Cancer Research, is it a big con?

I'm going to throw in a real curveball and return to the original topic.

Is cancer research a big con? No, numerous posters have given examples of valuable strands of cancer research and the reasons why it costs so much.

I have heard mentioned a few times recently that what may be counterproductive are the different charities all competing for donations. I don't know how valid this point is, it depends I guess on how much their research areas overlap, but I could see an argument for pooling resource more strategically.

Without all these appraisals,they would not be able to recruit new clients.

Who stands to gain from this 'treatment' is a valid question that should be researched thoroughly before undertaking such harmful practices.

http://henrymakow.com/2015/06/american-cancer-society.html

Without all these appraisals,they would not be able to recruit new clients.

 

Who stands to gain from this 'treatment' is a valid question that should be researched thoroughly before undertaking such harmful practices.

 

http://henrymakow.com/2015/06/american-cancer-society.html

Do you expect us to take a website that claims that the American Cancer Society is a Satanic cult seriously?

Attack the message JFK,not the messenger.

Attack the message JFK,not the messenger.

Ok, the message that the American Cancer Society is a Satanic cult is beyond ridiculous.

I have recently just been thinking the same, a relative of mine was diagnosed with liver cancer in December last year with only months rather than years and basically said chemo wouldn't make any difference to life expectancy.

Obviously he was devastated as we all were.

After searching for anything that might help he was put on to someone who came up with a glimmer of hope for him.

To cut a long story short cannabis oil 'cured' him.

He went back to weston park in March had a scan and was given the shock news THE CANCER WAS GONE.....even the consultant said she hadn't been able to give anyone that news before, I think they were as shocked as he was.

 

So yes I definitely think there is a cure for some cancers I am not saying one cure kills all cancers but when you think of all the money involved in cancer research charities and the fact that people would be living longer. It makes you wonder what is really going on

Who recommended the cannabis oil and how do you know that taking that was the cure? Also, was it bought over the counter?

I have recently just been thinking the same, a relative of mine was diagnosed with liver cancer in December last year with only months rather than years and basically said chemo wouldn't make any difference to life expectancy.

...

He went back to weston park in March had a scan and was given the shock news THE CANCER WAS GONE.....even the consultant said she hadn't been able to give anyone that news before, I think they were as shocked as he was.

Pleased to hear this but not entirely shocked. Work in chemo at wph & have treated a few liver cancer patients whose have been cured against the odds & expectation. It can happen even when we think it won't. Perdicting the effect of chemo on any individual patient is *impossible*. But cure is not common - may be why this consultant hadnt given anyone that news.

Ok, the message that the American Cancer Society is a Satanic cult is beyond ridiculous.

There is no message that the "American Cancer Society is a Satanic cult".

There are many pointing out that we now have a 'cancer industry' where financial interests are placed well above those of the patients.

Most cancer research organisations are part and parcel of the cancer industry, I'd no sooner give them money than I would finance arms dealers.

 

There are many pointing out that we now have a 'cancer industry' where financial interests are placed well above those of the patients.

 

Most cancer research organisations are part and parcel of the cancer industry, I'd no sooner give them money than I would finance arms dealers.

I agree that there is a Cancer "Industry" how else do you think treatment and research could be conducted.

Would you rather not have any treatment if you found you had cancer?

Would you rather there was no research?

before you reply think! Without treatment very few people would spontaneously recover.

Without research we cannot find out the cause of illness or possible effective treatments.

I routinely give permission for any of my ill health investigations to be used for research. Without research I would not be here today, nor would many people on this site. Research and treatment has to be paid for in some way. We do not pay enough in National insurance contributions to cover the cost of all research which takes time and equipment.

Charities contribute to the overall cost by raising contributions and supporting research projects. Some of the work is done by PHD students, not very highly paid but everyone needs to eat and pay the rent etc. How do you propose to fill the gap assuming you believe research and treatment is valid.

I don't know if cancer research is a con, I would hope not. But a young man I watched grow up from the age of four died a fortnight since from cancer at the age of twenty seven; anyone who has seen the devastation this has brought on his family, or witnessed the tears of his friends would want this disease cured.

There are many pointing out that we now have a 'cancer industry' where financial interests are placed well above those of the patients.

 

Most cancer research organisations are part and parcel of the cancer industry, I'd no sooner give them money than I would finance arms dealers.

I agree that there is a Cancer "Industry" how else do you think treatment and research could be conducted.

There is some degree to which some research organisations are part of the "cancer industry" but most of them are not.

The problem is that much of the research done is research into drugs or treatment techniques that the research organisations (universities, hospitals, charities) cannot afford to take forwards themselves.

So in steps The Industry - drugs companies, chemo-/radio-therapy treatment machine manufacturers and the like. And this is where boundaries can appear to become blurred.

The research organisations want to trial drugs or treatment techniques. But they need to acquire those drugs / techniques which means buying them... Not because they're in cahoots with the companies but because it's the way the system works here & in the US. If way could be found to stop the ludicrous costs of these things, everything would be better in research and in running the nhs. But the companies are too powerful. [insert conspiracy theories here if into them...]

I really do believe that most charities, as with most of us working to help those with cancer, genuinely want to find what works and implement it and find cures for different types of cancer. Research depts of drugs companies on the other hand...

HPV is a virus that causes cancer. If you don't contract the virus, it can't cause the cancer. The HPV vaccine can therefore prevent the cancer by stopping the virus.

Radiation of one kid or another increases cancer risk, but there are plenty of other carcinogens that are nothing to do with radiation.

Cancer is usually treated by one or both of 2 things. Surgery which removes the cancer cells, and chemotherapy which kills them.

Surgery is flawed because cancer cells are often distributed throughout the body and mixed in with healthy cells so you either end up losing lots of healthy cells, or not getting all the cancer.

Chemotherapy is flawed because it only preferentially kills cancer cells, and it takes a lot of healthy cells too.

There's also radiotherapy, where one essentially cooks the cancer cells. This is kind of an alternative to surgery for when surgery is not practical, but it also kills a lot of healthy cells as it's difficult to only cook a specific site.

There are 2 new technologies which offer hope of a much higher success rate, quite possible approaching 100%, in future cancer treatment.

1. Hadron therapy using an FFAG hadron accelerator. This is essentially an off-shoot of the technology used to find the Higgs boson etc.

Traditional radiation therapy uses gamma and x- rays. These kinds of radiation are easy to make and to control, but because of the nature of the radiation, they cannot really be focused onto an area inside a patient (i.e. a tumour) and therefore damage healthy cells.

Hadron therapy used protons or alpha particles instead of gamma and x-rays. Protons and especially alpha particle behave differently such that when passing through matter, they cruise along doing very little damage or heating for most of their journey and then at the end they very quickly drop a lot of energy in one place before stopping. That means that if you choose the right energy of proton or alpha for the depth of the cancer inside the patient, you can arrange that you cook the cancer cells almost exclusively with minimal damage to other cells.

An FFAG is a specially designed proton/alpha accelerator which is in development designed specifically to generate protons/alphas at controlled energies, but in sufficient numbers do be useful for hadron therapy. It will be extremely useful when it is ready.

2. Cancer drugs (chemotherapy) are increasingly being targeted more accurately at cancer cells rather than simply preferentially. In some cases, you can take a sample of the cancer and taylor the drug specifically to target those cells. This technology has been improving for some time, and chemotherapy has been quietly and steadily getting more effective without a great deal of attention.

This is where the great hope lies. I'm afraid I'm not an expert on this technology, but I know enough to find it quite exciting.

With I'd say 10-20 years more well funded research, it is reasonable to be hopeful that the days of people dying from cancel can be brought to a screeching halt. Some with end up with chronic cancer because although the cancer cells can be killed reliably, the cells which made the cancer cells will escape. Others will simply be flat-out cured.

We'll go through a period of 10-20 years of cancer survival rates continuing to increase steadily. Then a period of about 20 years of survival rates pushing 100%, during which cancer treatment will be extremely expensive. After that, you'll get cheap and highly effective cancer treatment with an extremely high success rate and almost nobody will die from it.

That's my opinion anyway.

Cancer research is extremely useful, and its damn expensive. But if I ever get cancer, I may be extremely glad of it.