Cancer and the drug companies

[Ulsterkiwi]

Statement? - sorry try reading that again - more as a question - didn't put a question mark on that comment and I am not qualified to make that as a statement!

I seem to read a lot of stuff that criticises chemo and radio therapy as having a very low % of success!

Also that hospital and medical deaths are higher than the road toll but never read much that verifies exactly what is correct.

Me - I don't claim to know the correct answer - if you do - what is it?

The answer? that all depends on the question.
If you are keen, there is a lot of data out there which is freely available. Some will say its government data so its all dodgy, I do not subscribe to that thinking. Data are data, its what you do with it which can be dodgy.
So that all said, go to the Ministry of Health website, you can readily access stats on cancer registrations and deaths.

I only have 2010 numbers on my home PC but the trends are similar in other years....

in 2010 there were 21,235 new cancer registrations in New Zealand. Thats a new diagnosis of a cancer (a term applied to a group of approximately 200 diseases)
in 2010 there were 8593 deaths directly attributed to cancer as the cause of death. You need to remember this figure is not broken down into the year the actual diagnosis was made although undoubtedly some will die the year they are diagnosed.

in the 10 year period preceding these numbers, registrations increased by 18.7%
in the 10 year period preceding these numbers, deaths increased by 12.8%

On a simple examination, the rate at which people are dying from cancer is increasing is at a lower level than the rate people are being diagnosed. That does not fit with the argument that treatments have a low success rate. When we take growth of population and the aging of our population into account the actual rate of deaths from cancer has dropped by over 14%
Cancer registrations have increased for sure but again when we take the aging of our population and the growth in our population that is to be expected.

The same document tells us that 8593 deaths from cancer happened in a year when heart disease and cerebrovascular disease (mostly stroke) caused the death of 2467 and 5389 people respectively. There were 416 deaths due to the road toll. (I would say the more worrying statistic was 535 deaths caused by intentional self harm.) If by hospital and medical deaths you mean deaths caused by medical misadventure or hospital acquired infections and the like I do not have those numbers to hand but they will exist.

The success of a particular treatment is hard to define here. some cancers can be dealt to very effectively, some not so.
Breast and Prostate are the most common types of cancer but the leading cause of cancer death is lung cancer. Lung cancer is harder to treat effectively. An extreme example might be pancreatic cancer, in 2010 there were 493 registrations and 435 deaths recorded. If someone can develop a more effective way to treat this cancer it will make a huge difference.

I honestly understand why there is criticism of cytoxic chemotherapy and radiation therapy. The side effects can be very nasty. Personally speaking it it difficult to be part of something which causes such distress to individuals as they endure the treatments. I refer back to my original comments about harm caused balanced with benefit gained. In the light of that there is satisfaction in knowing that there are people still around today because of something I contributed to, even though it was an awful experience for them at the time.
I think it is vital therefore that we continue to strive for means to treat these terrible diseases which do not cause such horrendous side effects. Until those treatments are in place what option do we have?
This is why I am convinced that should an individual find a therapy which is beneficial to them then noone should stand in their way if they choose to make use of it. Of course I would be concerned that vulnerable people are given false hope or taken advantage of financially, that is why all decisions should be informed decisions and why there are laws, rules and regulations to try and control what companies and individuals can lay claim to being able to do.
Good science tends on the whole to be heavy on evidence based facts and low on claims and promises. Snake doctors will tend to be the opposite.

[Ocean1]

Statement? - sorry try reading that again - more as a question - didn't put a question mark on that comment and I am not qualified to make that as a statement!

I seem to read a lot of stuff that criticises chemo and radio therapy as having a very low % of success!

Also that hospital and medical deaths are higher than the road toll but never read much that verifies exactly what is correct.

Me - I don't claim to know the correct answer - if you do - what is it?

Man, if you think hospitals cause a lot of illness and deaths you should look into mortuaries!

[mashman]

Because just as there isn't that much money in the world there's not that many resources in the world.

Yes there are.

[Ocean1]

Yes there are.

You can begin by explaining where you're going to get the hundreds of thousands of man-hours from for each custom-built treatment.

[mashman]

You can begin by explaining where you're going to get the hundreds of thousands of man-hours from for each custom-built treatment.

Bullshit jobs.

[Ocean1]

Bullshit jobs.

Your arithmetic is as poor as the rest of your argument. There's more man-hours required to develop even a partially successful cancer treatment than there is in a human lifetime. And that's not even including the original pure research that it was based on. Or the facilities.

And even if "bullshit jobs" could supply the time required I can't see the bullshit employees as being quite what's required.

Particularly if they're anywhere near the calibre of your efforts.

[mashman]

Your arithmetic is as poor as the rest of your argument. There's more man-hours required to develop even a partially successful cancer treatment than there is in a human lifetime. And that's not even including the original pure research that it was based on. Or the facilities.

And even if "bullshit jobs" could supply the time required I can't see the bullshit employees as being quite what's required.

Particularly if they're anywhere near the calibre of your efforts.

So you're guessing what the rest of my argument is going to be without hearing it . Epic, but highly entertaining, fail bro. I'd say that the system and the logistics used is archaic and outdated and that is the reason tailored healing in general cannot be provided. And btw, the methodology of healthcare provision I'm thinking about will be directed more towards identification and prevention. You think so small in your predefined world.

You've heard of training haven't you?

I can think of much worse.

[Ocean1]

So you're guessing what the rest of my argument is going to be without hearing it . Epic, but highly entertaining, fail bro. I'd say that the system and the logistics used is archaic and outdated and that is the reason tailored healing in general cannot be provided. And btw, the methodology of healthcare provision I'm thinking about will be directed more towards identification and prevention. You think so small in your predefined world.

You've heard of training haven't you?

I can think of much worse.

Dude, you can think of fuck all. The whole concept of a personal-specific cancer treatment is farcical, pretty much like most of the rest of your "ideas".

Now fuck off and play on the motorway.

[mashman]

Dude, you can think of fuck all. The whole concept of a personal-specific cancer treatment is farcical, pretty much like most of the rest of your "ideas".

So you fell at the first and went straight to the too hard basket to find my ideas. Hardly surprising you couldn't find what I'm thinking about.

[bogan]

So you fell at the first and went straight to the too hard basket to find my ideas. Hardly surprising you couldn't find what I'm thinking about.

So what you are saying, is you have workable ideas to help cure cancer, but insist on others having to find them for themselves instead of sharing them?

So not only are you an idiot, you're a selfish cunt too...

I actually think you're almost aware enough of the former to exclude the later.

[mashman]

So what you are saying, is you have workable ideas to help cure cancer, but insist on others having to find them for themselves instead of sharing them?

Nope that's not what I'm saying at all.

[bogan]

Nope that's not what I'm saying at all.

So no workable ideas to solve this issue either then, got it.

[mashman]

So no workable ideas to solve this issue either then, got it.

Nope, got a plenty workable idea thanks.

[Ulsterkiwi]

The whole concept of a personal-specific cancer treatment is farcical, pretty much like most of the rest of your "ideas".

hmmm, not so farcical actually. here in NZ there is research currently being conducted on cancer 'vaccines' essentially a therapy based around your immune system. Your immune system is just that, yours. Therefore any 'vaccine' created will be a customised treatment for the individual patient.

I have put the word vaccine in quote marks as that is a simplistic word to use and does not quite fit the true meaning of a vaccine but without meaning to sound condescending its a term most folks can relate to so its the one which has stuck when describing the research to the lay population.

Many cancers have the ability to down regulate or 'switch off' the usual immune responses to the mutations which are the hallmark of cancers. Again in simple terms the 'vaccines' aim to up regulate or 'turn back on' and actually amplify those responses.

Of course this is only in development stages and will in all probability be hugely expensive. Currently the focus is on cancers which are otherwise difficult to treat, like melanoma.

Also strictly speaking each time a patient is prescribed radiation therapy the way in which that treatment is delivered is customised to suit the individual. No two people receive a course of radiation therapy in exactly the same way.

To a lesser extent, chemo can be tailored to suit the individual. However that will change. As small molecule or targeted therapies become more prevalent we are already seeing much smaller sub groups of patients being given specific drugs or cocktails of drugs. As our understanding of the profile of different cancers becomes better those kinds of scenarios will increase.

[TheDemonLord]

hmmm, not so farcical actually. here in NZ there is research currently being conducted on cancer 'vaccines' essentially a therapy based around your immune system. Your immune system is just that, yours. Therefore any 'vaccine' created will be a customised treatment for the individual patient.

I have put the word vaccine in quote marks as that is a simplistic word to use and does not quite fit the true meaning of a vaccine but without meaning to sound condescending its a term most folks can relate to so its the one which has stuck when describing the research to the lay population.

Could you provide a link to this - I would like to read as it sounds very interesting.

Also strictly speaking each time a patient is prescribed radiation therapy the way in which that treatment is delivered is customised to suit the individual. No two people receive a course of radiation therapy in exactly the same way.

To a lesser extent, chemo can be tailored to suit the individual. However that will change. As small molecule or targeted therapies become more prevalent we are already seeing much smaller sub groups of patients being given specific drugs or cocktails of drugs. As our understanding of the profile of different cancers becomes better those kinds of scenarios will increase.

I agree, that each treatment in that sence is bespoke - but bespoke using a range of pre-existing Drugs, adjusting the combination as required, as opposed to developing a new drug each time for the patient (which is what was being argued as farcical, given the cost developing a new drug)