Cancer and the drug companies

[Edbear]

Why do you have such difficulty clarifying it then? For that matter, why do you think I have got it backwards and completely screwed up?

I'll give you a few simple yes/no questions to help out (feel free at any time to give me similar) This should be excellent to help us get on the same page and remove any ambiguity.

Do you believe it is possible alternative medicine can help fight cancer?
Do you believe natural remedies can help fight cancer?
Do you believe a healthy body, mindset, and lifestyle can help fight cancer?
Do you believe any of the above should be used in absence of conventional medical advice?
Do you believe any of the above are more effective than and when used in absence of a conventional medical practice?

One simple answer addresses all the above. Not amenable to a simple yes or no.

Natural remedies have not been shown, in proper tests and studies, to cure cancer. There are studies that show a complementary approach using natural and alternatives in combination with aggressive conventional treatments make the person feel a whole lot better in many cases. This is due to the other stuff helping, either by placebo effects or real effects, with the unpleasantness associated with the illness. Treating the whole person, not just the disease.

I do not believe anyone should promote alternatives over conventional treatment, especially to replace said treatments.

Cancer cannot be fully cured. Even after being found symptom free, it tends to return at a later date, sometimes years later, in a more aggressive form. Few people live the rest of their lives in remission.

A healthy body, mindset and lifestyle can do much to ward off a variety of illnesses and diseases, but there are no guarantees when it comes to either cancer or heart failure. There are enough cases of heretofore healthy young people succumbing to these two tragedies to prove such an attitude is hardly a guarantee. All we can do is live as best we can and hope it doesn't strike us or our loved ones.

The term, "natural remedies", I have already addressed.

[bogan]

One simple answer addresses all the above. Not amenable to a simple yes or no.

Natural remedies have not been shown, in proper tests and studies, to cure cancer. There are studies that show a complementary approach using natural and alternatives in combination with aggressive conventional treatments make the person feel a whole lot better in many cases. This is due to the other stuff helping, either by placebo effects or real effects, with the unpleasantness associated with the illness. Treating the whole person, not just the disease.

I do not believe anyone should promote alternatives over conventional treatment, especially to replace said treatments.

Cancer cannot be fully cured. Even after being found symptom free, it tends to return at a later date, sometimes years later, in a more aggressive form. Few people live the rest of their lives in remission.

A healthy body, mindset and lifestyle can do much to ward off a variety of illnesses and diseases, but there are no guarantees when it comes to either cancer or heart failure. There are enough cases of heretofore healthy young people succumbing to these two tragedies to prove such an attitude is hardly a guarantee. All we can do is live as best we can and hope it doesn't strike us or our loved ones.

The term, "natural remedies", I have already addressed.

It is good to hear you have learned alternative medicine and natural remedies should have a place in the treatment of cancer

And I really would recommend that Daily C I posted early, shows up that capitalist apple farmer conspiracy

[Edbear]

It is good to hear you have learned alternative medicine and natural remedies should have a place in the treatment of cancer

And I really would recommend that Daily C I posted early, shows up that capitalist apple farmer conspiracy

I surely didn't learn it from you! That would have been blindingly obvious to anyone who can read, right from the first post!

[Ulsterkiwi]

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




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)

sorry for the slow response I was off the grid for a few days

its just a press release but will give you a taster. http://www.malaghan.org.nz/news/canc...herapy-update/
If you use Google Scholar and run a search on cancer vaccines you can miss out most of the crap and get to some of the published papers if you are keen.

[Ulsterkiwi]

The Malaghan Institute of Medical Research (NZ) are currently focusing their cancer reasearch on immuno-therapy, their cancer research page has multiple links to clincal studies and trials, scientific publications and research updates/highlights
http://www.malaghan.org.nz/what-we-do/cancer/

exciting stuff being spearheaded right here in NZ

sorry for double posting, yes, this is the institute I was thinking of, I have personal connections there. Amazing place with some very hardworking people doing incredible work. If you look at their entire profile you can see there has been and continues to be some world leading science emerging from the funny round building on the Kelburn hill!

[Ulsterkiwi]

Would a pre-illness baseline of the patients physiology be of any use to researchers?

yes and no. If we assume that everything preillness is "normal" then yes, that would be very useful. The genetic profile which leads to sufficient mutations to cause a cancer is something we are only beginning to understand. At what point do we say the profile was clear of mutations? Hard to say because each one of us has mutations, that is the norm. Of course we are leaving out the impact of epi-genetics on cancer.
Its a good suggestion, there may even be work being conducted on it. I don't pretend to know the full gamut of work being conducted in oncology

[Ulsterkiwi]

If you want to get famous, work on Mitochondria. They are the key to reducing and inhibiting cancer cells. They are the human body's natural defence mechanism.

yes and no. A team at the Malaghan have been doing work on Mitochondrial transfer between cells. A previously unknown event. They are pretty famous.
Mitochondria are responsible for energy metabolism, not a natural defence mechanism. (They are called white blood cells.)
You are correct in so far that it is difficult to metabolise without mitochondria so take those out and cells will struggle. However there are normal cells in the body without mitochondria as part of normal structure, they are perfectly capable of conducting their function for around 120 days before wearing out. Look up erythrocyte......

[mashman]

I surely didn't learn it from you! That would have been blindingly obvious to anyone who can read, right from the first post!

It's his standard response. Be grateful though, it's almost vinegar stroke time.

[Ulsterkiwi]

The number of people using the therapy is large and results to date are sketchy.

If you have anything recent, do post it.

Sketchy because there has been reluctance to run any kind of formal data collection since the days of the Mayo Clinic investigating Linus Pauling's claims. That seemed to debunk his ideas but what is often forgotten is that the Mayo Clinic trial did not replicate Pauling's methods.

Here is a point for Akzle and his crew, a trial to finally determine the efficacy of high dose vit C would cost money, pharmacos are not interested as there is no way to patent the compound and therefore get a return. Simple economics.
Prof Margreet Vissers explained on TV not that long ago it would take relatively little money to sort the problem out. Funding bodies are nervous because of the controversy. If they put a few million into a trial and it didnt work then they would look bad for throwing money at something dodgy. I know it sounds daft but this is a complicated world we live in. What makes sense to us is not always the case with others.....

[Katman]

Here is a point for Akzle and his crew, a trial to finally determine the efficacy of high dose vit C would cost money, pharmacos are not interested as there is no way to patent the compound and therefore get a return. Simple economics.

I think this sentence here effectively addresses Ed's original post.

[bogan]

Here is a point for Akzle and his crew, a trial to finally determine the efficacy of high dose vit C would cost money, pharmacos are not interested as there is no way to patent the compound and therefore get a return. Simple economics.
Prof Margreet Vissers explained on TV not that long ago it would take relatively little money to sort the problem out. Funding bodies are nervous because of the controversy. If they put a few million into a trial and it didnt work then they would look bad for throwing money at something dodgy. I know it sounds daft but this is a complicated world we live in. What makes sense to us is not always the case with others.....

You could crowdfund the shit out of that...

[Ulsterkiwi]

I think this sentence here effectively addresses Ed's original post.

Probably, because I believe economics and political considerations to be a major factor preventing a major trial of high dose vit C BUT I do not subscribe to the theory pharmaceutical companies are conducting some kind of conspiracy to suppress a cure for cancer. In the case of vit C any trial will only be able to test one set of circumstances or at best a limited range of circumstances. To attempt otherwise would remove the elements of control and randomisation which are the hallmarks of the evidence being sought. (remember there are many case studies to support the efficacy of vit C and many which do not, a stage III RCT is the next step)
It is highly unlikely there will ever be a single cure for all cancers given the sheer number and variety of cancers and the inextricable link to our own genetic makeup of those cancers. Hence, it is highly unlikely there is or ever will be a cure to suppress!

Because of what I do, and for no other reason, I happen to know a fair bit about this topic. For the sake of comparison if I were to write down all that I knew in relation to this field compared to what is known in total, my personal understanding would probably be stretched to fill the back of a postage stamp. This does not begin to account for what we do not understand. There are those who detract science because it cannot explain everything, surely that is the point however? Good science recognises there is more to be learned and pursues that knowledge and understanding.
I think it pays to be discerning and look for evidence to support claims. I think it is foolish however to dismiss what we do not fully understand because there is no formally collated evidence yet to hand. There are any number of Nobel Laureates whose seminal work was down to serendipity or the pursuit of nothing more than a hunch!
All scientific medicine was "alternative" until the evidence was collected......

[Ulsterkiwi]

You could crowdfund the shit out of that...

I believe Prof Vissers is attempting just that, I could be wrong....

[Ocean1]

I think this sentence here effectively addresses Ed's original post.

Aye. They're no more guilty of conspiring against cancer sufferers than, say you for failing to spend the required money though.

They even promote marginally effective but extremely expensive products simply because they're patentable.

Let's hope we never see them fabricating research results to promote a product simply because it's profitable, eh?

You could crowdfund the shit out of that...

Good point. Malaghan et al do a very good job with mixed private/public funding but whether the results of their work are commercially valuable or not some form of crowd funding would help.

[Katman]

What the above posts by Ulsterkiwi also effectively address is just how incredibly ridiculous a blanket statement like "all alternative cancer therapies are bollox" is.