0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So, the question is... is a few percent survival improvement worth it? Perhaps 10%? It certainly is worth it for those members of the 10%. And, unfortunately, one doesn't really know if one is in the surviving half or not, or whether the chemo would be of benefit to the particular patient.Obviously each type of cancer is different. If I was a patient with fully encapsulated cancer with a clean resection and no lymph node involvement, I might consider not having chemotherapy until one noted recurrence or lymph node involvement.On the other hand, in cases with more developed cancer and/or lymph node involvement, chemotherapy would seem to have enough benefit that one might choose the therapy.
"Yet aspirin creates a whole new lot of adverse effects.I dont think i have to explain any further. "Yes you do.You need to tell us what those new adverse effects are.I have been asking you to do this, as clearly as I could, in big letters for some time now and you have refused to answer it."and I dont remember him asking that particular question in those words."These are the exact words, and I like an answer.WHAT ARE THE BRAND NEW HEALTH RISKS?
Quote from: profound on 27/01/2013 16:27:41http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practiceThis is very good article and shows just [how] bad the situation is and why you should never just believe any study no matter where it comes from.The links are in the article.Still no mention of a link therein to support your claim that a "study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent".The article, though not painting an exactly rosy picture of some scientists, would seem orders of magnitude off the rash generalisations you are making, and certainly does not support the argument that medical drugs are, in effect, worse than useless; though it would be nice to see more altruistic organisations getting the research investment occasionally.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practiceThis is very good article and shows just [how] bad the situation is and why you should never just believe any study no matter where it comes from.The links are in the article.
A new kind of therapy is being investigated now, based on DNA sequencing of the cancer - this relies on very cheap DNA sequencing (which is not there yet, but is getting much better every year).Usually there are several key mutations that were required to make the original cell cancerous, often involving gene regulation, growth regulators, blood-vessel growth factors, apoptosis inhibition, immune system suppression, etc. By looking at these key mutations, it is sometimes possible to identify a small molecule which blocks one of these key mutations, or one of the upstream/downstream steps from this mutation, and in this way to block the uncontrolled cancer growth.It is also possible to prioritise which of the conventional cancer therapies might be more effective against this particular cancerDNA sequencing is still too expensive to do large trials of this technique. And because the technique only analyses one person's cancer, it is not a "one size fits all" solution, but requires expert interpretation for each patient. However, more of the necessary logic should be able to be incorporated into diagnostic tools, over time.One factor that makes cancer so difficult to treat is that DNA auditing is often turned off within the cell, and DNA copying errors are very frequent. This makes it likely that a subsequent mutation will bypass the treatment, and the cancer will resume its parasitic growth.