'Cancer myths' believed in U.S., poll shows (includes a cure being hidden)

[HuckleB]

'Cancer myths' believed in U.S., poll shows

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050627/CANCER27/TPHealth/

"Nearly half of American adults mistakenly believe that surgery can spread cancer, according to a new survey, and more than one in four thinks that a cure for cancer exists but is being kept from the public by a profit-driven health-care industry.

Results of the poll, done for the American Cancer Society, are being published in a coming issue of Cancer, the society's medical journal.
The national telephone survey, led by Dr. Ted Gansler, involved 957 adults with no history of cancer, and sought to assess Americans' understanding of the disease and its management. The respondents were asked whether five statements of "cancer myths" were true or false. Only 25 per cent identified all the misconceptions as false.

...

Dr. Gansler said the findings are troubling given the advances in treatment of cancer and survival rates for the most common forms of the disease over the past three decades.

"These results indicate that public and patient education interventions are most urgently needed in cancer centres, medical practices and other community organizations," the researcher said, particularly those that serve people from the demographic groups shown to be least well-informed.

..."


I guess I shouldn't be semi-shocked, but in the pre-coffee morning, I am.

[Horse with no Name]

1. Okay donning flamesuit

As a healthcare professional, I believe that you will see CURES for AIDS before you will see CURES for cancer.
CURES aren't to be confused with treatments--because treatments are expensive.
Cancer is generally a well-funded area whereas AIDS is not.
I believe cancer is a very profitable industry for the pharma companies as well as the hospital industry.
If you think that is not true, then take a walk through a big city AIDS/infectious disease unit and a big city oncology unit.
Hint...the marble floors and chandeliers will clue you in when you reach the oncology unit.

[donco6]

3. I must have missed the chandeliers in my unit.

I didn't see any. We had one big room with couches for intravenous delivery of chemo drugs. Not even a TV to watch.

Guess I must be visiting the wrong place.

[Horse with no Name]

5. You must have.

My oncologists office has 25 individual booths with recliners, TV's, VCR's in each booth. Beautiful aquariums everywhere. If you really feel poorly, then you can take advantage of one of the private bedrooms that they offer.
Of course, this is only in the treatment room--the other 2 stories of the building are set aside for research, patient libraries, offices, lobbies, a deli, etc.
Of course there are marble floors and chandeliers throughout.
Leather furniture in the lobby. Beautiful artwork.

[donco6]

10. Wow.

My onco office had the usual plastic waiting chairs with one TV tuned permanently to Oprah, a beat up copy of Bass Fisherman from 1982, a coffee pot, and one seriously overworked receptionist. The actual treatment room, as I mentioned, had about 15 treatment-style recliners (In that lovely shade of aqua-blue clinics so often use). That's about it.

[Horse with no Name]

15. I tried to find inside pics of it

but this is their website and you can see the outside.

http://www.tylercancercenter.com/

It is very upscale.

[OzarkDem]

32. Uninsured patients need not apply

These high end cancer centers are often difficult for the uninsured to access, no?

[Horse with no Name]

52. I think that would be a correct assumption

However, since I had insurance I cannot say with certainty.:shrug:

[HuckleB]

8. LOL!

I've spent time in every hospital in Portland and Seattle, and more than a few in Phoenix, and I've missed those details myself. I guess those aren't big cities.

;)

[Horse with no Name]

13. Hmmm

Maybe those cities don't do it like they do in Texas.;)
I can only speak from the knowledge of what I have seen. Perhaps the fact that I had excellent insurance was the reason that I ended up in these places as opposed to more practical surroundings--I couldn't say. Both of my oncologists were in very expensive surroundings in two different cities.
Most of the hospitals here have VIP suites, not sure if they have them in your area.
I happened to end up with one--cause I worked there.
It was two-rooms. TV's, VCR's in both rooms.
Had a small kitchen in it furnished with nice china, microwave, refrigerator.
Beds had real linens--not hospital linen.
Plush bath sheets instead of real towels.
Nice pillows.
A friend of mine--who is black--was sitting on the edge of my bed while I was in this suite.
This older white haired lady walked into my room while I was in bed talking to my friend, and demanded to know why "I" got this room and they didn't. She practically spat on my friend.
The nurse had to ask her politely to leave.
I worked at Baylor downtown Dallas and their oncology unit has very nice cherrywood furnishings, marble floors and upgraded light fixtures in the lobby. I suppose it is just what you have seen as opposed to what I have seen.:shrug:

[donco6]

20. Nobody does it like Texas!

I'm with Kaiser.

Is Baylor private? I thought it was a Baptist school. Maybe that makes a difference. All that lovely endowment money!

[Horse with no Name]

29. Baylor is not for profit

EEK Kaiser?
They don't have a very good repuation here in Texas.

I'm sure the endowment money and trusts have something to do with it, however, I did find that they overcharge their patients considerably.
http://www.baylormedicalcenterprices.com/Anci.asp
Markup %'s
Anesthesiology: 494%
Operating room: 228%
Radiology: 556%
Lab: 435%
Electrocardiology: 372%
Medical supplies: 307%

as opposed to Johns Hopkins who basically marks everything up 100%--give or take a couple points.

I'm guessing that the markup allows for these luxury items to entice patients to their facilities.:shrug:

[rexcat]

84. My sister-in-law used to work at Baylor...

and after hearing what she said I wouldn't send a dead rat there for treatment unless you want a hospital acquired infection.

[Princess Turandot]

85. Unless that table only relates to uninsured patients, it doesn't mean ..

too much. Hospitals do not get paid based on charges by most insurers. Medicare pays an inpatient rate based on a diagnosis, using a cost per case base from 1982. It identifies around 700 diagnoses. The payment varies only by geographic area, whether the hospital has a teaching program, and whether the hospital also serves a certain amount of Medicaid patients. The base rate increases each year by a small percentage. Medicaid pays rates set within each state. HMOs often pay rates per day for a hospitalization regardless of diagnosis, the only differences being that they will pay a higher rate per day for ICU and NICU care and sometimes have a flat rate for maternity cases. There are some insurers who pay based on charges, but they will be paying a percentage of charges.The recording of charges are somewhat anachronistic: up until a few years ago, Medicare used them to determine what portion of outpatient costs were their responsibility. I may be mistaken, but I think Medicare still requires that charges be produced for each transaction occuring during a patient's care, even tho it does not impact their payments. They use them for statistical analyses.

When you get an 'explanation of benefits' from an insurer, and certainly from Medicare, you will see the words 'covered charges' on your EOB, not 'paid charges', because what they actually pay is quite different. The hospitals record the difference between the payment and the charges as a 'negative' revenue item called a 'contractual allowance'. The net amount is what gets recorded as revenue on their financial statements.

Uninsured patients are the people, of course, who get screwed because they are frequently billed charges and in some states, hospitals cannot legally discount the charges to patients. But hospitals do not get paid in total the charges which you see recorded on their books.

[gkhouston]

70. agreed. I remember when my best friend went through chemo.

Many naugas gave their lives to upholster the exotic upscale furniture in the treatment center she went to. :sarcasm:

[donco6]

74. And the rare blue naugas to boot.

:)

[HuckleB]

178. Alas, the baby green is extinct.

[rainy]

4. There is a cure for cancer that is not being reported on much

but there is scientific evidence that diet changes can cure cancer, starve it, into disapearing. There have been recorded and published accounts by prestigous health organizations.

[Dora]

21. "Cure"

IMHO Our modern diet does far more to cause cancer than any changes we make after diagnosis can cure it.

Several years ago my aunt was diagnosed with Stage 3 lung cancer and my uncle went into an alt-healing frenzy. Healers? Fine. Acupuncturists? Fine. Group visualizations? Fine. Diet? He went completely wacko.

In the last days of her illness he was screaming at their daughter because she brought saltines to her mother when she was hungry. Not only was this poor woman bed-ridden and dying of a rare and un-responsive-to-treatment lung cancer, she was being starved by her husband because he was having control issues and believed that if she just ate the right food or no food that her cancer would go away.

[rainy]

24. Read post 11 and visit the web page

[OzarkDem]

63. There's no peer reviewed scientific evidence

to show any diet or food cures cancer. There is a growing body of evidence to show it doesn't cure it. Lots of fruits and veggies are very good for you, and people should be encouraged to follow healthy diets. It helps lower risk of heart disease, some diabetes and other health problems, but it doesn't cure cancer.

Cancer isn't one disease, its a category of diseases - malignant neoplasms. Some cancers can be caused by viruses, others by environment, hormonal factors, but most a combination of genetics and environment. They're all different, and there's no one cure or treatment for all of them.

Cancer is also much more complex than AIDS.

[rainy]

64. I disagree and have read large amounts of reports that claim

diet has and does cure cancer. Cancer cannot live in an alkaline based body. The facts are out there for anyone to find. Have you read any books on diet and cancer? I have a friend, cancer patient, and at the clinic he was at a group of doctors used nutrition to treat cancer patients with the consent of the clinic and the results were overwhelming in support of the diet approach. Give me some time and I'll get the name of the cancer institute that treated him.

[HuckleB]

65. So there are peer-reviewed studies showing diet cures of cancer?

Can you give references to these studies?

Thanks.

[Chemical Bill]

90. Is there much money available to study diet and cancer?

I don't spend a lot of time reading peer-reviewed studies of cancer cures, so I don't know how many of them deal with diet as opposed to drugs. It sounds like you do read those studies often. Could you please enlighten me?

Bill

[HuckleB]

92. More than one would suspect.

See post 61 for some short review pieces aimed at the general public, based on studies of diet in regard to cancer treatment. Here's another quick example of an NIH funded study:

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/cancer/9911/29/vitamins.cancer/

[OzarkDem]

112. Post a link

thanks

[shimmergal]

160. Just recently I heard that claim elsewhere--

i.e. "Cancer cannot live in an alkaline based body." I've never heard it before. Could you give some citations?

[jeffrey_X]

139. Agreed. Do some research on Ann Wigmore (sp)....

ingesting wheatgrass is a big part of it.

[HuckleB]

141. Here's one place to start.

http://www.ncahf.org/articles/s-z/wheatgrass.html

[SiouxJ]

6. I doubt we'll ever see "cures" for anything

big pharma has us right where they want us. We have expensive "treatments" for most things but when is the last time we've had a "cure" for anything? My MS meds cost $900 per month. There is no way they want to find a cure for it and cut off that kind of cash flow. They've been getting that out of me and my insurance co. for over 5 years, and I'm just one person. Nope, I don't believe they will ever release a cure, even if they find one (which they probably have already).

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

35. too much money to be made--this is no MYTH- they think we're stoopid ?

good luck with your illness- I hope things are well.

Have you heard about the pharm promotional tactics? (probably not new)
-My friend saw this at work the other day for the millionth time--
The pharmy rep came in and bribed the doctors with a paid vacation if they'd use their drug.

There will never be a cure as long as there's an expensive Snake Oil for people to by buy...
or should I say "be prescribed" (forced) to buy).

But that doesn't mean that some drugs aren't effective. If a great percentage of drugs didn't exhibit effectiveness, the pharms would probably go out of business completely.

[SiouxJ]

54. my meds work very well

They keep the disease in check, so much so that you wouldn't even know I have it.

Yes, I've even had the displeasure of having one of my doctors try to get me to switch my meds (to a new one that costs $2,000 per month) because I'm sure he was offered incentives to do so. It's such a system they have worked out that I really doubt we will ever see any "cures."

[HuckleB]

57. What sort of incentives was he offered?

Can you link us to some pharma programs, where docs get specific benefits for specific prescriptions?

[SiouxJ]

68. Sorry no

I don't have link but I have personal experience with LOTS of doctors over the past 5 years since I was diagnosed. All I know is, this new drug, Tysabri (the $2K/month one), got approval and a few weeks after that happened, my doctor called me on a Sunday evening (he acted like it was quite urgent) and said come in to see him; he wants me to go on it. I have been doing fine on my current meds for 5 years, so there was no reason for me to switch. I have read many articles about doctors being given expensive trips etc. for getting their patients "on board" with a drug. Sorry I can't give you a link. You can believe what you want but I have had so much experience with doctors over the past 5 years that I know when something is suspicious. As a side note, Tysabri was yanked before I even had a chance to decide if I wanted to go on it (was getting a second opinion at the time) because two people died while on it. Funny, but my doctor never made another urgent phone after that happened to discuss other options. It was like he just dropped the idea entirely. If I really needed to go on a new med, he should have called me and said, "let's try something else," but that didn't happen; this only confirmed my suspicions (to me).

[HuckleB]

76. I need evidence.

I've never heard of such a program, never seen such a program, and know no docs who have participated in such a progra. Further, I don't know any doctors who would do what you say your doctor did, especially on a Sunday, when most doctors are hiding from their on-call services, if anything.

In other words, such programs, to me, are myths, until I can be shown otherwise.

[DS9Voy]

99. Have you truly never noticed

the pharma company branded items when you walk in to the doctors?

Maybe your doctor doesn't do it... but mine has "Paxil" pens, vases, clip boards, etc.

Now granted a Paxil "pen" isn't exactly worth a ton... but I have to wonder what else they give out....

[FreedomSpirit]

104. the viagra pens are pretty popular

n/t

[HuckleB]

108. You think that crap makes doctors recommend specific medication?

Think again. And, in this case, we've got someone claiming that she was called on a Sunday evening by her physician in order to change the medication, intimating that the doctor must have gotten something for getting his patients to switch. I know of no "program" that pays doctors to switch their patients to specific medication. And no one has offered one iota of evidence of such a program. So I am still waiting.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

106. I have a witness- my sister in law works at a senior care facility

She's a medical assistant and she's the one who told me about the vacations offered to the doctors for switching to the latest pharm drug.
Maybe she can secretly video it or tape record it when it happens again. She says they do it all the time.
No myth.

[HuckleB]

107. It's a myth. But thanks for trying, I suppose.

You think that no doctor would have reported such a program to the press? You think that every physician in the country is in on this big secret program? But your sister-in-law knows about it? Come on. Pony up some actual evidence, or leave well enough alone. You've got no justificatin for your claim, at this point in time.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

114. any time, thanks for your narrow minded comments, pharms=good---sorry

I told you I had a witness, and it's not uncommon-
-kinda like the old "payola" in the music business-
-you hear about it but they're not going to report it and blow a sweet deal.

But keep on believing in the wholesome goodness of the pharm reps-
-you know it's as corrupt as it gets but you have every right to remain in denial.

[HuckleB]

115. LOL! You told me you had a witness?

So what? I don't even know who you are.

And thanks for misrepresenting what I have said. Disingenuousness always helps one make an argument, doesn't it? No one has said there are not big problems with big pharma. That doesn't mean that every piece of hyperbole one hears about big pharma is true, however.

Show some proof. I've got hundreds of witnesses (docs and nurse practititoners who've never been offered in on such a program), by the way. So stop playing games.

By the way, narrow minded means being unable to look at the full body of evidence. I'm doing that. I don't get the feeling that you are returning the favor, however.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

153. not here to provide proof- just sharing what I know-stay in denial-it's ok

It really doesn't matter if you believe it or not.
I know what I know--it's like trying to prove there's corruption in the government-
just because you don't try to prosecute the dirty bribe takers in court doesn't mean the politicians and deal makers are "clean".

[HuckleB]

154. LOL! Sorry, but you don't know.

Heck, you can't even prove it to yourself. You're just spreading rumors that you may or may not have heard from someone else, my friend. That's a dangerous and dishonest practice. It seems that finding a bogeyman is the important thing for you, regardless of the summer campfire story nature of the bogeyman in question.

Denial is something it's time to look into, indeed. That would be denial about your claim -- for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Pride is clearly skewing your vision.

P.S. -- I won't bother replying to another post of nonsense.

[flashsmith]

148. Not a myth

I friend where I used to work left to become a drug company representative. She would be go to doctors offices and educate the doctors on the benefits of her companies products. She used to hand out some pretty expensive incentives, such a vacations, but there was a crackdown on this practice a couple of years ago. Now she just takes the doctors out to dinner or gives them ballgame or opera tickets. What I found a little alarming is that she gets reports of how much of her companies drugs are being prescribed by each doctor. I guess they have a link with the pharmacies or maybe the insurance companies. If a doctor was prescribing a competitors drugs, she would visit them and ask what's up. It makes me slightly nervous that pressure of any kind is applied against a doctor. I take comfort in my observation that doctors seem to have their list of drugs that they are comfortable with and have produced good results for them in the past. I believe a new drug would have to have a remarkable benefit compared to what they were prescribing for them to switch.

[HuckleB]

149. Well, thanks for yet another story.

It's a bit more to the truth, but with some embellishment. Yes, drug companies once paid for physicians to go to "conferences," which actually offered much more objective education than one would suspect. Still, the ethics of these trips were clearly off balance, and many physicians and other health care practitioners fought for ethical laws to be put in place by their professional organizations. Those laws have done much to change that situation, and any doc taking ballgame or opera tickets would be up for professional censure. Yes, educational dinners do continue, and they do give docs and nurse practitioners one nice meal. They do also offer continuing education pieces without pushing the drugs of the drug company in question, in my experience. Though, again, I find the dinners to be an ethical issue. However, the bit about her getting a report regarding how much of what drug is prescribed by specific physicians is pure hogwash. I know of no system capable of providing such information, and I know of no prescriber participating in such a program. And, again, this entire subject began with the assertion that a physician was getting some specific payback of some sort in order to prescribe a specific drug, and I know of no program of that sort in existence to date.

[shimmergal]

161. Doctors in my HMO (and probably a lot of others) seem

to be under pressure to prescibe drugs on the "Preferred" list. If anybody's getting goodies to include a product on this list, it's probably the HMO managers, not the docs.

[HuckleB]

162. "Preferred lists."

Usually derive from bulk purchase deals made by the HMO with the pharmaceutical company, and the HMO doesn't want to put out added expense for medications that it's not purchasing in bulk. There are a number of ethical issues around this practice, of course, but it also brings up the new medicare/medicaid pharm program, in which congress forbid medicare/medicaid from making such bulk deals with pharmaceuticals, thus ensuring that taxpayers pay top dollar and patients get less coverage.

[SiouxJ]

121. "what you say your doctor did"?

so you're calling me a liar. Nice. Just because you don't know any doctors who would do what my doctor did, does not mean it didn't happen. You're incredibly rude, you know that? Your method of arguing is to tell people they are lying unless they can provide you with a web link. How incredibly ridiculous. I don't have to prove anything to you and I don't appreciate being called a liar.

[HuckleB]

123. So I should just accept anonymous Internet claims without question?

Even when they make no sense whatsoever, and when there is no evidence to back up the claims being made at all? You made a claim that you ought to be able to back up by at least showing us that such a "program" exists. I mean, how could your physician be so insidious as to participate in some sort of program, if none even exist?

Personally, I find it incredibly rude for people to make outrageous claims on boards like this without actual evidence to back them up. There are many such claims on this thread in particular. They don't serve to increase knowledge and understanding. They serve one purpose: Divide everyone into black and white camps, evidence of real-world goings on be damned.

Sorry, but I'm trying to communicate and get the full story. I've been around too long to just accept claims blindly. That wouldn't serve my understanding of the world. And it doesn't the others who post and read here.

Good day.

[SiouxJ]

133. You must be tons of fun to be around

you don't believe anything unless someone provides a link. What the HELL did you do before the Internet came around? I'm telling you of a personal experience and you can only tell me you won't believe me unless I document it with a link. Well I don't video tape my life so you're out of luck. I've told you my personal experiences have formed my opinion on this topic and you've basically told me you don't believe me because I don't have a link. LIke I said, you must be tons of fun to hang around with in real life.

Yeah, have a nice life. C'ya.

[HuckleB]

143. LOL!

Is that all I asked for? Hmm. Or are you responding to what you would like to respond to? Umm. I asked for evidence in discussion long before the Internet allowed such discussions. If you've got evidence of such a program that can be found outside of the Internet, then please cite it, and I will see if I can locate it through the library. The problem with your scenario is that it involves belief in a program that really wouldn't be able to stand the light of day, and therefore, if such a program exists, you should be able to show us articles covering such programs from somewhere. I mean, everyone loves to bash the big, bad pharmas, right? I've got no idea what your real story is, but I suspect it would be interesting in its own way.

[SiouxJ]

147. I'm just sayin' that when someone shares a personal

experience with you (as in you're having a friendly discussion with them - note my tone above when you asked for a link), and you call them a liar unless they give you documentation, well, I can't say I'd want to hang around you. Maybe it's just me but I don't think so. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt (unless they're rightwing media machine worshiping Repukes that is). This isn't a court of law. I've spent the last 5 years dealing with a multitude of doctors and I stand by my conclusions. Some of them clearly had ulterior motives and just because big Pharma keeps this stuff hushed up, doesn't mean it isn't happening. I really don't care to discuss this anymore with someone who thinks I'm making stuff up. What's the point?

Again, have a nice life.

[HuckleB]

151. Again, how could they keep this "hushed up"?

I'm sorry, but it appears that your imagination got the best of you. It happens. Imagination is good. But why not go further and see if what you imagine is actually a possible scenario? That seems like the decent thing to do before you go around the Internet spreading such a rumor.

What's the point, indeed? What is your motivation for spreading something that simply doesn't add up? Why can't you step back and note that something is actually a bit odd about the story you've created?

I've been around too long. I suspect that many of the motivations you attribute to your health care providers don't match their actual motivations. Heck, unless you can read minds, following that as a rule in life is quite basic.

Good day.

[HuckleB]

55. "Your friend saw this?"

Who's forcing you to purchase anything?

And what is "no myth"? Do you believe that no one is seeking "cures"/better treatments with fewer side effects for cancer? Or that someone is hiding a "cure"/better treatment?

[Kraklen]

7. I wouldn't be surprised if AIDS is cured first.

Because AIDS is caused by a single source, HIV. While cancer has any number of causes and is an inherently trickier problem to solve than a viral infection. Not that both aren't plenty tricky.

A cure for cancer would be a very profitable industry for pharma if their was one. But there isn't. And that's why they're not hiding a cure, and why they're spending billions of dollars looking for one.

[donco6]

12. I had Non-Hodgkins lymphoma

You may be right.

My doctor was very good. But even he said they don't know what causes it. It's on the rise in the US, but there isn't a statistically verifyable reason identified. One theory that came out a few years ago was that kids who got a certain type of smallpox vaccine were more likely to come down with NHL, but I think that's been disproven since.

My treatment essentially resulted in a cure - I've been cancer free for 6 years. I guess I'm just not cynical enough to believe that the entire medical community would be complicit in prolonging such potentially damaging treatment (chemo spec.)

[HuckleB]

17. Indeed. We're in the early stages of researching etiology.

http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/grants/abstract.asp?ApplID=6806520

[donco6]

22. I remember submitting DNA.

Wonder if I'm part of that study? Hope so. I'd like to think that SOMETHING good came out of my experience.

[Kraklen]

27. The thing about cancer...

is that there's so many forms of it it's like their all completely different diseases. Take testicle cancer, catch it reasonably early enough and it's 100% curable with cis-platin, a ridiculously simple drug. Get liver cancer, and you've got a few months to say goodbye to everyone.

[donco6]

30. Yes.

Pancreatic cancer also runs in my family (yea), and it's pretty much KYAG when you get that diagnosis.

[daleo]

34. A brother-in-law got pancreatic cancer recently.

As you say, he didn't have long between diagnosis and death - two or three months, and he was only in his 40s.

[Danmel]

80. We know a pancreatic cancer survivor

He has been cancer free for almost 10 years now. I guess he was very lucky. But almost nothing is a guaranteed death sentence, except maybe mesothelioma- you really don't want to have that.

[daleo]

82. He is darn lucky.

I recall looking up the five year survival rates, and they were well under 10 percent for pancreatic cancer (I think maybe about 6%). Good for him, at least someone beat it.

[put out]

79. I would like to hear your story.

Someone close to me has that diagnosis. PM me if you want. Thank you, and continued good health to you.

[donco6]

81. Glad to help if I can.

I was diagnosed with Type IA, intermediate grade Non-Hodgkins lymphoma. It started with a lump on my left shoulder blade. Just felt like a loose cyst under the skin. Went to the doctor to have it removed. He worked on it for a bit, thinking too that it was a cyst, but realized it wasn't after he cut into it a bit. Sent it to Mayo for biopsy. Got the phone call with the diagnosis a few weeks later.

Went into chemotherapy (CHOP) about three weeks after that. After the first treatment, my lump - which had grown in the meantime from a pea size to about half dollar size lump - immediately began to fade. It really was that noticeable. I had three rounds of chemo, then about 6 weeks of radiation therapy.

The worst time was the three weeks prior to my first treatment. I began to have night sweats, which were both uncomfortable and alarming, and they would make me so anxious I couldn't sleep.

The worst part of the chemo was the prednisone steroid I had to take daily. That also made it difficult to sleep, plus it made all my food taste LOUSY. Nothing tasted the same at all. Finally found that grapefruit - which I had previously loathed - tasted like grapefruit! Ended up eating a lot of that.

Oh, and the hair falling out thing - but that wasn't that horrible for me, for some reason. I just gathered a collection of hats!

If it were to happen again, one thing I would change is that I would join a support group. I'm partnered, but I just couldn't wake him up at 3:30 a.m. every night when I couldn't sleep to talk about my fears. The bottom line is, You are the one going through it. No one else. It's an intensely lonely experience.

Hope your friend has as good fortune as I did.

[put out]

83. He is not being treated for now.

He and his team figure the side-effects of treatment would compromise his (very good) quality of life. Insurance and the cost of treatment are not an issue.

So much for pharma capitalizing on needless, expensive cancer therapy, huh? ;-) They would be making money hand over fist if his illness was being treated at this time. Instead, treatment will be available when and if he needs it.

Check your inbox. Stay well.

[laureloak]

101. But what if the cure is far less expensive than chemotherapy?

Wouldn't that encourage drug companies to supress promising research?

[Bridget Burke]

126. No.

But why should drug companies do all the research? By definition, they will be researching drugs!

What about funding studies of basic science & non-drug treatments? Too bad our government has other priorities.

[HuckleB]

130. Drug companies don't do all the research.

Not by a longshot. Further, anyone who truly believes that there is a conspiracy to suppress promising treatments has not been around the overly competitive environment of the researcher. If a researcher gets wind of a treatment that might have a remote chance of being successful, and no one else (or few others) is jumping all over it, you can bet that researcher is going to go down whatever roads he or she can to find out if the treatment has benificial properties.

[Bridget Burke]

136. Yes, I know that.

But some here are accusing drug companies of not doing research on non-drug options. Duh!

Most researchers need grants to do studies & the government has gotten increasingly stingy.

[HuckleB]

158. Ah, gotcha.

Salud!

[northzax]

9. not to mention the fact

that cancer is a multi-headed beast.

There will never, unless there is a major breakthrough in medicine, and I mean major like antibiotics was major, be a 'cure' for AIDS. Once you have it, you will always have it, but it is possible to make it a chronic disease, and even potentially a vaccine for major strains.

There may even be treatments for major types of cancer that are effective, in fact many people are cured of cancer, if you define cure as five years without remission. The catch is that every cancer is different, because every body is different and cancer is simply rogue cells attacking the body. There will be no instantaneous cure, simply better medications and delivery mechanisms to eliminate the tumors.

'cure' is a bad word, there are no 'cures' i nthe way it is popularly used, we can't cure a broken leg, we can help the body heal it. we can't 'cure' anything.

[K-W]

94. You seem to be making a very flawed assumption.

Why dont you get a little more evidence before drawing such conclusions. You are suggesting that because there is a big industry in cancer treatment it means that industry and the related reasearch industry are massively corrupted to the point of gross inefficeincy.

The only evidence is your personal belief that cancer wards are more opulent than the aids unit, which I am willing to believe, but even if true it certainly doesnt support your assertation that it is so corrupted and inefficient that it is obstructed from producing results before lesser funded efforts.

You seem to be forgetting, as well, that the person/company who finds a cure for cancer will most likely become fabulously wealthy whether the cancer industry likes it or not.

[donco6]

2. I can see why people would believe the surgery one.

(Cancer survivor here)

People who have surgery for cancer are sometimes showing few outward sypmtoms. To the casual observer "they looked fine before the surgery". Then they have surgery and - despite the best efforts - succumb to the disease. Again, to the outside observer, it would look like, "they were never the same after that surgery."

I'm surprised they didn't have the question about cancer being contagious. Lots of people believe that, too.

[daleo]

23. Well, cancer does metastasize

So it seems conceivable that surgery could aid in that process, since cancerous cells could be sloughed off during surgery, and spread via the circulatory system. It would be interesting to know how rigorous the evidence base for this claim is, one way or the other.

I recall Solzenetchen writing about this in "The Cancer Ward", but he may have been using an extended medical/political metaphor, and he is obviously not a medical researcher.

[rainy]

26. There are scientists that do believe that cutting into cancer

caused it to metastasize and studies support this medical thought.

[Bridget Burke]

38. Which scientists? Which studies?

Generally, nobody cuts "into" cancer. The malignancy is removed along with surrounding tissue--hopefully getting all the malignancy & as little as possible of the healthy tissue.

Radiation and/or chemo are generally recommended to supplement surgery. Of course, it depends on the malignancy. There are many kinds of cancer.

[K-W]

96. Then those scientists should research thier beliefs,

because other scientists have actually researched cancer and cancer treatments extensively and could very quickly enlighten these scientists about the relation of thier beliefs to reality.

[NashVegas]

33. "Surgery Causes Cancer"

In the late 1990s, the medical world was studying a new class of drugs they hoped would shrink cancers by cutting off oxygen/blood supply. I'm sure we've all heard of these.

An article about the studies that I read in the NYT mention how, sometimes when a patient has surgery to have a large tumor removed, a herd of little tumors would crop up all over the place.

So, no, surgery doesn't cause cancer. But done improperly, it may help the spread. Wish I'd saved the article.

[laureloak]

100. I'm a survivor of stage III lung cancer. Surgery saved my

life.

This I know for certain...if you have "operable" cancer your chances of survival are far, FAR greater than without surgery. It's true that not all surgeries are successful but a surgeon cannot assess a case exactly until the patient has been opened up.

Please, let's be very careful here not to influence anyone into turning down surgery when it is a viable option.

[rainy]

11. Raw food cures some cancers:

How It Works
Many books have been written on how raw foods (i.e. uncooked foods) deal with diseases such as cancer. For the purposes of this article, I will categorize this treatment as building the immunity system, but in fact it does a lot more than that. Many fruits and vegetables have nutrients that kill cancer cells and/or stop the spread of cancer. But what I want to really emphasize is that almost every key cancer diet is a modification of the raw food diet! Even the laetrile diet is basically a raw food diet, modified for foods that contain laetrile.


Raw Food Treatment
Definition: While the term "raw food" means food eaten without cooking, in the context of a cancer diet, a "raw food" diet is a vegan type of diet, where the vast majority of fruits and vegetables that are consumed are known to kill cancer cells, directly or indirectly. In other words, the phrase "raw food" on this web site does not mean a random selection of uncooked vegetables and fruits, but a very selective subset of vegetables and fruits specifically selected to treat cancer.

If the day ever comes that Big Pharma and its obedient puppy-dogs ever succeed in achieving their goal of total suppression of our availability to vitamin and mineral supplements, fear not, there are food diets perfectly capable of curing cancer. All you need is a juicer and perhaps a food processor if you can afford both.

Cooking food destroys 100% of all enzymes in a food. Because many foods contain the necessary enzymes needed to digest that food (and get the nutrients out of the food), cooking food places a great burden on our body and does not allow you to get as many nutrients out of the food. Actually, cooking food does damage to the value of the food in over two dozen different ways (see my links).
http://www.cancertutor.com/Cancer/RawFood.html

[Dora]

28. quackery or hackery

I just can't decide.

But I am biased.

I stand by my post above - our diets do more to cause than to cure. Thank you for your link. It gave me some "food" for thought.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

36. what's to question?

diet plays a major role in health- period.

[Dora]

40. I'm not disputing that.

I'm disputing the wisdom of telling people that eating raw foods will cure their cancer. It may cause, as it did for my aunt, unnecessary suffering in the already-suffering terminally ill. Please see my post above for reference.

Raw foods may be an effective cancer-fighting mechanism. I'm fine with that and if (knock on wood) I am ever told I have cancer, I'll be investigating alternative approaches to treatment. I will not, however, put all my eggs into the one basket of raw foods cure-all.

IMHO the human race is better off changing their diet at the front end, rather than taking the reactionary approach of drinking quarts of watermelon juice and eating tomatoes by the bushelbasket and buckets of steamed rice after getting a diagnosis of cancer.

[Kraklen]

43. Mmhmm.

The "all carrot juice diet" advocated on the link would rather quickly lead to a vitamin A overdose.

[Dora]

45. And a lovely orange glow, to boot. (eom)

[Senior citizen]

51. It worked for me twice, and also for a neighbor.

I didn't go "all carrot juice." After I was diagnosed and was supposed to be scheduled for surgery a neighbor told me about carrot juice so I figured it couldn't hurt and simply added it to my regular diet in LARGE amounts. My next biopsy came back negative, so a few years later when I was diagnosed again (different type of cancer), I did the same thing and it worked a second time. Then, when another neighbor got diagnosed with prostate cancer, I told him my story and he decided to try carrot juice too. Same result. His next test came back negative.

I now own a juicer, and anytime I get sick with anything, I search the web to see what kind of juice is supposed to be good for it. I got the juicer after I got an ulcer that wouldn't go away. Somebody in a health food store mentioned cabbage juice, so I googled it. I simply couldn't imagine juicing a cabbage, but it worked, my ulcer is completely gone, and now I do cabbage and carrot juice all the time.

So what can I say? I have a neighbor who's had an digestive problems for seven years and is taking 32 different pills, including Nexium, with little or no improvement. If pills cured you, you wouldn't buy more pills. If doctors cured you, you wouldn't go back to the doctor. Why would they sacrifice their own bottom line just to cure you? The way I see it, if a myth makes me healthy, I'll buy the myth.


On edit: A few years ago, when I went to my neighborhood senior clinic, the doctor and nurse-practitioner looked at my file and asked me what medications I was taking. When I said, "None," they gave me dirty looks and went into a rant about how they had been prescribing things for me and I was supposed to take them. I haven't been back there since. Whenever they prescribed something, I'd just search the web for a natural cure for the same problem instead of taking the pills. No wonder they didn't like me. I liked them, but I wasn't willing to sacrifice my health to pharmaceutical companies' profits.

[HuckleB]

60. Indeed. Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Vitamin A and Carotenoids

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamina.asp#h6

[Hun Joro]

67. Carrots don't contain vitamin A...

They are an excellent source of beta-carotene, or pro-vitamin A, which is converted to vitamin A by the body as needed. You might turn orange, but you won't suffer any other ill effects from a lot of carrot juice.

[Chemical Bill]

87. Just curious...

Do you know anybody who has suffered from a vitamin A overdose? I know people who have recovered from cancer with nothing but dietary changes. I also know people who have used dietary changes as a suppliment to the treatment of a doctor.

Bill

[Kraklen]

146. You're asking for anecdotal evidence?

I've never known anybody with severe complications due to vitamin A overdoes, although I've known a few who had the skin discoloration.

[bitchkitty]

134. Actually, tomatoes are part of the nightshade family

and most diets of this nature would exclude them.

I'm a believer, but I tend more to your way of thinking - that prevention is key. But I think that a modified macrobiotic or whole foods diet can only help someone who is seriously ill - modified meaning that they get enough calories through added fats, AND if they get ice cream or their favorite childhood comfort food at least once in a while (it alleviates depression).

[HuckleB]

59. Yes, diet plays a major role in health.

But that doesn't mean that any one website offers all the diet answers, or is free of misconception in what it does offer.

[Kraklen]

39. quackery, definitely.

[HuckleB]

61. Preventing prostate cancer and diet

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Preventing_prostate_cancer_and_diet.htm


Also... Less specific, but more general'
http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/servlet/ContentServer?cid=1110272630728&pagename=CHN-RCS/CHNResource/CHNResourcePageTemplate&c=CHNResource

[Igel]

135. I'd go as far as to suggest that certain diets or compounds in

them can assist in preventing some forms of cancer; we can alter our diets to avoid founds and compounds that are implicated in causing some cancers. I'm fairly sure I've seen studies suggesting the former, and showing the latter.

But not causing or helping to prevent is a far cry from saying "cure".

[HuckleB]

137. Yes.

There are studies that show specific foods as increasing the risk of certain cancers, and studies that show specific foods to reduce the risk of cancer. It's the "cure" via food piece that I haven't seen to date.

Salud.

[firefox]

14. Medical fascism

There is no better window to view the fascism that controls us than through the medicine pushed upon us and the related propaganda like in this story trying to make people think that there is no working alternative cure for cancer.

If I get cancer, I can tell you there will be no chemo-therapy for me. I just want to put up links beginning with this compilation of quotes on cancer from someone that believes in alternative health- http://curezone.com/blogs/m.asp?f=23&i=22

Here is one on the lost history of medicine- http://curezone.com/blogs/m.asp?f=28&i=12 This also helps explain the alternative view- http://curezone.com/blogs/m.asp?f=28&i=11

The FDA is a tool of the medical industry. They blocked research into cannabis that would have yielded some truly helpful medicines along with showing the brainwashed public that they had been duped on prohibition in the first place. But now that the world research community is hot on the trail in search of medical wonders we get this June 12th report from Israel saying they have a cannabinoid that will cure cancer just like the research out of Virginia in 1974 indicated and was swiftly halted and buried- http://israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=Articles%5El1012&enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enVersion=0&enZone=Health&

and http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=2/a/ix/260620051

[Dora]

41. I'd heard about that research

and was intrigued. Thanks for the links.

[HuckleB]

62. Does the story say that research isn't happening?

I didn't notice that part.

Aren't conspiracies fun?

[K-W]

97. Yah, if you want to die a little poorer, go ahead,

shell out whatever money or do whatever silly thing someone tells you to cure cancer, because certainly all of those people in the medical industry are under facist mind control. All of those doctors, not a one of them actualy understands science, medicine, or statistics well enough to see through the elaborate lies all to get you to buy exotic chemicals that are expensive to research.

Yah, its the scam of the century alright.

Science is science, go to a university if you need it proven to you.

[Julius Civitatus]

16. The DUMBING DOWN of AMERICA!!!

Just another sign of this insidious and depressing trend.

The general population is fed a steady diet of junk science, junk news, mind-numbing TV shows, and idiotic gossip culture. This is the result: a population increasingly self-complacent, self-indulgent, culturally eviscerated, easy to manipulate, and easy to convince.

It is very depressing. Recently I've seen a lot of new polls coming out that make you wonder about the levels of STUPIDITY of our society (Reagan elected the "Greatest American Ever," most Americans believe angels walk among us, huge chunk of population believes on the Rapture, most Americans thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, etc...)

No wonder the Bushies were able to sell the Iraq war on mere innuendo (without any real evidence to support their claims), and got away with it.

:cry:

[HuckleB]

19. Alas, I wish the explanation were different.

I suspect that it is more complicated than that, but emotions taking over the logical brain centers probably equals "dumbing down."

[Julius Civitatus]

44. I understand. Maybe I should be more specific

I am very sympathetic of the need by many people affected by a disease to believe a cure exists or a solution is being denied to them.

What I meant to say by my "Dumbing down of America" comment is that the poll cites over half of the US population apparently believes in unproven conspiracies that seem out of "The X Files." I mean, where do people get the idea that surgery spreads cancer?

This seems to follow a pattern of sheer dumbness that I've seen in the results of every other poll released in the last few years. I mean, by popular demand: Ronald Reagan elected the "Greatest American Ever" in the poll conducted by the Discovery Channel. Mind-blowing!

Other than that, I can certainly sympathize and understand the fears and yearnings of those affected by the disease. My comments were directed to the results of the wackiest questions of this poll.

Just wanted to make it clear.

[depakid]

47. Americans will pay dearly for this in the coming years

and it's probably the best (of many) reasons to emigrate.

[HuckleB]

140. If only...

I hadn't been around the world enough to see how well we have "exported" the "dumbing down virus."

:hi:

[Vitruvius]

18. According to the AMA, the majority of cancers appear to be of

environmental origin -- e.g. due to pollutants and other chemicals in the air, water, and in the food we eat, etc. This is known from a variety of epidemiological studies; the specific mechanisms are mostly unknown, but the statistical association is iron-clad (as iron-clad as the statistical association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer & heart disease).

So the cure for the majority of cancer is known -- clean up the environment and the food supply.

But that would step on the toes of big business. They'd have to stop sending their waste byproducts up the smokestack and into the river; they'd even have to spend money. And that's why "there is no cure for cancer."


P.S: The biggest drops in the death rate due to infectious disease came BEFORE antibiotics, and were due to (a) cleaning up the water supply and (b) antiseptic precautions in hospitals.

Historically, the biggest benefits have always come from SANITATION and PREVENTION, with cures being useful to take care of such cases of disease that cannot be prevented.

[HuckleB]

25. Can you link us to the AMA report on this?

Gracias.

Salud.

[Kraklen]

31. Last I heard...

the plurality of cancers were caused by smoking and radon. Both of which are environmental in nature, but good luck cleaning it up.

[Bill219]

42. On late nite tv...

there is an infomerical with Kevin Trudeau for a book that claims to have all sorts of cures and treatments using healthy alternatives..instead of drugs

the author of the book claims that there is a cure for most of what ails us..but there is NO money for the drug companies for cures...they need to keep us sick and needy to make the money

one example he cites is acid reflux disease. He says that it is not a disease..but a condition caused by the very same drugs that are supposed to treat the condition.

He claims that he had a friend that suffered from ARD and he told him to not take the drug next time it flared up. Instead, he gave the guy a spoonful of vinegar and supposedly after a few months of doing this... the guy never had another episode of ARD. The author claims ARD is NOT caused by an excess of acid but a lack of instead.

Supposedly, according to the author, the very drugs that are perscribed to us daily is what is causing all these "diseases" that all the drug companies are on tv hocking their drugs for

[Dora]

49. I concur

As well as help us, our medical procedures to much to hurt us in ways the medical establishment couldn't, or wouldn't forsee. As an example, gastric bypass surgery has helped obese people lose significant amounts of weight, thereby improving their lives. However, many of these people later experience/d vitamin B12 deficiencies, which leads to heart disease and neurological damage. Because a B12 deficiency takes years to develop and its symptomology is subtle many of these people start experiencing symptoms but don't know it, and doctors aren't aware that there is a problem until the deficiency has progressed to a life-threatening point.

B12 deficiencies are also appearing in people who are chronic users of prescription GERD medications. These medications so alter the gut's chemistry that it can no longer function absorb needed nutrients.

[Vitruvius]

69. Unfortunately, both JAMA and the NEJM require log-ins and are not

accessible to the layperson.

However, there's an excellent book on this matter: The Politics of Cancer, by Samuel S. Epstein, MD; for more info, see http://www.preventcancer.com/press/books/poc.htm Note the introduction by Congressman John Conyers and the endorsements by Robert Wages, President, Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Quentin D. Young, M.D., Past President, American Public Health Association, Barbara Seaman, Co-founder, national Women's Health Network, and others.

By-the-way, the Cancer Prevention Coalition http://www.preventcancer.com/ is a coalition of leading experts in cancer prevention and public health, together with citizen activists and representatives of organized labor, public interest, environmental, and women's health groups.

[northzax]

71. luckily, I have access to both

citations, por favor?

[HuckleB]

77. I have access, and the abstracts should be available.

Citations are all I need. Thanks.

[Chemical Bill]

88. I don't see why a report

from the people so tied in to the radiation/chemo industries has less of an agenda than a report from the carrot growers association. I take the AMA with a shaker of salt. How many reports from the AMA concerning cancer have a control group who recieved no treatment? If there is no control group, how can we be sure that the drugs are more successful than no treatment?

My agenda is that when I was 17 my best friend died of cancer. I've been paying attention ever since. I don't want to stop people from whatever treatment they decide on. I just know more people who have lived after treating their cancer with diet, than who have lived with chemo/radiation/drugs alone. I want to encourage people to eat a vegetarian, organic diet if they are dealing with cancer.

Bill

edit:sp

[HuckleB]

89. What?

I want to see the report itself. That is all.

Go off in whatever direction you want. However, I will add my two cents, and say that skepticism with all sources is a must, IMHO. Unfortunately, far too often, people are skeptical only with those sources that "go against" something they want to be "correct" or believe in. I find that to be a practice that stunts life-long learning.

[Chemical Bill]

91. How about a couple of books...

"Love, Medicine, and Miracles" by Bernie Segal is an oncologist's look at how attitude effects healing.

"When Hope Never Dies" by Maureen McKenna is by a woman who had inoperable cance and cured herself with diet.

Sorry about the lack of studies.

Bill

[HuckleB]

93. I have no idea how either of those posts follows what I wrote in my posts.

I've been in health care a long time, and I've read my share of similar books. Valuable in their own way, and quite heartening. However, without study, anecdotal stories about cancer survivors "cured" by diet alone, while heartening and hopeful, leave us with little to go on.

[Chemical Bill]

102. I'm sorry about the miscommunication then...

I saw you asking for studies and my experience is that the studies I've often seen referenced don't deal with the question of diet. I see you have a few available, but none that encompass the raw food diet that was mentioned. I don't reject the idea based on the lack of any studies, and it sounds like you won't consider it without them. After reading "When Smoke Ran Like Water" by Devra Davis I have little faith in official studies. After the EPA was told to say that the air in NYC post 9/11 was safe, I have little faith in anything the government says concerning health (actually, I didn't have much before). So I look to experience for my information. I do admit knowing people who followed macrobiotic diets and they died anyway. I don't have definitive answers.

I saw a speaker in 1987 who had lived with AIDS for 10 years. He told of his diet and herbal/nutritional supplement usage, and then told of a friend who lived on Coke and cookies. Who knows...?

Bill

[HuckleB]

109. I don't discount it.

But I don't think it's ethical for anyone to recommend it as a "cure" when there appear to be no peer-reviewed studies to back up such a claim, as noted way above us on this thread. Further, looking to studies that are politicized is one thing. However, there are many sources for studies, and one can note possible conflicts of interest and take the study into context with other studies. No one study actually tells a whole lot, as confounding factors are many. Alas, that's what makes personal experience problematic, as well. Treatments have to be replicated over time to show efficacy and safety.

I have no problems with individuals choosing to treat themselves in the way they see fit. I do have a problem with individuals making grandiose recommendations without more than their own individual experience, or even based on any more than that of their own experience and that of a few selected others. I don't know about the folks who didn't stick with the treatment, or why they didn't stick with it. I don't know what factors may have been at play in the supposed recoveries, etc... Too much remains unknown. In general, I wonder why so many folks are willing to be skeptical about something "discovered" after hundreds of studies over time, but refrain from being skeptical about something some dude wrote in a book, and claimed saved him from X. That just doesn't make sense.

[MountainLaurel]

50. Interesting points

:applause:

[shanti]

37. this is the mentality

we're working with, folks.

[depakid]

46. Why does this not surprise me?

Americans as a whole are appalling science illiterate- and the trend has only gotten worse over the past 25 years. It's to the point of downright hostility toward science in many quarters.

On the other hand, this was a telephone survey- and 957 adults people answering their home phone aren't exactly a representative sample-

[ms liberty]

48. I'm on both sides on this one....

I'm a breast cancer survivor, diagnosed in '97 at age 38, no family history. Mastectomy, chemo, reconstruction. Because I was misdiagnosed for 9 months after finding the lump, when I was given the news I RAN to the nearest large teaching/research hospital, which is Duke University Medical Center. They treated me wonderfully, and I have no complaints with them at all. In August I go for my yearly checkup, I have been cancer free so far. I hope this trend continues.
But I have never believed in all the pharmaceuticals, the surgeries, etc. I think big money has it's hand in the till and they're never gonna let go. Obviously our environment has a lot to do with illness, as does our lifestyle issues. The mega-corps want us to believe our food supply is fine, but I know it can't be true. We're feeding our chickens hormones so they can go from hatchling to market in 6 weeks. We're pumping our beef cattle and dairy cows full of hormones and antibiotics, not to mention feeding them their own species as protein boosters. How healthy can that be?
Then there is the suppressed medical treatments that are said to work. Some of these treatments have clearly been shown to work, but are ignored or dismissed by the medical establishment. How many of you have heard of Gaston Naessen? He was brought to trial in Quebec some years ago as a quack, yet so many people testified to having been cured of cancer with his treatment - and had evidence of same - that he was acquitted. How many people have heard about the 1974 study at (I think) the University of Virginia, which showed that marijuana shrank inoperable brain tumors? A liquid form was injected into the tumors, if I remember correctly. It was suppressed by the government. A researcher in Spain just a few years ago replicated the formula - after a long search for the information he was finally assisted by a journalist who actually had to hunt down and find a copy of the original study and send it to the researcher. His study resulted in the exact same result. How many of us KNOW for a fact that marijuana is not the penultimate evil the government tells us it is? (The ultimate evil being of course, liberals). We know pot is helpful to people suffering from nausea and pain and all sorts of problems. It is common knowledge that pot is a very effective treatment for glaucoma. It's been PROVED in research studies.

So while I will utilize traditional medicine, and do believe it has it's place, I will not close my eyes and mind to the possibilities of alternative medicines. Nor will I be so ignorant as to believe that big pharma's and research institutions have only benevolent intentions. People in those institutions may have good intentions, but the machinery of big business has only profits in mind. There's a lot of money to be made by those institutions.

[Bridget Burke]

53. All researchers I know definitely want cures for all the malignancies.

Most of them also treat patients. They are not monsters.

We can't expect the pharmacy companies to do all the research. That's not what they're in business for. (Yes, they pay far more for PR than for research.)

Insurance companies will NOT pay for treatment without efficacy proven in clinical trials. Some "outsiders" practicing might actually have something useful to offer; unless there are serious studies done, nobody but the people who can afford them will benefit. And the outsiders do include many quacks, getting rich off false hopes.

The whole health-care system needs to be revamped. Basic research & research into non-pharma options needs to be funded--gosh, with all the wars to run & tax breaks for rich folks, where will we find the money? Some cancers ARE caused by the environment. And people are still dying from those damned cigarettes.

Another health care issue: Even with treatable maligancies, early diagnosis is best. If someone can't afford routine testing, they may be beyond any help but comfort care.

[Senior citizen]

56. There's another study that our government suppressed.

In 1972 there was a joint Swiss-American study done in Switzerland. They found a town in the Alps that was on the top of a mountain, with half the town on one side and half on the other. One side of the town had a freeway running through it and lots of traffic. The other side was mostly agrarian with no big roads and very few cars. Almost all the males on both sides of town smoked, but almost none of the females did. And they found there were 10 times as much of all types of cancers on the side of town with the traffic than on the other side. They also measured policarbon particulates and found extremely high levels on the traffic side of town and very low levels on the other side. Those particulates are carcenogenic and come from automobile exhaust and microscopic bits of metal and tires that come off cars, go into the air and dust, and can be readily inhaled.

As for pot, I used to know an elderly woman who bragged about smoking pot for glaucoma. This woman's son was a physician. He knew pot was an effective treatment, knew it was illegal, but wasn't going to let his mother suffer, so he procured it on the black market and gave it to his mom. I never thought to ask, but I'll bet anything he was a Democrat. Pukes just wouldn't care, not even about their moms.

[HuckleB]

58. Link?

[Senior citizen]

75. I don't have the link.

I read the study in one of the major medical journals many years ago, but when I went to the library to try to find it again, I wasn't able to. I had them drag up all the back issues for 1972 and the next few years, but couldn't find it. I only remember it because I was so shocked at the time and I talked about it a lot. I probably don't even have the scientific name of the particulates right. But the fact was that they found 10 times as many cancers of all types in both males and females, so smoking wasn't as much a factor as cars. I'd suggest somebody try researching it from Swiss journals, as there's a possibility that they might not have suppressed it.

[HuckleB]

86. Well, call me skeptical then.

10 times as many cancers due to automobiles, but the study isn't available anymore? Hmmmmmm.

[northzax]

73. funny enough

I have some experience with Glaucoma, (my grandfather was blind from it) and I have looked in every journal I can find and I cannot find a scientific study that demonstrated THC actually lowers inner-eye pressure enough to make a difference. Of course it makes you feel better, it's weed! But there is no real evidence that it aids in glaucoma treatment.

just a note.

[Chemical Bill]

105. The FDA doesn't allow much research on cannibis...

from what I've heard. Has there been much research of any kind on cannibis and health recently?

Bill

[northzax]

120. I am not limited to US studies

I'd be willing to accept a study from Western Europe, Japan or Canada, if you'd like.

And there was a study on the effects of cannabis on glaucoma, didn't make a difference in inner-eye pressure, I'll try to track down the citation. It did make the patients feel better, but it didn't have any effect on the glaucoma.

[ms liberty]

176. Sorry to take so long to reply to your post...

I knew there were studies out there, the only people I had ever heard of to legally get marijuana from the government (there are/were only about 10 I think) are glaucoma patients. I first had to hunt down where I had last seen info on glaucoma studies, then check on the web to see if the info was available. There's a great deal of misinformation about the medicinal benefits of marijuana. Our government has been propagandizing against it for about 80 years. They have a lot to answer for, IMO.

This is from the Drug Policy Alliance website (formerly known as the Lindesmith Center):
Regarding glaucoma, there have been published studies which consistently show that marijuana is effective in lowering intraocular eye pressure.(19) Heightened intraocular eye pressure is the cause of glaucoma. Thus published evidence indicates marijuana preserves the vision of people with glaucoma.

These are studies cited for the above paragraph:
Medical Marijuana and Glaucoma

Hepler, R. and Frank, I., (1971). Marijuana smoking and intraocular pressure. JAMA, 217, 1932.

Hepler, R., Frank, I. and Ungerleider, J. (1972). Pupillary constriction after marijuana smoking. Am. J. Ophthalmol., 74, 1185-1190.

Shapiro, D. (1974). The ocular manifestations of the cannabinoids. Opthalmologica, 168, 366-369.

Hepler, R. and Petrus, R. (1976). Experiences with administration of marijuana to glaucoma. In The Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana. (Cohen and Stillman, eds.), 63-75.

Perez-Reyes, M., Wagner, D., Wall, M. and Davis, K. (1976). Intravenous administration of cannabinoids and intraocular pressure. In The Pharmacology of Marihuana (Braude and Szara, eds.), 829-832.

Goldberg, I., Kass, M. and Becker, B. (1978-1979). Marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma. Sightsaving Review, Winter issue, 147-154.

Crawford, W., and Merritt, J. (1979). Effects of tetrahydrocannabinol on arterial and intraocular hypertension. Int'l J. Clin. Pharmacol. and Biopharm. 17, 191-196.

Merritt, J., Crawford, W., Alexander, P., Anduze, A. and Gelbart, S. (1980). Effect of marihuana on intraocular and blood pressure in glaucoma.Ophthalmology, 87, 222-228.

Merritt, J., McKinnon, S., Armstrong, J., Hatem, G. and Reid, L. (1980). Oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in heterogenous glaucomas. Annals of Ophthalmology, 12, No. 8.

Zimmerman, T. (1980). Efficacy in glaucoma treatment -- the potential of marijuana. Annals of Ophthalmology, 449-450.

Green, L., (1984) Marijuana effects on intraocular pressure, Applied, Pharmacology in the Medical Treatment of Glaucomas, (S.M. Drance, ed.), 507-526.

Merritt, J., et al. (1981). Effects of topical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on intraocular pressure in dogs. Glaucoma, Jan./Feb., 13-16.

Merritt, J., Perry, D., Russell, D. and Jones, B. (1981). Topical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and aqueous dynamics in glaucoma. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 21, 467S-471S.

Merritt, J., Olsen J., Armstrong, J. and McKinnon, S. (1981). Topical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in hypertensive glaucomas. J. Phar. Pharmacol., 33, 40-41.

Merritt, J. (1982). Glaucoma, hypertension, and marijuana. J. Nat'l Med. Ass'n., 74, 715-716.

Merritt, J., Cook, C. and Davis, K. (1982). Orthostatic hypotension after delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol marihuana inhalation. Ophthalmic Res., 14, 124-128.

Merritt, J. et al. (1982). Topical delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol as a potential glaucoma agent. Glaucoma, 4 253-255.

Merritt, J. (1984). Outpatient cannabinoid therapy for heterogenous glaucomas: Guidelines for institution and maintenance of therapy. Marijuana 84: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Cannabis, 681-683.

Merritt, J., Shrewsbury, R., Locklear F., Demby, K. and Wittle, G. (1986), Effects of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol and vehicle constituents on intraocular pressure in normotensive dogs. Research Communication in Substances of Abuse, 7, 29-35.

Other organizations that might be helpful to you are the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), and the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP)

I hope this is of some use to you, and to your grandfather.

Peace be with you

[laureloak]

95. I've read that the American Cancer Society squelches

promising research. Makes you wonder. After all, a cure for cancer would turn the entire medical, drug and insurance industries upside down.

[HuckleB]

117. Links please.

I've never read any evidence of that, and I'd really like to see the evidence if it exists.

[Bridget Burke]

119. Where did you read it?

Please remember that any "cures" for any of the many malignancies would be administered by doctors. Would a cure be one magic pill? Or long-term treatment? Of course, the "cure" would have no side effects, since it would be some magical thing beyond medicine.

The insurance & drug industries do need to be overhauled. And the best cancer hospitals are do teaching & research--the MD's are also faculty members. Although they earn fine salaries, they are NOT in private practice.

[laureloak]

127. I can't remember where I read it but it was when I was

looking at alternative treatments after my cancer surgery. Maybe a website related to Cantrol.

[K-W]

98. There is no such thing as alternatives to medicine.

If it works, it is medicine. Any alternative to medicine by definition does not work.

What the alternative medicine folks are actually suggesting is that somehow all of the medical industry and research facilities and universities are all corrupted and small minded and simply refuse to beleive the truth of thier entirely unproven notions of medicine.

[ms liberty]

111. I didn't mean "alternative to medicine"....

I think I used "alternative medicine" and I was using the phrase in the way it is commonly used, meaning medicine that is not in the mainstream "accepted" medical establishment. I'm not trying to quibble over details, and I do understand what you are saying. Nor am I a person who simply believes anything I read or hear. If I did, I'd be over at freeperville with the rest of the koolaid drunks. I have a healthy skepticism of EVERYTHING. I don't think all the researchers and doctors who are working every day towards cures for terrible afflictions are corrupt participants in a system rigged to screw the great unwashed. After all, I was treated for breast cancer at Duke, one of the best research hospitals in the country, and if I need treatment for anything in the future that is where I'll go first - they treat me like a partner in my health care, and expect and appreciate my being a consumer who asks questions, demands answers and expects references (if necessary).
However, I do also know that when organizations (all types) get really big, with lots of money, sometimes decisions get made that are not best for mankind. It's not a question of deliberate suppression - most of the time - but it does happen. Medicine is not exempt from the mistakes or the corruption that can sometimes be found in any and every other profession.
Sorry to be so wordy about it, just trying to explain myself a bit more on this aspect of my previous post.

[K-W]

122. We arent talking about mistakes and bad decisions.

To believe that there are effective medicines just lying around, ignored by people while medicine is an extremely lucrative business would require more than some bad judgement calls and mistakes. It would require either a massive conspiricy or massive intellectual corruption, neither of which is the case.

There are ways to find out if something works or not, there is no need to believe or not believe and there are plenty of completely honest scientists perfectly willing to test anything you think might work.

You should never use a medical treatment that has not been proven.
If alternative medicine has been tested it is not alternative, it is either effectual or ineffectual.
Thus you should never use alternative medicine, it is either discredited or untested or it wouldnt be alternative.

The simple fact remains that even given the limitations of science and the potential limitations of the humans who practice medicine, your best bet if you are sick is still doctors and scientific remedies. I like to wonder what the people who practiced more traditional medicine originally would say if they found out that years later people would eschew what to them would seem to be miracle cures to practice thier crude, but sometimes ingenious or effective remedies.

[sintax]

66. When Healing is a Crime

The Harry Hoxsey Story by Kenny Ausubel.

Read this book.

Samuel Epstein at U of Illinois has much to say on the topic of CANCER and BIG PHARMA-BIG FOOD.

Read his stuff, survive the onslaught of disinformation and illth foods.

[DemExpat]

72. My father's neurologist reinforced this myth too....

Nearly half of American adults mistakenly believe that surgery can spread cancer, according to a new survey,

For after my Dad's second brain surgery for his malignant tumor (which had very negative results as he was doing much better beforehand), this specialist took my sister and me aside and stated that he felt surgery was the wrong thing to do for him, that it can "stir things up".....disturb it all....4 weeks later he was dead anyway...

So, yeah, I kinda believe that in some types of cancer surgery might "spread" or disturb the tissue along with any malignancy.

:grr:

BTW - I hate it when medical specialists say the others' approach is wrong - don't they communicate on treatment, or just go for the big bucks?

I use regular medicine in emergencies, but for the past 20 years prefer complementary treatments to try first.

DemEx

[slackmaster]

78. In my uncle's case, surgery for brain cancer just prolonged his death

About half a million dollars that could have been spent on medical care for people with better prognoses, in exchange for about six months of untreatable death spiral.

[barb162]

170. I think this may be correct too and I know science types who think the

same way. The fact is, we can't test the veracity of it one way or another in humans.

[Seabiscuit]

103. Not surprising since so many sheeple still believe Dubya's lies about

Iraq's WMD, and a connection between Saddam and 9-11 and Al Queda. Why, just the other day, Dubya lied again and said we're fighting in Iraq because "we were attacked" (on 9-11).

[Czolgosz]

110. I believe one of the cancer "myths" is true. I had stage IV nasophryngeal

cancer, and so when I noticed that one of the "myths" that 19 percent "mistakenly believed that pain medications are ineffective" in treating cancer pain, I had to laugh. Pain management for people receiving head and neck radiation is not terribly effective. When I see an article label as a "myth" something which I know to be true, I tend to wonder if there is some agenda underlying the article.

[HuckleB]

116. What agenda do you think is at play here?

Obviously, I don't know the details of your case. However, there is a spectrum of ability to provide effective pain management in health care in general, so the number of confounding factors in your case are multiple, and your individual experience does not mean that effective pain management could have been provided to you.

Best to you.

Salud.

[Czolgosz]

125. I wonder.

Generally speaking, whenever I see anything that has a whiff of PR about it (and this is the impression I get when I see something that attempts to persuade me to a belief that I am confident is not wholly true), I look to see who benefits from me adopting the belief being promoted. In this regard, the article concludes: "These results indicate that public and patient education interventions are most urgently needed in cancer centres, medical practices and other community organizations." That seems like a benign agenda, but what do I know?

I perceive that you agree with the proposition that medicine provides effective pain management for cancer patients. Assume for me that you had a contrary belief (just as an exercise). Who do you think would benefit from promoting the idea that medicine provides effective pain management for cancer patients if that was only a half-truth? Why would someone characterize the fact (again, just assuming hypothetically that we agreed it was a fact) that medicine cannot effectively manage all cancer pain as a "myth"?

[HuckleB]

128. I know that medicine often does not provide effective pain management.

However, that does not mean that effective pain management does not exist, as more and more regional studies show a great variety in outcomes. And, no, I'm not just talking about pharmaceuticals.

Gotta go. More later.

[Czolgosz]

138. I look forward to it.

[Ramsey]

174. I think that's a misreading of the poll

Pain medications can be very effective for many forms of cancer pain, which has many causes.

The rather severe pain associated with confluent mucositis during radiation for head and neck cancers is particularly hard to deal with in my experience.

I think they meant chronic pain from cancer metastatic to bones and such.

[OzarkDem]

113. Pretty scary thread

I thought most Dems were fans of science and research.

For those with questions,try visiting the web site of the National Cancer Institute.

[HuckleB]

124. Indeed.

I'm amazed more and more about the blind acceptance of wholesale criticism of anything produced by scientists, and the blind acceptance of claims made by individuals who offer little to nothing to back up those claims. I never thought I would see this much of this lack of healthy skepticism and curiosity at DU.

[DemExpat]

129. Perception....I think it is healthy, smart and being curious and open

to question and be skeptical of all things scientifically produced
touted ....and backed by big money.

Scientific studies are also strongly influenced by desired outcomes.

I greatly value scientific advances in medicine- just don't embrace them all as the only approach.

Just part of my world view....:hi:

DemEx

[HuckleB]

131. I think that's what I said, or hoped to say.

However, there is money behind all treatments, whether supported by repeated, large-scale studies or not. Yet, for some reason, there are many folks who focus their "skepticism" (to be kind) only on the big scary "big pharma" and those "evil" docs.

This thread is fairly strong evidence that this faction exists in stronger numbers than critical thought warrants.

Yes, studies can be influenced by many factors. However, most researchers who garner the respect of others work their butts off to mitigate those factors. This doesn't mean they are perfect. And it doesn't mean that skepticism isn't warranted. My point is in wondering why some are so skeptical of such researchers but so blindly open to individual claims made by those who often dismiss such research with overblown hyperbole.

[DemExpat]

132. Ok...yes I see your point.

And agree that it is dumb to just hear a couple of criticisms of science and then write it off yourself...

But for many, I think that personal experience often teaches one a lot of skepticism and openness for other knowledge sources.

My view is one of skeptical openness :silly: to all sources and analyzing/experiencing it for myself.

DemEx

[shayes51]

118. Cancer is the real terrorism. Think what could have been done

with all the money being spent in Iraq if it had been used in the war on cancer. Makes me sick and sad.

[Ramsey]

142. I'm astoinished at this thread- A scientist's perspective

Obviously, this is a microcosm of the need for better education of the population at large regarding current state of the art and the science of cancer treatment and research. Disclosure: I am an oncologist and cancer clinical researcher. I don’t have any drug company funding.

I am really surprised to see such rampant irrational rejection of science. Yet I see a lot of references to supposed studies that someone read somewhere once but now cannot find because the once-upon-a-time published data has now mysteriously disappeared into the vapor, with very little skepticism from others about statements like that?? Why the ready acceptance of anecdotes and pseudo-science and the whole cloth rejection of actual scientific research?

First of all, there will not be a single "cure" for cancer, and it is really inappropriate to compare all of cancer to an infectious disease like AIDS. There will be a cure for AIDS, and it is a single (or at least limited set of) disease with a single identifiable cause, in this case a virus.

Cancer actually is a general term for hundreds of different malignancies, all of which have different causes, different molecular pathways affected, and all of which will need to eventually have specific treatments. The current focus of much cancer research is generally referred to as "targeted therapy" which involves identifying the molecular signal transduction pathways that are perturbed in an individual type of cancer and targeting them with drugs or other therapies to reverse the malignant cells aberrant behavior. The treatments we have now (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation) are really hammers to swat the mosquito, but they are what we have. I think any reasonable oncologist understands that and hopes for better targeted therapies with less toxicity in the near future.

Second, restricting the diet, raw foods and such do NOT "cure" cancer. It has been reported in mice, but saline injections can "cure" cancer in mice. Animal models are poor substitutes for actual people with real cancers, and results in mice must always be confirmed in humans. Sure, there are anecdotal reports of true-true and probably unrelated instances where someone is on a special diet and happens to do better than expected. There are also many reports of spontaneous regression of cancer without any treatment. I have many patients who actually adversely affected their prognosis by going on some ridiculous diet that touted by some "alternative medicine" practioner and becoming severely malnourished.

Third, drug companies want to make money and that sometimes is a goal that is at odds with good patient care, or making the drugs needed for rare diseases, or getting drugs needed in poor countries, etc. However, much of cancer research is funded by the NIH and private foundations (usually run by site-specific advocacy groups), not by drug companies. Also, not all drug companies are evil incarnate. People in academic medicine are not in the habit of suppressing the results of their research. Heard of "publish or perish"? Believe me, if you have devoted your career to studying some molecular pathway and solving the therapeutic dilemma for a particular type of cancer, you are going to publish your results about what works and what doesn't work. In academia, it all counts as your body of work. Not to mention, if what you are working on looks promising, lots of other people will start working on the same thing or related things and they will also publish their results. The NIH and foundations are not in habit of suppressing the results of studies they spent millions of dollars on. In fact, quite the opposite, these funding bodies expect their grantees to publish their results. It’s really not easy to “suppress” the results of scientific research, and even harder to hide the results of a human clinical trial. After all, all human trials are registered and regulated by the federal government.

Is it possible for drug companies to suppress results they don’t like? Yes, indeed it is. However, usually for internally performed studies. Studies that drug companies do in conjunction with academic centers are usually published. I am an academic researcher specializing in cancer research. I have dozens of colleagues with grants and attend scientific meeting several times a year. I have never personally heard a colleague say a drug company ordered them to either fabricate results or suppress results. In academics, reputation is everything. What a drug company is likely to do is perform its studies “in-house” where they can control the publication output, or if they are unhappy with the results of collaborative studies, they may pull the drug or product and close the study prematurely. This has happened to me and others that I know.

Fourth, how many are aware that alternative medicine is a huge industry as well that tends to prey on desperate sick people with unsubstantiated promises of cures that they have never ever proven work in a clinical trial setting? Why is there no skepticism about the economic interests of the supplement industry, which is largely unregulated and has no obligation to guarantee the benefits of its products or even that the dose of active substances in its products are uniform and pure from one batch to the next? No healthy skepticism about alternative practionioners, many of whom require cash payments up front because they cannot or don’t accept insurance, and who charge high fees for unproven remedies that may be little better than placebo or good old fashioned TLC?

Before I am accused of being a cold blooded scientist who is threatened by or disregards all alternative therapies, let me assure you nothing is further from the truth. I am personally accruing patients to a study of acupuncture for cancer pain for example. However, I like my patients to join the trial because it pays for the therapy and it allows us to actually determine in a rigorous manner how it works and how well it works. I allow my patients to use alternative therapies along side their conventional therapy.

I think a lot of people here don’t understand the nature and process of scientific research into human disease. First, there has to be a lot of basic science work, to identify the mechanism and the therapeutic target. This phase usually takes years, even decades, and is usually performed by multiple people in multiple different institutions. Once a coherent body of work is achieved, there is a lengthy process to establish toxicity and efficacy. First animal studies are performed, and this phase will take years. If a treatment still looks useful after animal studies (which many do not), then it can go to a phase I human study, which only looks at dose and toxicity. These studies are typically offered to “terminal” patients with no standard treatment options left, and these are usually heavily pretreated patients. This phase will take months to years. If a dose is established and toxicity is acceptable, then a phase II trial will be conducted to look at efficacy. This phase will take years. If the treatment seems to work, then finally a phase III study may be done, directly comparing the new treatment to the established treatment. This phase will take years. Given this rigorous process, and the amount of money it costs to complete, it is amazing that new treatments become available as often as they do.

This is the process that has been established by the government and the scientific community to thoroughly study new treatments and establish their safety and efficacy, and it has largely been demanded by patients and their advocates. Remember, the supplement industry doesn’t have to do any of this, and barring violating some kind of “false advertising” laws, can say their products do whatever they want. Are there bad doctors and bad drug company executives exploiting patients? Probably, and they should be stopped when they are. But there are also a lot of people selling a lot of quackery who are just as guilty of exploitation and who are rarely being scrutinized as they should.

[Codeine]

144. Huzzah, and well said!

I often feel disconnected from a Left that fears science and sees drug company conspiracies around every corner. I cannot understand how otherwise intelligent people can really belive that people cure cancer with diet, and yet science has never confirmed a single case of this happening.

Why does the Left fear the rational? Why is science and scientific research anathema to so many in our movement? How can a person actually state with a straight face that scientific studies proving cancer can be cured with "pot injections" is being "suppressed" by the government?

Thank you for a wonderful post, Ramsey. :yourock: :applause:

[ms liberty]

167. Apparently, you didn't read all of my posts...

so I will repeat:
I am not some idiot who's decided shark cartilage is the way to go and have dropped all my medical doctors. I WAS TREATED AT DUKE MED CTR for breast cancer. AFTER 9 months of being told I did NOT have breast cancer,I found a lump. I went to my GP of more than 10 years. This was before the law was passed requiring the patient to receive a copy of the radiologist report. My doctor told me they found nothing and I was OK. (About 2 years later, while I was at that hospital (not Duke!)I went down to records and picked up a copy of the radiologist's report which clearly stated "due to the density of the breast tissue, an immediate biopsy is strongly recommended".) After 3 months, when I still had the lump, I asked my doctor for a recommendation for a second opinion. I got my recommendation, along with an attitude for asking. I went to the Dr. she recommended, who gave me a needle biopsy. That also - allegedly - came up as cancer free. Six months afterward, because I was trying to get pregnant, that Dr. recommended an excisional biopsy. He removed a lump that was 2.5 x 2.5 centimeters. It was cancer, with dirty margins. That is when I went to Duke. See my first post about how wonderful Duke is...I seriously recommend it to anyone who is having a medical crisis, they are so caring. I opted for a mastectomy because there was no way to tell how big the actual mass was. After my surgery, my surgeon told me the mass her removed was 3 x 3 centimeters - which, because I'm small breasted was pretty much my whole breast. He also said the type of breast cancer I had was just a "garden variety" breast cancer, not really agressive, but for it to be that size I had been growing it for about 10 years. I was 38 at the time. Now, the Dr. who did the excisional biopsy didn't just stick the needle in once, he did it several times and more than one spot. How did it get missed? Or did it just get missed in the lab? I don't know, never have found out, at the time I had more important things to think about...like getting thru surgery, chemo, reconstruction. The chemo also sent me into early menopause, so I never did get pregnant. Ce la vie.
I also participated in 6 different research studies during the time I was an active cancer patient at Duke. In fact, I told them right away that I would be MORE THAN HAPPY to participate in research. My exact words were "if I can do something that will keep my niece or any other woman from going thru this I want to do it". I volunteered before they asked - not after. Are you aware of Dr. Greengrass of Duke's study using a block instead of intubation during surgery? I was a participant in that study. (They were putting dots on my back with a pen, I remember, I guess looking for the spot to put the needle in, and I said jokingly "now don't draw any smiley faces on my back!" - I always joke when I'm nervous).
So I think that makes it pretty clear that I am not someone who is fearful or antagonistic toward traditional medicine or research.
Now about that (finger wiggling and ooo's) "pot injections study suppressed by the govt" (end finger wiggling and ooo's). YES I SAY IT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE.
And here is the link to the story, which was one of Project Censored's top 25 for 2001 - I urge you to read the whole story:
(#22) U.S. Government Repressed
Marijuana-Tumor Research

Alternet
May 31, 2000
Title: Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in ‘74
Author: Raymond Cushing
www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=9257

Faculty Evaluator: Mary King M.D.

Student researchers: Jennifer Swift, Licia Marshall,

Corporate media coverage: AP and UPI news wires 2/29/00


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Spanish medical team’s study released in Madrid in February 2000 has shown that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active chemical in marijuana, destroys tumors in lab rats. These findings, however, are not news to the U.S. government. A study in Virginia in 1974 yielded similar results but was suppressed by the DEA, and in 1983 the Reagan/Bush administration tried to persuade U.S. universities and researchers to destroy all cannabis research work done between 1966 and 1976, including compendiums in libraries.

And here's one on the "benevolence" of big pharma:

(#2) Pharmaceutical Companies
Put Profits Before Need

2. Pharmaceutical Companies Put Profits Before Need

Title "Millions for Viagra, Pennies for the Poor"
Source The Nation, 7/19/99
Author Ken Silverstein
Faculty Evaluator Liz Close
Student Researcher Monte Williams


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multinational pharmaceutical companies focus their research and development on high profile, profit-making drugs like Viagra instead of developing cures for life threatening diseases in poorer countries. Viagra earned more than one billion dollars its first year, for instance.

I could add others, but why don't you check out Project Censored for yourself? Now, I'm sure you're asking, why trust these Project Censored people? Well, as you can see, they research the stories to verify the stories were legitimately filed and verify claims where possible. I first found Project Censored in (about) 1999/2000 at my library. And if you are able to get ahold of a copy, you can check this out too. I think it was the 1998 or 1999 edition: One of their top 25 least reported stories was the Project for the New American Century Iraq paper. When Iraq started to gear up, I understood, I got it, I saw which way the wind was blowing - because I already KNEW what their plans were, and it was from reading about it in Project Censored.
Now does that mean I believe in shark cartilage and crystals and remote viewing? HELL NO. All I ever said in my original post was that I was open minded, but did not trust every person, business, or organization because I know the human race is not ALWAYS good, benevolent and kind.
I'm not trying to get in any kind of flame war. I never would have posted originally if I would have known it would turn into this kind of discussion. Everyone has the right to their opinion, even if it is in disagreement with mine, and I always try to be polite, courteous and friendly to others. That's why I am more than a bit angry that some of the posts in this thread are so condescending and disdainful of those who question the medical establishment. I respect others not only for their knowledge, but for the manners they use when sharing their knowledge and the respect they show others with whom they disagree. I don't expect you, or anyone for that matter, to simply believe what I say just because I said it. I don't simply believe anyone just because they've got some letters after their names, and I have good reason.

Peace to everyone on this thread AND to DU

[ms liberty]

168. Darn...

Had to sign off my computer too quickly, before I had a chance to double check for errors. Now my editing time has passed - and of course - I see a couple of spelling and grammer errors. Please excuse! Also I see the link to the second story didn't carry over. You can find that and other interesting stories at Project Censored.

[Ramsey]

172. I looked at that Project Censored story

Having never heard of this before. It really doesn't give a lot of information, but regardless, I'd like to make a couple of points.

A Medline search for Dr. Guzman shows that he has published 12 articles on THC biology, but all of these are basic science papers, there are no clinical trials.

If I Medline search for THC and Cancer I get around 80 publications, many of which discuss using THC for anti-nausea effect or cachexia, and some of which talk about the compound in lab studies. Interestingly there is an article: "Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) for cancer patients. A review of the National Cancer Institute program in Wisconsin." Wisconsin Medical Journal. 81(6):24, 1982, but it isn't online, so I can't read it. However, it is probably also about symptom relief.

I'd be perfectly willing to believe that the Reagan White House would try to suppress cannabis research. I find it harder to believe they'd actually succeed in suppressing the research of multiple institutions but maybe only 1 or 2 were involved. But you are talking about studies done in the 1970's, when the atmosphere was very different and it was probably easier for that to happen. It couldn't happen today, IMO.

Also, if THC is such a promising cancer therapy, why hasn't any private company or any researchers in some other country for that matter conducted a clinical trial?

Finally, the Guzman studies are in rats. As I said elsewhere, pretty much everything cures cancer in lab rodents, that rarely translates into a clinical benefit in humans. Guzman's basic science work has shown that THC has some anti-angiogenic and pro-apoptotic effects in some cancer cells, which is potentially interesting, but very preliminary in the scheme of human therapies.

However, there is another article called: "Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol enhances breast cancer growth and metastasis by suppression of the antitumor immune response", from the Medical College of Virginia, so there are at least some contradictory results in the medical literature. The evidence for anti-cancer efficacy of THC is very sketchy at best at the moment.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be studied. I think it should be, if the appropriate pre-clinical studies show efficacy. My understanding is that although the substance is considered illegal, the government has given a number of labs permission to study it and run trials, although I don't known the status of that research.

[ms liberty]

177. You might be interested....

I just posted a reply to northzax who had posted a question about marijuana and glaucoma. It has a short paragraph and list of studies.
Most people don't realize the number of studies that have been done, in the US alone, and the variety of illnesses/diseases which have been shown to benefit from the medicinal properties of marijuana. Some of those you may not be aware of are: migraines, depression, ms, chronic pain. You've probably heard of the (alleged) benefits of nausea, glaucoma, appetite and weight gain. Anecdotal evidence I personally have been told of also includes hot flashes and anxiety. Research into the benefits of marijuana as medicine is a complicated issue, especially since the late 80's - early 90's. The whole thing is so politicized, because it's wrapped up in the law-and-order, anti-crime, anti-drug platform. It's one of those issues that make politicians afraid they'll be branded as soft on crime if they don't follow the accepted line about, and anyone who speaks up in favor of it - even in the medicinal area only - is branded immediately as someone who wants to "let drug dealers destroy our children" so the rhetoric becomes hyper-emotional. Logic and reason go straight out the window. It even affects the ability of researchers to actually GET (or get enough of) the marijuana to use in research. I'm not attempting to convert you or anything! just trying to give you an "overview" of some of the diverse issues involved.
There are a couple of serious research and policy institutes and organizations that are dedicated to educating and informing the public regarding this issue if you're interested in learning more. The Drug Policy Alliance (formerly the Lindesmith Center), NORML, and the Marijuana Policy Project can all give you more information - and more detailed information - than I as a layperson ever could.
Thanks also for the civil reply to my last post! I always enjoy a lively discussion - as long as everyone is nice about it!

Peace be with you

[Sgent]

181. I can't speak for other countries

But the only THC grown legally in the US in marijuana form is at the University of Mississippi. They have 10x more requested than they can supply, and the DEA has denied 2-3 applications by other universities to create additional fields.

In addition, the MJ grown there is widely accepted (having actually smoked it I agree with this) as being massively inferior to that of the street drug in strength.

[HuckleB]

145. Gracias!

Obviously, I couldn't have said it better myself, and I certainly didn't, despite my haphazard attempts seen all over this board.

Wonderfully written. Well thought out. Sound argument.

Salud!

:toast:

[Susang]

150. Excellent post

You might want to check out this oncologist/cancer researcher's blog, if you haven't already: http://oracknows.blogspot.com

[MetaTrope]

152. Just curious...

How much have chemo and radiation therapy improved cancer survival rates? I can't seem to find statistics anywhere.

[MetaTrope]

156. hmmmm...

So those expensive high-tech cancer "therapies" are just a scam?

[HuckleB]

157. Answering your own post to a poster who has clearly not checked back in?

Interesting.

P.S. -- Here's a sample of what can be noted with an extremely quick online search. I'd be happy to meet you at the Oregon Health & Science University library some weekend, if you would like to peruse the journals there and note the specifics of improved treatments over the years.


Drug combination improves lymphoma survival rates:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/cancer/12/04/health.lymphoma.reut/

Researchers Improve Lung Cancer Survival Rates:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050622232959.htm

Better and Longer Survival for Cancer Patients:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=157

and...

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=861

5-Year Relative Survival Ratesa for Selected Cancer Sites, All Races:
http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interface/raterisk/rates28.html

Boost for breast cancer survival:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4539539.stm

[Ramsey]

163. It depends upon the type of cancer

Chemotherapy has statistically significantly improved the survival rates for some types of cancer, such as Wilm's, testicular cancer, some lymphomas and leukemias, breast cancer, cervix and ovarian cancer, some gastrointestinal among otters. Hormonal therapy has significantly improved survival rates for breast and prostate cancer.

For other cancers, current chemotherapy agents seem to have less benefit, including lung cancer (which is why people shouldn't smoke), sarcomas, melanoma, adult brain tumors, and pancreatic cancer.

Biologic therapies are beginning to emerge and have improved survival in at least one type of cancer (Gleevac in a special type of leukemia). I expect to see these therapies improved upon and used increasingly either alone or in conjunction with other treatments.

Radiation is really a local therapy more like surgery, but can improve survival when used in Ellary stage diseases like breast and cervix cancer, and is curative treatment in Hodgkin's Disease.

The American Cancer Society publishes "Cancer Statistics" every year that compares survival rates over time for each type of cancer.

[Ramsey]

173. Spell check is not my friend

That should read:

"among others" (not otters)
and
"early stage" (not Ellary stage).

Sorry!

[Lars39]

155. Thank you, Ramsey!

:)

[SiouxJ]

164. Thanks for the input, based on your personal experience

I believe your personal observations, even though I don't know you and you haven't provided us any links to documentation of what you say ;-) . It's not necessary for me. Like I said, I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and your word is good enough for me.

As someone who could some day benefit from the research being done, I find this very interesting, not to mention encouraging. Even though I stated above that I don't believe cures for most major diseases will ever be found (as there is no incentive for big pharma to find them), I have to admit that, that is the pessimist in me talking and deep down I still have hope. I still donate to organizations that do research on my particular disease, and others. Maybe it's because the cost of my meds keep going through the roof and I will probably be on them forever; or maybe it's because I still cannot think of a single thing that has been "cured" (except for maybe Polio, if you consider a vaccine a cure) in recent history, but I still believe big pharma is only interested in treating diseases, not curing them and if a cure is found, it won't come from one of them.

I have talked with specialists at the Mayo clinic about some of the things the drug companies have pulled (discussions that were in confidence of course, so NO I don't have a link ;-) ) so I'm sorry but I wouldn't put anything past them after hearing some of the things they have done. One of my specialists relayed that Mayo was in on the study for this particular drug that I was supposed to go on and that normal procedure was to gather up all parties involved to release the latest results, but that the drug co. hadn't done that on this one drug. Instead they went straight to the press and announced their success and then a month or so later the drug was yanked after some people died while on it. He suspected some of the Mayo researchers would have raised some red flags that would have delayed the release of the drug, and as it turned out, they should have held up on it. That is just one of the stories I have heard about big pharma that makes me distrust them. Clearly they put profit before patients. I'm sure there are exceptions, as there are with everything.

I also believe in a treating my condition with a combination of traditional medications and alternative therapies, such as acupuncture. I have had success with both. I have had great success (I mean measurable within 20 minutes) with Ginkgo for example and also my expensive monthly pharmaceuticals. I don't know where I'd be without either and I'd rather not think about it.

Thanks again for sharing your personal insight. It really does put some of my pessimism regarding the search for a cure in check.

[Ramsey]

171. I'd be happy to provide links

For any specific topic you are interested in. I didn't really think people would want to read a bunch of medical articles. PM me if you like.

My personal observations are as an academic physician, I really don't have much experience with drug company studies. Others in my office do and have had mixed experiences. Some have been good and cooperative and have not infringed on academic freedom. Some have nickel-and-dimed us and pulled their drugs for some arbitrary reason leaving us and our trials high and dry. I think working with drug companies is a double-edged sword. That's why I prefer grants from the NIH!

I think there are probably many legitimate and safe uses for many alternative remedies. There is a reason many of these products have been considered medicinal for centuries. The problem is that they generally haven't been studied to establish dose, efficacy and toxicity.

Finally, there are a number of diseases that are curable, including quite a few infectious diseases and a number of cancers. My definition of "cure" is that a treatment is administered and the disease never returns and the person dies of cardiopulmonary failure ("natural causes") after a normal lifespan. I treat breast cancer, a disease that in early stages has a survival rate in the 80-90% range. The key to cancer cure is early detection for those types that are treatable. Unfortunately, some cancers are not curable even when detected early.

Medicine is both an art and a science, and needs both ends of that spectrum. It disturbs me to see so many people reject the good that science has produced.

[DemExpat]

165. I think that part of the problem is that there are growing

numbers of people whose personal experiences with these meticulously tested and researched drugs and treatments are ones of dissatisfaction, no relief, and sometimes worsening condition from snow-balling side-effects. (Not to forget to mention incredible financial cost)

Lots of cancer treatments are painful and grueling, and people may dread this suffering and opt for other less invasive treatments. Even if risky. Or use complementary treatment alongside medical....

Yes, there is quackery, and heavy exploitation, and all health provisions should be scrutinized carefully - but not just by the AMA or government with their one-sided vision - by a panel of people perhaps from bio-medicine and from complementary medicines to safeguard quality and ethical treatment.

IMO it is more complicated than purely accepting or rejecting rational science, and even if something is "proven" to work on 100,000 people, it might not work on you. It is a matter of choice as well to seek other options.

I am a user and big fan of complementary and modern medicines used as complements and my practitioners are all medically trained (Homeopathic MD, veterinarians specializing in Homeopathy and Acupuncture for my pets, etc.)
I am most satisfied with this arrangement too - for over 20 years now!
I appreciate my complementary practitioner having medical knowledge and my medical doctors having some knowledge/respect for complementary approaches. Finding this mutual respect and regard in one person is even more "ideal" to me. :-) Maybe I am just lucky!

DemEx

[Pithlet]

166. The anti-science crowd here is a vocal one

The conspiracy theory crowd is, as well. But there are a lot of us here who don't reject science out of hand and buy every crackpot theory out there. We just tend not to be as noticeable. :hi: It is disconcerting to see, I agree.

[HuckleB]

159. Melbourne Herald Sun: Americans Fear Cancer Surgery

Americans fear cancer surgery:
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15762594%255E663,00.html


Ah, great. More ammo for "the other side" the next time I end up having a drink with an Aussie overseas.

;)

[barb162]

169. I knew an RN with a Masters who believed that if cancer cells

were exposed to the air, as in an operation, they'd spread faster. I don't know if this is true or not because how would you test for it. There literally is no way to test for it in humans but I guess it goes with the old folklore that if you are in for an exploratory and you were feeling okayish beforehand and then you decline quickly thereafter....

The RN got her BS degree in the early 90s

[HuckleB]

175. Anti-fungal drug may help treat cancer

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=26838

[HuckleB]

179. Baby size linked to cancer risk

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4234047.stm

[superconnected]

180. I skipped down here after getting lost in the Cancer ward posts.

I don't believe, just because your hospital doesn't have marble halls and chandeliers, it means cancer isn't big business.

It could easily mean the greedy people making the money won't spend it on the building.

I don't know how profitable cancer is. I'm just saying that looking at the bldg isn't always a way to tell. I have worked for plenty of companies that made tons of money but didn't spend it on upgrading anything for the workers or the public; that they didn't have to.