th, 2006, 9:38 pm

Re: America's 40 year war on cancer

Post by zzontar »

ochema62 wrote:The notion of a silver bullet cure for cancer is a myth. Look at the billions spent on research. The focus of big pharma is the management of chronic disease such as diabetes, heart disease, hyper tension etc..
Think of the money a cancer brings in. Dr. consults, treatment via radiation, chemo and surgery. Follow up appointments. All the drugs to treat side effects.


Like the old time mafia, the pharmas impose a threat to your life that will only be held at bay with regular payments even though they have the ability to alleviate the threat... except it's somehow legal.
They say you can't believe everything they say.
Donald G
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20156
Joined: Jan 29th, 2008, 8:42 pm

Re: America's 40 year war on cancer

Post by Donald G »

by zzontar » less than a minute ago

Like the old time mafia, the pharmas impose a threat to your life that will only be held at bay with regular payments even though they have the ability to alleviate the threat... except it's somehow legal.


It would be sad if that was true. Fortunately for Canadians it is not true.
User avatar
zzontar
Guru
Posts: 8868
Joined: Oct 12th, 2006, 9:38 pm

Re: America's 40 year war on cancer

Post by zzontar »

If only there was a way to detect cancer that was more accurate at a fraction of the price... but wait...

http://dogsdetectcancer.org/can-dogs-smell-cancer/

There are many published studies that prove dogs can detect cancer through breath samples, and scientists and doctors are trying to come up with a breathalyzer test that works as good as the dogs nose. So far, the only ones that can smell cancer in early stages, are the dogs.


http://ict.sagepub.com/content/5/1/30

Code: Select all

 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. 


Now why wouldn't they use dogs on a regular basis, you could even get a second opinion from a different dog. More accurate, less expensive... in reality most every healthy dog that gets put down is a potential cancer detection machine... win-win for all... except the pharmas. Using dogs could save health care/taxpayers a fortune and save more lives, so who's interest does our health care system have in mind?
They say you can't believe everything they say.
Donald G
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20156
Joined: Jan 29th, 2008, 8:42 pm

Re: America's 40 year war on cancer

Post by Donald G »

by zzontar » less than a minute ago

If only there was a way to detect cancer that was more accurate at a fraction of the price... but wait...

http://dogsdetectcancer.org/can-dogs-smell-cancer/
Now why wouldn't they use dogs on a regular basis, you could even get a second opinion from a different dog. More accurate, less expensive... in reality most every healthy dog that gets put down is a potential cancer detection machine... win-win for all... except the pharmas. Using dogs could save health care/taxpayers a fortune and save more lives, so who's interest does our health care system have in mind?


Are you saying that, in Canada there is something stopping anyone from using a cancer sensitive dog to determine if they have cancer or not ??

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. Dogs detecting SOME kinds of cancer has been known for at least 20 years, just as some dogs have the ability to detect when their owner is about to have an epileptic seizure.
User avatar
zzontar
Guru
Posts: 8868
Joined: Oct 12th, 2006, 9:38 pm

Re: America's 40 year war on cancer

Post by zzontar »

Donald G wrote:
Are you saying that, in Canada there is something stopping anyone from using a cancer sensitive dog to determine if they have cancer or not ??



I'm saying that in Canada it's not part of the health care system but it's not, so it would be hard to find one.
They say you can't believe everything they say.

Return to “World”