Cancer - Blind Faith

nacho libre · 21-12-2018 02:38AM #1

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 · 21-12-2018 02:41AM

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 · 21-12-2018 02:45AM

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 · 21-12-2018 02:46AM

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 · 21-12-2018 02:58AM

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 · 21-12-2018 02:59AM

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 · 21-12-2018 03:03AM

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 · 21-12-2018 03:06AM

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 · 21-12-2018 03:09AM

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 · 21-12-2018 10:11PM

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 · 21-12-2018 10:22PM

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 · 21-12-2018 10:24PM

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 · 21-12-2018 10:26PM

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 · 21-12-2018 11:06PM

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 · 03-01-2019 01:13AM

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 · 03-01-2019 01:55AM

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 · 03-01-2019 01:57AM

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 · 05-01-2019 03:49PM

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 · 05-01-2019 03:57PM

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 · 08-01-2019 02:02PM

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 · 09-01-2019 04:58PM

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 · 09-01-2019 05:08PM

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 · 10-01-2019 01:20PM

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 · 10-01-2019 07:21PM

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 · 10-01-2019 07:33PM

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 · 10-01-2019 09:18PM

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 · 10-01-2019 09:31PM

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 · 10-01-2019 09:34PM

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 · 10-01-2019 09:55PM

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 · 16-01-2019 03:57PM

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 · 16-01-2019 04:16PM

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.

Cancer - Blind Faith

Comments