Will we ever rid ourselves of The Big C., Cancer?

[Lacessit]

10 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 

I never said it would. 

Bu your theory  that cancer can't be eliminated by evolution is not entirely correct since as you say some can.

I said that cancer is part of the evolutionary process and  to eliminate one would adversely effect  the other. 

"Cancer development within an individual is also an evolutionary process, which in many respects mirrors species evolution. Species evolve by mutation and selection acting on individuals in a population; tumors evolve by mutation and selection acting on cells in a tissue. "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3660034/#:~:text=Cancer development within an individual,on cells in a tissue.

 

Where in my post did I say some can? I'm confused.

[newbee2022]

On 3/3/2024 at 4:35 AM, GammaGlobulin said:

Some of us, not I, think that we can cure cancer.

 

The US gov once thought it could cure cancer.

 

But, the US Government, at that time, did not realize that....

Dinosaurs had cancer, too.

 

So then, if dinosaurs had cancer, over 65 million years ago,, and if dinosaurs could not cure cancer, back then...then...

Do you really think that we will be able to cure cancer, now?

 

 

So then, how many of you believe that cancer is a "curable" affliction?

 

Or, how many of you are scientists, is just one more way of phrasing this question.....

 

Best regards,

Gamma

 

Note:  Just like Smallpox, maybe it is God who gave us cancer.

 

What do you think?

 

 

There are many special designed medication/vaccines on the way, even to prevent cancer. I reckon within the next 5 years there are on the market, manufactured by Biotech and Moderna. Phase 3 studies already.

[Presnock]

I have read stories and seen international tv shows about doctors that have made some "miracle" cures.  One Romanian, living in Texas would only take on cancer patients that the best hospitals could not cure and gave the patients a death sentence so to speak yet this

doctor who has been charged with "fraud" by the state of Texas (last I read 4 times) was exonerated at each trial as the number of his

cured patients testified and provided proof from the other hospitals/doctors that they had been diagnosed with incurable cancer.  The state of Texas then revoked his patents/trademarked treatment as their law on this states that the patent/trademark could only belong to a pharmaceutical research facility and not one individual.  He was still allowed to treat "incurable" folks with some cures.  I read this in several

different respected magazines/newspapers.  Other cures have also been reported and I have actually talked to one individual who claimed

that he was given a death sentence too as incurable but found thisl treatment I read about and he is now surviving years later!  I think that there is too much money for the pharmas to ever put out a cure unless it would be for a continuing buying of drugs/medicines so that they could continue reaping the results.  Just look at the number of new Pharma BILLIONAIRES created during the COVID years - over 500!

Now read about all the problems that have been and continue plaguing folks who too the vaccines.  I of course am not any kind of expert on this and am just opining my personal views on this.  I lost a wife, father, father in law to cancers and not a pretty picture but I do have 

my  doubts that I will live long  enough to ever see a cure for all put out to the public.

[spidermike007]

The CDC, the FDA, the WHO, and the medical establishment does not appear to have any interest, nor incentive to beat cancer. There is just too much money involved. Surely there must be multiple cures out there. How many hundreds of billions have been spent on research? 

 

The translation: if you develop a new drug that cures people rapidly, then patients will not need to take the drug on an ongoing basis, and that limits the amount of money a company can make. The analyst asks: "Is curing patients a sustainable business model?"

 

Pharmaceutical companies are developing new drugs in only two therapeutic areas these days -- cancer and rare diseases. Why? These are the only therapeutic areas where exorbitant pricing is tolerated by payers. How exorbitant are we talking about? Most new drugs for cancer and rare diseases are being priced above $400,000 a year per patient. Some drugs are being priced at $1 million per treatment. And prices continue to soar.

 

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/revolutionandrevelation/72407

[Lacessit]

IMO immunotherapy will be the gold standard for cancer treatment. That is, compounds or organisms that teach the body to fight cancers with its own defenses.

 

BCG immunotherapy for bladder cancer is about 95% successful in achieving remission. It involves introducing a weakened strain of live tuberculosis into the bladder over a six week cycle.

 

AFAIK scientists are still trying to work out the mechanism by which a live bacterium provokes the body into producing antibodies, which specifically target bladder cancer cells. It does not seem to be effective for any other form of cancer.

 

I am living proof BCG immunotherapy works. I was diagnosed with bladder cancer 18 years ago.

[Lacessit]

13 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

The CDC, the FDA, the WHO, and the medical establishment does not appear to have any interest, nor incentive to beat cancer. There is just too much money involved. Surely there must be multiple cures out there. How many hundreds of billions have been spent on research? 

 

The translation: if you develop a new drug that cures people rapidly, then patients will not need to take the drug on an ongoing basis, and that limits the amount of money a company can make. The analyst asks: "Is curing patients a sustainable business model?"

 

Pharmaceutical companies are developing new drugs in only two therapeutic areas these days -- cancer and rare diseases. Why? These are the only therapeutic areas where exorbitant pricing is tolerated by payers. How exorbitant are we talking about? Most new drugs for cancer and rare diseases are being priced above $400,000 a year per patient. Some drugs are being priced at $1 million per treatment. And prices continue to soar.

 

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/revolutionandrevelation/72407

It's no secret both Americans and non-Americans think the US health system is a cluster-<deleted>. Nearly all the pharmaceuticals in Australia cost AUD 7.30, a bit above USD 5 per prescription. In the USA, they can cost thousands of dollars.

 

I agree the dollars are in creating a drug which creates dependence, rather than one which cures a condition permanently.

 

The real irony here is the PBS ( Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ) was brought in by a socialist government, along with Medicare. So while politicians in the US rail against socialism as akin to leprosy, it seems to do better at not sending ordinary people to the poorhouse trying to stay alive.

[dhupverg]

Look into this book and watch some videos on youtube.  There's a lot of people that have followed this course and ended up from stage 4 to no cancer.   It is a much different approach then chemicals and radation.  It has to do with metabolic health and starving the cancer.   https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Metabolic-Disease-Management-Prevention/dp/0470584920

 

Here's a long indepth video with those who were on the protocol, along with stories of others who followed the protocol.  

 

 

 

[john donson]

everybody has cancer, all the time

 

a healthy immune system kills or controls the cells

 

chemicals in food, water, air and what we drink, smoke, what the MD prescribes, can make our immune system weak

[spidermike007]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

It's no secret both Americans and non-Americans think the US health system is a cluster-<deleted>. Nearly all the pharmaceuticals in Australia cost AUD 7.30, a bit above USD 5 per prescription. In the USA, they can cost thousands of dollars.

 

I agree the dollars are in creating a drug which creates dependence, rather than one which cures a condition permanently.

 

The real irony here is the PBS ( Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ) was brought in by a socialist government, along with Medicare. So while politicians in the US rail against socialism as akin to leprosy, it seems to do better at not sending ordinary people to the poorhouse trying to stay alive.

The railing against socialism is just a PR slogan at this point, it means nothing in real life. In reality the politicians in the US are simply hawkers, salesman and promoters for Big Pharma, and they do everything in their power to ensure Big Pharma prevails over the consumer.

 

After all Big Pharma doesn't control the US government and neither do corporations. They own the US government. I suspect the very same thing applies here but big Pharma doesn't seem to have quite as heavy a grasp on Thai society, as we seem to have access to alot of inexpensive generics. 

[digger70]

On 3/3/2024 at 4:35 AM, GammaGlobulin said:

Some of us, not I, think that we can cure cancer.

 

The US gov once thought it could cure cancer.

 

But, the US Government, at that time, did not realize that....

Dinosaurs had cancer, too.

 

So then, if dinosaurs had cancer, over 65 million years ago,, and if dinosaurs could not cure cancer, back then...then...

Do you really think that we will be able to cure cancer, now?

 

 

So then, how many of you believe that cancer is a "curable" affliction?

 

Or, how many of you are scientists, is just one more way of phrasing this question.....

 

Best regards,

Gamma

 

Note:  Just like Smallpox, maybe it is God who gave us cancer.

 

What do you think?

 

 

There's No God ,so he can't give you Anything. It is what it is Sh!t happens.

[Gottfrid]

On 3/3/2024 at 6:08 AM, GammaGlobulin said:

God has the power to heal....

Right?

So, why doesn´t he?

[xylophone]

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

The CDC, the FDA, the WHO, and the medical establishment does not appear to have any interest, nor incentive to beat cancer. There is just too much money involved. Surely there must be multiple cures out there. How many hundreds of billions have been spent on research? 

 

The translation: if you develop a new drug that cures people rapidly, then patients will not need to take the drug on an ongoing basis, and that limits the amount of money a company can make. The analyst asks: "Is curing patients a sustainable business model?"

 

Pharmaceutical companies are developing new drugs in only two therapeutic areas these days -- cancer and rare diseases. Why? These are the only therapeutic areas where exorbitant pricing is tolerated by payers. How exorbitant are we talking about? Most new drugs for cancer and rare diseases are being priced above $400,000 a year per patient. Some drugs are being priced at $1 million per treatment. And prices continue to soar.

 

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/revolutionandrevelation/72407

I can't agree with you on your first paragraph, not only because I have relatives and friends who are in the medical profession, but because I also am a keen reader of medical journals and also follow Med Page which features some of the latest work/research/trials with regard to diseases and medicines, and some of the work which is being done is amazing and gives one hope for the future.

 

The link below doesn't seem to work but if you copy and paste it, the site shows up.

 

 www.medpagetoday.com 

Edited March 5 by xylophone

[Seeall]

blah blah blah.....  can cure it, but want to do that?  so much money in it...  same as oil... inventors making water run engines disappear...  list goes on and on..  they want you sick, non thinking, and paying.... work till you drop..

[DaLa]

I was diagnosed with cancer several months ago and started on a journey of fact finding and treatment. I stumbled across a TikTok post claiming that Fenbendazole, a dog worming drug was being promoted as a cure for cancer.

 

I read multiple reports and followed up on claims and was skeptical of the posts by people claiming they had cancer and that the drug was ‘curing’ them. Further research led me to reports of MD’s claiming there was some evidence of it working and others that it was unproven.

 

When I read a medical journal that had evidence that the drug could cause organ failure I posted this on the TikTok post and received quite strongly written animosity.

 

I ultimately decided to place my health in the hands of the medical profession here in LoS and my view at 70 years old is that if it’s not the Big C that gets me something else will. For starters I stay away from riding motorbikes here, that will surely extend my life by at least another 10 years.

 

A footnote to add is that part of my treatment is estrogen female hormone injections. Hot flashes in this country are no joke, however being full of all this goo I am now always correct when having a discussion with my other half.

[xylophone]

25 minutes ago, DaLa said:

I was diagnosed with cancer several months ago and started on a journey of fact finding and treatment. I stumbled across a TikTok post claiming that Fenbendazole, a dog worming drug was being promoted as a cure for cancer.

 

I read multiple reports and followed up on claims and was skeptical of the posts by people claiming they had cancer and that the drug was ‘curing’ them. Further research led me to reports of MD’s claiming there was some evidence of it working and others that it was unproven.

 

When I read a medical journal that had evidence that the drug could cause organ failure I posted this on the TikTok post and received quite strongly written animosity.

 

I ultimately decided to place my health in the hands of the medical profession here in LoS and my view at 70 years old is that if it’s not the Big C that gets me something else will. For starters I stay away from riding motorbikes here, that will surely extend my life by at least another 10 years.

 

A footnote to add is that part of my treatment is estrogen female hormone injections. Hot flashes in this country are no joke, however being full of all this goo I am now always correct when having a discussion with my other half.

I liked your post, and had to chuckle at your last paragraph, so at least you have still got your sense of humour!

 

Unfortunately there are still folk out there who believe in the likes of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as "cures" for Covid, when the medical profession has rendered them useless for this, but still there are quacks who will have you try anything.

 

I was found to have a skin cancer after an excision and a friend of mine here suggested I took a "potion" which an associate of his claimed would cure cancer if ingested. It was made from seawater, after having an electrical current passed through it and my friend claimed it had cured cancer in one of his friends.

 

No amount of suggesting that this was nonsense would change his mind, so I stopped trying and let him wallow in his ignorance.

 

Like you, I prefer to put my health in the hands of the medical profession, even though at times some of the decisions/treatment I have had/seen here to make me wonder how far ahead the medical profession is in this country – – having said that, in my opinion they know a lot more than the Facebook and YouTube "doctors".

 

Good luck with your treatment and your future health.

[Lacessit]

59 minutes ago, xylophone said:

I liked your post, and had to chuckle at your last paragraph, so at least you have still got your sense of humour!

 

Unfortunately there are still folk out there who believe in the likes of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as "cures" for Covid, when the medical profession has rendered them useless for this, but still there are quacks who will have you try anything.

 

I was found to have a skin cancer after an excision and a friend of mine here suggested I took a "potion" which an associate of his claimed would cure cancer if ingested. It was made from seawater, after having an electrical current passed through it and my friend claimed it had cured cancer in one of his friends.

 

No amount of suggesting that this was nonsense would change his mind, so I stopped trying and let him wallow in his ignorance.

 

Like you, I prefer to put my health in the hands of the medical profession, even though at times some of the decisions/treatment I have had/seen here to make me wonder how far ahead the medical profession is in this country – – having said that, in my opinion they know a lot more than the Facebook and YouTube "doctors".

 

Good luck with your treatment and your future health.

The best shot at putting cancer into remission is to have it detected early. Much easier to zap a small tumor than a big one.

 

Doctors never say to a patient they have been cured. They always use the term remission.

 

There are any number of people who will try alternative medicine, hoping it will do what mainstream medicine sometimes cannot. Occasionally belief alone pulls a patient through, on that basis the treatment is pronounced a success. It's a rich field for some scammers.

 

I had a friend who went on a macrobiotic diet for his prostate cancer, fat lot of good it did him.

[Lacessit]

On 3/3/2024 at 6:08 AM, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Well, if not God, then who gave us cancer?

 

 

 

From whom all blessings flow.

 

Praise God....

All powerful!

 

God has the power to heal....

Right?

 

 

I don't know if there is a God or not. If there is, he/she/it is quite cruel to some people.

 

Belief can heal, as witness Lourdes. Apparently there are only 70 officially recognized "miracles".

 

When I asked Gemini " Can belief heal"? this was its answer:

 

 

Whether belief alone can directly heal physical ailments is a complex question with no definitive answer. However, there's compelling evidence that belief can play a significant role in the healing process, and it can be explored through two main lenses:

1. The Placebo Effect: This well-documented phenomenon demonstrates that belief in a treatment, even if it's not an actual medication, can lead to real improvements in a patient's health. Studies have shown the placebo effect can be remarkably effective in reducing pain, managing symptoms of various conditions, and even influencing the body's biological processes [1, 2]. This suggests that positive beliefs and expectations can trigger the body's self-healing mechanisms, potentially boosting the immune system, reducing stress hormones, and promoting overall well-being.

2. The Power of the Mind-Body Connection: The mind and body are intricately linked, and beliefs can significantly influence how we experience and respond to illness. Positive beliefs like hope, optimism, and a strong sense of purpose can contribute to a fighting spirit, which can be crucial in the healing process. These positive emotions can lead to healthier behaviors, better adherence to treatment regimens, and a more resilient approach to challenges, all of which can contribute to improved health outcomes.

 

 

Edited March 5 by Lacessit

[CanadaSam]

SURE we will.  It just takes AI to come up with a bunch of nanobots that target cancer cells.  Not at all difficult to do, it's just gonna take 10-20 years.

[wombat]

Not while big pharma make money from it.

[xylophone]

11 hours ago, CanadaSam said:

SURE we will.  It just takes AI to come up with a bunch of nanobots that target cancer cells.  Not at all difficult to do, it's just gonna take 10-20 years.

I have just read an article from MedScape in which AI has been used to find an hitherto unknown/unseen aspect of cancer cells which will help fight this dreadful affliction. Progress is being made on many fronts despite what the ludicrous "big Pharma" naysayers echo.

[xylophone]

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

I have just read an article from MedScape in which AI has been used to find an hitherto unknown/unseen aspect of cancer cells which will help fight this dreadful affliction. Progress is being made on many fronts despite what the ludicrous "big Pharma" naysayers echo.

Correction, the above should read: MedPage....... www.medpagetoday.com, 

 

And plenty of other disease and new drug breakthrough news.

[Alidiver]

Well Done two trolls in one post.
Cancer and God

[Keep Right]

On 3/5/2024 at 7:27 AM, sirineou said:

 

I never said it would. 

Bu your theory  that cancer can't be eliminated by evolution is not entirely correct since as you say some can.

I said that cancer is part of the evolutionary process and  to eliminate one would adversely effect  the other. 

"Cancer development within an individual is also an evolutionary process, which in many respects mirrors species evolution. Species evolve by mutation and selection acting on individuals in a population; tumors evolve by mutation and selection acting on cells in a tissue. "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3660034/#:~:text=Cancer development within an individual,on cells in a tissue.

 

In a way, cancer negates evolution. Natural selection should have eliminated cancer millions of years ago.

[sirineou]

6 minutes ago, Keep Right said:

In a way, cancer negates evolution. Natural selection should have eliminated cancer millions of years ago.

 

That's not the point .

Cancer is part of the evolutionary process 

Evolution is made possible by mutations as cells divide, some of those mutations have survival value. and those who get them survive more than those who do not get them passing on their mutation to their children . 

Cancer is also a mutation , which is why radiation among many other things causes cancer. 

To eliminate cancer one would have to also eliminate mutations and since mutations are nessacery for evolution it would also have to eliminate evolution. 

  We replace about 1 percent of all our cells. In 80 to 100 days,, the more days we live the more cells divide and are replaced,

With every division there is a chance of a mutation, and a smaller chance that it could be cancerous.

 As we live longer lives, in addition to being subjected to pollutants and pathogens that are carcinogenic we aso expose ourselves to more  cell divisions. It's like rolling the dice. do it long enough and.........

So can cancer be eliminated? No!

But it might be mitigated, And many cancers are curable. Perhaps all one day. all cancers will be curable.

One could get cancer but there might be a foolproof way of disrupting its process of dividing out of control,  

At least that's my understanding of the issue, 

 

[zzaa09]

[KannikaP]

On 3/5/2024 at 7:12 AM, Lacessit said:

Back in the thirties and forties, mothers were encouraged to drink stout while pregnant.

I think that was for the iron content and not the meagre 3% alcohol in it.

[saintdomingo]

On 3/5/2024 at 10:34 AM, john donson said:

everybody has cancer, all the time

 

a healthy immune system kills or controls the cells

 

chemicals in food, water, air and what we drink, smoke, what the MD prescribes, can make our immune system weak

The last paragraph (less the smoke) is what the dermatologist said was causing my itchy rash. 7 0r 8 years later an anti-histamine every 3 days keeps it at bay.

The radiotherapy after 15 years still keeps my prostate cancer in remission, psa as of yesterday at 0.256. So medical science does it for me, and probably a healthy diet and no smoking help a bit.

[thaibeachlovers]

No. Cancer is a defect of the body, not a transmissible disease, and bodies are never perfect ergo some will develop cancer regardless.

What will happen is that science will get better at detecting and treating cancer.

Eg, prostate cancer treatment is light years more advanced now than when I was butchered.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/10/2024 at 1:40 AM, saintdomingo said:

The last paragraph (less the smoke) is what the dermatologist said was causing my itchy rash. 7 0r 8 years later an anti-histamine every 3 days keeps it at bay.

The radiotherapy after 15 years still keeps my prostate cancer in remission, psa as of yesterday at 0.256. So medical science does it for me, and probably a healthy diet and no smoking help a bit.

Not smoking is the best thing anyone can do to stay healthy, though as I can attest it doesn't stop some getting it. I never smoked, but I got prostate cancer anyway.

[saintdomingo]

Almost all the ones I know who went early were smokers. The exception was an alcoholic.