Cancer - Blind Faith

nacho libre

I was recently told by a health professional that treatments for Cancers have approved in the last 20 years, and as a consequence survival rates have gone up, while that maybe true for some Cancers, it certainly not true of the more more insidious ones( he knew this of course)
- which are usually not detected till it's too late to be cured of them. With this in mind is there anyone who lurks here, or posts to this board, that was diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer 8-10 years ago- I very much doubt there is- which proves my point. Those that survive this long are extremely rare cases.

Maybe in 10 - 20 years there will be a cure for these types of Cancer.
The most important thing to say is FU Cancer. FU very much:mad:

wakka12

Improvements in death rates in the most deadly cancers will probably come about due to advances in technology that detects it early on rather than big improvements in treatment, in the near future anyway

Which is nearly just as good, cancer is usally not a problem so long as its caught early. But some deadly cancers like oesaphageal cancer show no symptoms until it has metastasized which is unfortunate

CinemaGuy45

Cancer heart failure organ failure we have to die of something.

Watching loved ones die rips the soul out of us but we are all going the same way at some point.

c.p.w.g.w

Just found out a family member has prostate cancer(2nd person with cancer news in 3 months).

Looks like it's spread to bones, stomach and lungs. During his annual medical/mot his prostate was never checked. His 55 for Christ sake.

nacho libre

wakka12 wrote: »

Improvements in death rates in the most deadly cancers will probably come about due to advances in technology that detects it early on rather than big improvements in treatment, in the near future anyway

e

Yes, but sadly so far for these types of Cancers there are no effective ways to detect them early, as you say they are usually detected by a process of elimination after the victim first presents with symptoms. You could to all intents and purposes be hale and healthy yet at the same time have a tumour growing inside you that you sadly wont know about until it's too late to remove it. I have often heard it said if the pharmaceutical industry wasn't purely profit driven
these advances you speak of might be available already. Is this a facile argument?

nacho libre

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Just found out a family member has prostate cancer(2nd person with cancer news in 3 months).

Looks like it's spread to bones, stomach and lungs. During his annual medical/mot his prostate was never checked. His 55 for Christ sake.

Sorry to hear that.

fordyjames

Know people who drank and smoked all those lives still alive in thier 80's

Know people who died in thier 50's and 60's with cancer a d never smoked or drank.

Enjoy yourife while you can

klaaaz

I'm sorry OP but pancreatic cancer has a low survival rate and it has been known as a prominent silent killer among cancers in that it doesn't show much symptoms until it's too late. A past govt minister (Lenihan) was a victim of this and so was Patrick Swayze. Agree to say FU to this particular cancer as it's very cruel to happen to a person

wakka12

nacho libre wrote: »

Yes, but sadly so far for these types of Cancers there are no effective ways to detect them early, as you say they are usually detected by a process of elimination after the victim first presents with symptoms. You could to all intents and purposes be hale and healthy yet at the same time have a tumour growing inside you that you sadly wont know about until it's too late to remove it. I have often heard it said if the pharmaceutical industry wasn't purely profit driven
these advances you speak of might be available already. Is this a facile argument?

I think people are very cynical with regards 'big pharma', they do a lot more good than harm

Well if you were really obsessive about it you could potentially get regular check ups for tumours in places like the oesaphagus couldnt you, if you really wanted? Nothing stopping you asking your GP or whoever to stick one of those endosopes down your throat Its just obviously not recommended because over 99% of people will not have a tumour 99% of the time so itd be a huge waste of medical staff time and resources

Like people who are at risk of these cancers do get regular check ups to see if a tumour is ever forming, because the time and effort of going for regular check ups is worth it for them because of the increased risk

nacho libre

klaaaz wrote: »

I'm sorry OP but pancreatic cancer has a low survival rate and it has been known as a prominent silent killer among cancers in that it doesn't show much symptoms until it's too late. A past govt minister (Lenihan) was a victim of this and so was Patrick Swayze. Agree to say FU to this particular cancer as it's very cruel to happen to a person

Klaaaz, i'm well aware of those two cases. Indeed i remember Swazye being on the late late show talking about how contented he was living life on his ranch, then boom five months later he was diagnosed with this disease. As for Brian Lenihan, he used to eat garlic- which is recommended to stave off this type of cancer, but obviously it didn't in his case.

...and waaka12, of course i know it's not practical to routinely do those checks, but it just underlines my previous point that for all the talk of advancements in treatments, and better survival rates these days, it is just not true for some Cancers.
also it's easy in the abstract to talk about a waste of time and resources, but if it directly affects you, you'd likely be willing to throw those resources at it, but you might not need to if big paharmaceutical companies came together . and subsequently discovered a cost efficient treatment or device that could detect these conditons in a routine check up.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

wakka12 wrote: »

Improvements in death rates in the most deadly cancers will probably come about due to advances in technology that detects it early on rather than big improvements in treatment, in the near future anyway

Which is nearly just as good, cancer is usally not a problem so long as its caught early. But some deadly cancers like oesaphageal cancer show no symptoms until it has metastasized which is unfortunate

Kinda. But, for example, most early-stage breast cancer patients are unaware of the fact that 20-30% of early stagers will go on to develop metastatic disease, which is always terminal. Early detection and treatment doesn’t always mean cure, sadly. 25% of breast cancer patients still die from the disease and most of them would have been diagnosed at an early stage.

Early detection is great but treatments should still be worked on that cure cancers that are now currently terminal. Testicular cancer that has metastased can be cured most of the time. Also some leukaemias. That should be the goal for every cancer.

DEFTLEFTHAND

There's alot of money to be made through treatments. I hope to god this will never inhibit the development of a full cure.

My own mam is battling lymphoma at the moment. But she's getting on with, she still does a 3 mile walk with her dog 5 days a week.


She's not going to let this monster destroy her standard of living and I respect her greatly for that. She's a fighter, one of the bravest people I know.

ED E

Cancer would hardly be a problem if we hadn't learned to keep ourselves alive so long. Don't worry though, antibiotic resistance will soon make surgery impossible and the average lifespan will nosedive.

wakka12

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

There's alot of money to be made through treatments. I hope to god this will never inhibit the development of a full cure.

My own mam is battling lymphoma at the moment. But she's getting on with, she still does a 3 mile walk with her dog 5 days a week.


She's not going to let this monster destroy her standard of living and I respect her greatly for that. She's a fighter, one of the bravest people I know.

Why do people think that theyre holding back a 'cure'?I know you didnt say that but theres definitely many people who believ there actually is a cure and that its being kept secret. Why wouldnt they have kept other disease cures secret too in the case? They could make lots of money off of blood pressure medications if they told everyone exercise is bad for you and saturated fat is healthy but they dont,ways of living healthier lifestyles are so widely publicised by the entire medical community I think they usually have our best interests in mind

nacho libre

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Kinda. But, for example, most early-stage breast cancer patients are unaware of the fact that 20-30% of early stagers will go on to develop metastatic disease, which is always terminal. Early detection and treatment doesn’t always mean cure, sadly. 25% of breast cancer patients still die from the disease and most of them would have been diagnosed at an early stage.

Early detection is great but treatments should still be worked on that cure cancers that are now currently terminal. Testicular cancer that has metastased can be cured most of the time. Also some leukaemias. That should be the goal for every cancer.

I learned something new in this thread. I had thought all breast cancers were curable if caught early. So my mother was lucky she was not among the 25 per cent.

As for the last bolded bit: We can only hope that happens. I did read recently about immunotherapy possibly changing the game for some of the cancers that are currently incurable, but i have read simliar type articles over the years so i'm skeptical as to whether this is really a possible breakthrough.

mr chips

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/12/04/blood-test-detect-cancer-within-just-10-minutes-developed-scientists/

A blood test can detect cancer within just 10 minutes, scientists have found, raising hopes that hard-to-spot diseases could be picked up early when treatment is most effective.

Currently doctors use symptoms and a raft of tests and biopsies to determine if cancer is present which can sometimes take months.

The new method from the University of Queensland looks for differences in the genetic code of cancerous and healthy cells.

The team found that the DNA of cancer cells sticks strongly to nanoparticles of gold giving a quick indication whether disease is present or not to the naked eye.

And because the same changes occur in all cancerous cells, the test should work on all cancer types, the team believes.

Writing in the journal Nature Communications Dr Matt Trau, Professor of Chemistry, said: “Our approach enabled non-invasive cancer detection, i.e a blood test, in 10 min from plasma derived DNA samples with excellent specificity.

“We believe that this simple approach would potentially be a better alternative to the current techniques for cancer detection.”

Buford T. Justice XIX

nacho libre wrote: »

I learned something new in this thread. I had thought all breast cancers were curable if caught early. So my mother was lucky she was not among the 25 per cent.

As for the last bolded bit: We can only hope that happens. I did read recently about immunotherapy possibly changing the game for some of the cancers that are currently incurable, but i have read simliar type articles over the years so i'm skeptical as to whether this is really a possible breakthrough.

My Uncle has a melanoma and is currently on immunotherapy. He has a bad week with the treatment and then two good weeks. Which is great but, at some stage, it will stop working, maybe in 5 years, maybe next week.

The best hope atm seems to be to have as many cancers as possible not cured as such, but becoming a chronic illness rather than acute one through treatments like immunotherapy.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

nacho libre wrote: »

I learned something new in this thread. I had thought all breast cancers were curable if caught early. So my mother was lucky she was not among the 25 per cent.

As for the last bolded bit: We can only hope that happens. I did read recently about immunotherapy possibly changing the game for some of the cancers that are currently incurable, but i have read simliar type articles over the years so i'm skeptical as to whether this is really a possible breakthrough.

Sadly not. Only about 5% of diagnoses are metastatic from the start. The rest of the deaths are made up of people who were once early-stage.

It’s a big, massive, ginormous misconception that if breast cancer is caught early, you won’t die from it. It comes back metastatic in 20-30% of early-stage cases. Strangely, early stage breast cancer patients are rarely informed of this. It’s like it’s seen as too negative to point this out or something. Maybe they don’t want women worrying unnecessarily. But that just makes it more of a nasty shock for the women who go metastatic.

And it can return years later. Olivia Newton John’s came back metastatic 25 years after her early-stage treatment.

There is no actual cure for breast cancer. It’s just “let’s hope we chopped out, burned and chemo-ed every errant cell and cross our fingers!”.

hmmm

We seem to have turned a corner with cancers where we are really beginning to understand them at a fundamental level. Before we were flinging treatments at cancers and crossing our fingers they would work. It was a bit like trying to kill a weed in a garden by using a combination of cutting, weed killer and large bombs.

Now scientists are beginning to understand how cancers form and spread at a very fundamental level. We might not have the tools to combat cancers just yet, but assuming this current anti-scientific movement (anti vaccers etc.) doesn't spread things will get better.

nacho libre

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Sadly not. Only about 5% of diagnoses are metastatic from the start. The rest of the deaths are made up of people who were once early-stage.

It’s a big, massive, ginormous misconception that if breast cancer is caught early, you won’t die from it. It comes back metastatic in 20-30% of early-stage cases. Strangely, early stage breast cancer patients are rarely informed of this. It’s like it’s seen as too negative to point this out or something. Maybe they don’t want women worrying unnecessarily. But that just makes it more of a nasty shock for the women who go metastatic.

And it can return years later. Olivia Newton John’s came back metastatic 25 years after her early-stage treatment.

There is no actual cure for breast cancer. It’s just “let’s hope we chopped out, burned and chemo-ed every errant cell and cross our fingers!”.

Jesus. I really hope this does not happen to my mother. She had breast cancer 12 years ago. I think in my mothers case it was better she did not know, it would only have scared her, but as you say if she found out later it
would have been devastating. My father is seriously illl, his cancer can't be cured. I really could not bear my mother's cancer reoccurring on top of this.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

nacho libre wrote: »

Jesus. I really hope this does not happen to my mother. She had breast cancer 12 years ago. I think in my mothers case it was better she did not know, it would only have scared her, but as you say if she found out later it
would have been devastating. My father is seriously illl, his cancer can't be cured. I really could not bear my mother's cancer reoccurring on top of this.

Seriously, don’t fret. 75% survive it, remember? Those are pretty darn good odds.

DEFTLEFTHAND

fordyjames wrote: »

Know people who drank and smoked all those lives still alive in thier 80's

Know people who died in thier 50's and 60's with cancer a d never smoked or drank.

Enjoy yourife while you can

Genetics play a large part in cancer.

That's why it's such a cruel disease imo. My mam never smoked or drank either (she's a lifelong fitness fanatic) and has it in her early 50s

Like you say we should all just try and enjoy our lives while we can.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Genetics play a large part in cancer.

That's why it's such a cruel disease imo. My mam never smoked or drank either (she's a lifelong fitness fanatic) and has it in her early 50s

Like you say we should all just try and enjoy our lives while we can.

On a population-level, the drinkers and smokers will be more likely to get it though since around 40% of cancers are lifestyle-related. Everyone knows the 90 year old who smoked 50 a day since they were 11 but we all probably know multiples of that amount who died much younger from lifestyle-related diseases.

wakka12

Yeh, leading a healthy lifestyle is really important, and drastically reduces your chances of contracting and dying from hundreds of diseases and ailments

Just because some healthy people get cancer is no excuse!
I will say you shouldnt lead your whole life around health though, because no matter how healthy you are you can still contract deadly illnesses by chance, but everything in moderation, enjoy life and try a bit to look after your health and itll help your chances of living a long life a lot

Wibbs

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Genetics play a large part in cancer.

Seems to alright. I see it with my family. The men never get it. Well one great uncle came down with it in the prostate, but he was over ninety and lived to 95 dying with it, not from it. The women on the other hand... Most gone by their mid 70's from it. My mum was the only one we could think of that didn't get it but she ended up with dementia. Honestly given the choice I'd take a tumour.

Hammer89

My uncle was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in May and next week is undergoing major surgery to remove the tumour. He had 12 weeks of chemo, followed by 14-straight days of radiatiton and now this is the final hurdle I believe. It was originally very small - only 8 mm or something - but now it's even smaller, so Friday will be the end of it hopefully.

Pancreatic cancer, as you say, is one of those which is often too advanced by the time major symptoms begin, but in his case he did experience minor symptoms and got them checked straight away. He knew something was wrong and now it could literally save his life. It goes without saying but everything hinges on early detection.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

Seems to alright. I see it with my family. The men never get it. Well one great uncle came down with it in the prostate, but he was over ninety and lived to 95 dying with it, not from it. The women on the other hand... Most gone by their mid 70's from it. My mum was the only one we could think of that didn't get it but she ended up with dementia. Honestly given the choice I'd take a tumour.

It’s thought that lifestyle choices can bring on about 40% of cancer cases. Well lifestyle choices and environmental causes. So hereditary gene mutations are important to know about re: cancer but not as important as people think.

I carry none of the known breast cancer gene mutations and still got it. My mother also had it but was post-menopausal so it’s not considered a strong history. And I’ve met so many women who got it with no history in their families at all.

Meanwhile, throat, oesophageal and lung cancers show up much more frequently in heavy smokers/drinker. Of course, the cause is still genetic in those cases, as in the substances caused genetic changes. But I think when people refer to genetics, they mean hereditary genes mutations that were passed down.

I mean, enjoy your life, folks, but don’t be lulled into a false sense of security because nobody in your family has ever had cancer. You could be the first. And you might not get as lucky as that 50-a-day 90 year we all know.

I think it’s comforting for people to think hereditary cancers are the large majority but they’re not really.

wakka12

I thought hereditary cancers were only about 10%. Anyway with no family history or known genetic predisposition, healthy lifestyle,regular health check ups and active avoidance of known carcinogens the chances are firmly on your side at least until you get quite old, like 75+

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

wakka12 wrote: »

I thought hereditary cancers were only about 10%. Anyway with no family history or known genetic predisposition, healthy lifestyle,regular health check ups and active avoidance of known carcinogens the chances are firmly on your side at least until you get quite old, like 75+

Yeah, I think it’s really quite low.

nacho libre

wakka12 wrote: »

.... healthy lifestyle,regular health check ups and active avoidance of known carcinogens the chances are firmly on your side at least until you get quite old, like 75+

Diet does seem to be a large contributing factor. This denial from the meat industry about the dangers of nitrates, seems reminiscient of what the Tobacco industry did in the past

I always associate the Japanese with having a far better diet than we do, so it would be interesting to know if there cancer rates are lower overall than ours.

Also i wonder does living in a city increase your chances of getting some type of cancers. I was reading an article about Michael Johnson( the athlete) and in the comment section someone mentioned air pollution can cause a wide variety of illness- from strokes to Cancer.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

nacho libre wrote: »

Diet does seem to be a large contributing factor. This denial from the meat industry about the dangers of nitrates, seems reminiscient of what the Tobacco industry did in the past

I always associate the Japanese with having a far better diet than we do, so it would be interesting to know if there cancer rate are lower overall than ours.

Also i wonder does living in a city increase your chances of getting some type of cancers. I was reading an article about Michael Johnson( the athlete) and in the comment section someone mentioned air pollution can cause a wide variety of illness- from strokes to Cancer.

Much lower for some, like breast cancer. But much higher for others, such as stomach cancer.

Personally, I believe that environment is influential in cancer rates. It’s just difficult to prove.

wakka12

Yeh its really interesting. Prostate cancer 12 times higher in USA than CHina. Bladder cancer more than 2x times higher, kidney cancer nearly 3x times more common

Stomach and liver ten times higher in China than USA, Oesaphageal cancer 5x times

Really shows how important lifestyle is, or rather the lifestyle that makes you or your ethnicity/gender more susceptible to certain diseases

Skin cancer being nearly 50x times more common in USA is obviously because of the amount of fair skinned people of european descent though

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3643656/

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

wakka12 wrote: »

Yeh its really interesting. Prostate cancer 12 times higher in USA than CHina. Bladder cancer more than 2x times higher, kidney cancer nearly 3x times more common

Stomach and liver ten times higher in China than USA, Oesaphageal cancer 5x times

Really shows how important lifestyle is, or rather the lifestyle that makes you or your ethnicity/gender more susceptible to certain diseases

Skin cancer being nearly 50x times more common in USA is obviously because of the amount of fair skinned people of european descent though

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3643656/

But on the other hand, a paper came out in the last few years that stated that a good percentage of cancer cases are just dumb bad luck, just random point mutations.

Good lifestyle helps lower risk but is sadly not a forcefield against developing cancer. I’m acquainted with a good few cancer patients who had truly exemplary lifestyles for much of their lives. And heredity doesn’t explain away the development of cancer for all of them. It’s such an unbelievably complex issue with so many facets. And I read somewhere recently that people who lead healthy lifestyles are often diagnosed with cancer at later stages because both they and their doctors think it couldn’t possibly be cancer because of their lifestyle. Especially if they are young. So thinking that lifestyle will completely protect you and ignoring potential signs of cancer because of that is dangerous thinking. People should live healthily but still keep in mind that it doesn’t mean for sure that they will stay healthy. It just increases their chances of staying healthy.

nacho libre

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But on the other hand, a paper came out in the last few years that stated that a good percentage of cancer cases are just dumb bad luck, just random point mutations.

Good lifestyle helps lower risk but is sadly not a forcefield against developing cancer.

So in our case it can't really be determined if it was his diet (he ate a lot of processed ham over the years) that caused his cancer. Maybe it was just "bad luck" as you put it. As he said himself, Swayze and Brian Lenihan probably had very good diets and they still got cancer. I think what you say is true, a good diet doesn't give you immunity from all types of Cancer, but would certainly significantly decrease your risk of getting some types of Cancer.

DBB

Hammer89 wrote: »

Pancreatic cancer, as you say, is one of those which is often too advanced by the time major symptoms begin, but in his case he did experience minor symptoms and got them checked straight away. He knew something was wrong and now it could literally save his life. It goes without saying but everything hinges on early detection.

All the very best to your uncle... He's already been through a hell of a battle, here's hoping the operation goes well and his recovery is speedy.
Can I ask... What sort of symptoms did he experience that made him think something wasn't right?

Hammer89

DBB wrote: »

All the very best to your uncle... He's already been through a hell of a battle, here's hoping the operation goes well and his recovery is speedy.
Can I ask... What sort of symptoms did he experience that made him think something wasn't right?

The operation was a success, yep. He's still recovering in hospital. It'll be a long nine months or so recovery time (from the surgery) but he can start rebuilding his life and making plans finally.

I don't know all of the symptoms he experienced (upset tummy was definitely one) but I can find out if you're worried or curious.

DBB

Hammer89 wrote: »

The operation was a success, yep. He's still recovering in hospital. It'll be a long nine months or so recovery time (from the surgery) but he can start rebuilding his life and making plans finally.

I don't know all of the symptoms he experienced (upset tummy was definitely one) but I can find out if you're worried or curious.

Oops, I didn't realise that you had posted a few weeks ago... He's had his operation by now! Delighted he's through it now. He must be some battler
I'm curious more than worried... I often hear people saying they didn't feel right, got it checked out, and were diagnosed with X cancer. I've always wondered what that "not feeling right" actually was. Given that pancreatic cancer is so often a "silent" but rapidly terminal diagnosis, I'm curious to know what it was that tipped your uncle off? I'd be afraid that I'd be feeling off but would just put it down to a bug, or tiredness or whatever, and not get it checked. So if the opportunity comes along that you can find out at some stage, it'd be nice to know... You never know, it might help somebody reading this thread

Hammer89

I wonder if it's a silent cancer because it never displays any symptoms whatsoever, or because the symptoms are so minor that most people just think nothing of them at the time. But yes you're right, somebody could benefit. I'll post again when I speak to him or my auntie. I specifically remember the dodgy stomach one though.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

nacho libre wrote: »

So in our case it can't really be determined if it was his diet (he ate a lot of processed ham over the years) that caused his cancer. Maybe it was just "bad luck" as you put it. As he said himself, Swayze and Brian Lenihan probably had very good diets and they still got cancer. I think what you say is true, a good diet doesn't give you immunity from all types of Cancer, but would certainly significantly decrease your risk of getting some types of Cancer.

Well, Patrick Swayze, though physically fit throughout most of his life, also drank heavily for a long time but it’s not considered a strong risk factor in the development of pancreatic cancer.

Eating well will help lower your risk of developing cancer but I think many people think it will completely protect you from it and that is sadly not the case.

I remember the Happy Pear twins bouncing around some TV show, being their usual deeply irritating selves and they actual said the words ‘vegan diets prevent cancer!”. I was so pissed off, as I currently know people who are dying of cancer who were vegan or vegetarian and led active and healthy lifestyles. What a kick in the teeth for people to hear this stuff being perpetuated via high profile channels.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

DBB wrote: »

Oops, I didn't realise that you had posted a few weeks ago... He's had his operation by now! Delighted he's through it now. He must be some battler
I'm curious more than worried... I often hear people saying they didn't feel right, got it checked out, and were diagnosed with X cancer. I've always wondered what that "not feeling right" actually was. Given that pancreatic cancer is so often a "silent" but rapidly terminal diagnosis, I'm curious to know what it was that tipped your uncle off? I'd be afraid that I'd be feeling off but would just put it down to a bug, or tiredness or whatever, and not get it checked. So if the opportunity comes along that you can find out at some stage, it'd be nice to know... You never know, it might help somebody reading this thread

Well, and I just know this because I was recently reading his wikipedia entry, but the warning sign of pancreatic cancer for Michael Landon was severe abdominal pain. But who knows? Maybe he had experienced milder pain in the abdomen before that and brushed it off as many of us would.

With the cancers that are usually diagnosed late, sometimes pure luck will get them diagnosed at a really stage. A friend of my parents noticed that when he was out gardening that there was a strange rubbing sensation in his upper chest when he bent over, just something catching. He struggled to describe the sensation but went to his doctor who sent him for scans. It was stage 1 lung cancer. The location of it was fortuitous, usually people don’t get the sensation that he did and are only diagnosed when they develop a persistent cough or start coughing up blood at which point it is almost always too late. Anyway he was operated on and more than a decade later, he’s still here and there’s no sign yet of the cancer recurring.

nacho libre

Hammer89 wrote: »

I wonder if it's a silent cancer because it never displays any symptoms whatsoever, or because the symptoms are so minor that most people just think nothing of them at the time. But yes you're right, somebody could benefit. I'll post again when I speak to him or my auntie. I specifically remember the dodgy stomach one though.

I would be interested to know too. My father had back pain about 16 months ago- we put it down to the physical work he was doing at the time, but maybe this was one of those minor signs you spoke off. When he did get diagnosed it had already spread.

YFlyer

nacho libre wrote: »

Jesus. I really hope this does not happen to my mother. She had breast cancer 12 years ago. I think in my mothers case it was better she did not know, it would only have scared her, but as you say if she found out later it
would have been devastating. My father is seriously illl, his cancer can't be cured. I really could not bear my mother's cancer reoccurring on top of this.

If I ever get any serious illness I hope I get to know what it is.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

nacho libre wrote: »

So in our case it can't really be determined if it was his diet (he ate a lot of processed ham over the years) that caused his cancer. Maybe it was just "bad luck" as you put it. As he said himself, Swayze and Brian Lenihan probably had very good diets and they still got cancer. I think what you say is true, a good diet doesn't give you immunity from all types of Cancer, but would certainly significantly decrease your risk of getting some types of Cancer.

I hate the blame game when it comes to cancer. You may have guessed by now that I have reason to be connected to lots of cancer patients. I do because of personal circumstances.

Many of those cancer patients I know are lung cancer patients and every single one of them has without fail at some point or another been asked by someone who has just found out they have lung cancer “Did you/Do you smoke?”. The insensitivity. Many have never smoked (up to 20% of lung cancer patients never smoked) but even if the lung cancer sufferer DID smoke, do their loved ones love them any less? Are they and their loved ones any less devastated because they might have brought it on themselves? The people who ask that stupid insensitive question would do well to remember that very few of us has led a perfect life. And I’m sure smokers who develop lung cancer are well aware that it was likely the smoking wot dun it. Why rub it in exactly?

So, yeah, maybe your father ate too much processed meat. Maybe that caused it. But then again maybe it didn’t. It doesn’t matter. Who has lived a perfect life? None of us. I hope he isn’t blaming himself. The thought of that breaks my heart.

YFlyer

So over 80% did.

nacho libre

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

So, yeah, maybe your father ate too much processed meat. Maybe that caused it. But then again maybe it didn’t. It doesn’t matter. Who has lived a perfect life? None of us. I hope he isn’t blaming himself. The thought of that breaks my heart.

I don 't think he is, as i indicated in my previous post. I was not seeking to play the blame game, it's natural to want to understand what caused it and to see if there was anything we could have done to prevent it. The only one I am blaming is us if we missed some thing, like the back pain he had about 16 months ago.

Andrew00

They have a cure for cancer but won’t release it because it’ll be the cause of governments’ collapse and health sectors being brought to their knees.

While there’s money to be made, they won’t release the cure

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

nacho libre wrote: »

I don 't think he is, as i indicated in my previous post. I was not seeking to play the blame game, it's natural to want to understand what caused it and to see if there was anything we could have done to prevent it. The only one I am blaming is us if we missed some thing, like the back pain he had about 16 months ago.

No, sorry, I wasn’t accusing you of that, my post was supposed to be supportive. I was trying to say that you’ll likely never know what caused his cancer. The most likely cause is just advancing age. For pretty much every cancer, incidence goes up with age as DNA replication mistakes and mutations become more likely as the body ages.

And a lot of doctors are reluctant to send people for scans based on non-specific symptoms such as back pain so I would not beat yourself up over it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Andrew00 wrote: »

They have a cure for cancer but won’t release it because it’ll be the cause of governments’ collapse and health sectors being brought to their knees.

While there’s money to be made, they won’t release the cure

I really wish people realised how hurtful this absolute horseshît is for terminal cancer patients to listen to.

There’s well over 100 different cancers. So, the cures for over 100 different cancer are being repressed, really? Thousands and thousands of people are able to stay quiet on that topic, are they?

Terminal cancer patients in Ireland have their treatment paid for by the HSE. It’s very, very expensive for the government to provide this service. Explain why the government would not rather see these diseases cured than fork out for the VERY expensive life-prolonging treatments? What’s the rationale there?

Martina1991

Andrew00 wrote: »

They have a cure for cancer but won’t release it because it’ll be the cause of governments’ collapse and health sectors being brought to their knees.

While there’s money to be made, they won’t release the cure

Why do we have chemotherapy and radiation then? Why do a lot of people have successful cancer treatment and get the all clear?

Why would we have screening programs for early detection of cancer?

Such a stupid ignorant comment.

wakka12

Andrew00 wrote: »

They have a cure for cancer but won’t release it because it’ll be the cause of governments’ collapse and health sectors being brought to their knees.

While there’s money to be made, they won’t release the cure

What a load of crap lol

Why did they release cures for so many other deadly diseases then? Why did they ever relase affordable medications for high blood pressure and diabetes? Millions would be popping their clogs in their 40's,50's and 60's, why do the government spend billions on public safety campaigns trying to encourage people to stop smoking, exercise, eat healthy,not drink alcohol, wear our seatbelts and bike helmets, buy a smoke alarm that all save thousands of lives annually?

Are all the worlds governments and medical industry(several millions people worldwide) in some kind of highly organised highly coordinated mass cover up to not release this wonder cure for hundreds of different diseases we call cancer?

I cannot believe there is actual adults who think there is a cure for cancer that 'they' da gubbernit wont 'realease', just ridiculous beyond belief

And its offensive to the millions of people who have given their whole life's work and money trying to cure this horrible and extremely complex disease

nacho libre

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No, sorry, I wasn’t accusing you of that, my post was supposed to be supportive. I was trying to say that you’ll likely never know what caused his cancer. The most likely cause is just advancing age. For pretty much every cancer, incidence goes up with age as DNA replication mistakes and mutations become more likely as the body ages.

And a lot of doctors are reluctant to send people for scans based on non-specific symptoms such as back pain so I would not beat yourself up over it.

I'm very sorry i misunderstood your post. Thank you for the support. I appreciate it. I suppose it's human nature to go through, the should've, if only, scenario. My father is 75, so maybe it is just like you say. I try to look at it as that we were lucky to have him for so long. Some people lose a parent very young. That's just horrendous trauma for a young child to have to deal with.