[onlooker]

Well I will say about that, that latency period of cancer to cause symptoms and sickness is 20 to 30 years according to different sources. So we may not be seeing the full blown disparity between reported figures and the actual figures. Can anyone dispute that pesticides and GMO food are bad for the body. Also, that chemo which is a poison that indiscriminately can kill both bad and good cells and which has been proven to weaken immune system is not a very effective treatment especially long-term. I just post this so we can all give our opinion about Cancer especially here in the US. Like many trends I think this one is trending in a bad way. Oh well something is gonna get us all sooner or later

[Pops]

Can anyone dispute that pesticides and GMO food are bad for the body.

You conflate 2 things, roundup displaces the use of very bad, proven very bad, herbicides.

If you want to say all chemicals are bad then OK, but if you outlawed glyphosate tomorrow along with the RR trait, the day after, the use of much nastier, proven toxic chemicals (including diesel fuel) would replace it.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Reading some interesting articles about the pandemic of Cancer especially in US. What appears is that statistics about Cancer do not appear to be reflecting the reality. ... In the meantime healthcare industry is making tons of money from these medicines. So what do others think?
http://www.heartcom.org/CancerEpidemic.htm
http://www.cureyourowncancer.org/exposi ... ments.html

Speaking of fraud, let's all rush out and take "nutritional aids" from internet promoters and ignore medicine and hope all will be well, since medicine can't prevent aging and eventual death. And worse yet, people make money providing health care, and we can't have THAT. (facepalm)

Ah, the joys of science denial. Why is random pseudo-science and ignorance better than accepting that we're not good at dealing with some things yet (like cancer, if it is not caught extremely early and is a type we can manage to deal with somewhat)?

If I have advanced or aggressive cancer, I don't plan to let idiot doctors poison me with chemo or radiation in the time I have left. (Paying a lot to be made sicker and suffer more doesn't sound like a good deal to me). However, that's a quality of life issue, not a belief that random claims by internet quacks are more effective than medicine at curing cancer.

Do you deny all forms of science like evolution, climatology, astronomy, physics, etc, or is your issue just with medicine?

[onlooker]

No I have no problem with science but the problem is that the medical system here in the US has and is being controlled by money interests who do not necessarily have the best interests of patients in mind. I see you agree that chemo and radiation are at best ineffective. Yet why I they still be marketed and promoted as the way to "cure" cancer or at least treat it. It is disingenuous and not based on sound science. I recommend to all reading this to check a doctor-author named Gerson who had some ideas of the type of diet that could best be used to treat and even cure cancer. Also, in this overly contaminated world we live in it should not be surprising to witness an alarming rise in cancer as these environmental factors are disrupting our cells and creating havoc within our bodies.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I see you agree that chemo and radiation are at best ineffective. Yet why I they still be marketed and promoted as the way to "cure" cancer or at least treat it. It is disingenuous and not based on sound science.

Sorry, but I have to mostly disagree with you on this.

First of all, sound medicine is based on science. The FDA, for example, reviews the science for drugs and medical devices before approving them. Doctors and hospitals, for another example, monitor results and collect statistics to decide on what treatments work best, and learn from that. As screwed up as medicine is, sound medicine is based on sound scientific principles.

Second, I didn't say chemo and radiation are "at best ineffective". I said that if I (personally) have ADVANCED or AGGRESSIVE cancer (meaning I got a clear diagnosis of that by an oncologist), I'm not going to let some doctor give me chemo or radiation to supposedly delay things somewhat if I'm lucky and make me very sick almost for sure -- since I'd be overwhelmingly likely to die anyway. A doctor would have to convince me to treat based on probabilities of outcomes -- not by scaring me or scolding me or trying to intimidate me. (Same principle as for, say, a heart condition -- but we're generally much better at treating hearts).

However, I have friends who had family members with cancer caught fairly early and all evidence points to the fact that the surgery coupled with the chemo and radiation have gotten all the cancer current medicine can detect. So though they were made very sick for months -- having a good shot at a greatly extended or perhaps a normal lifespan vs, say, taking vitamins and hoping -- seems to have been a very good result from them. I had another friend take a conservative approach with surgery to cancer detected early. She had a complete mastectomy to avoid any chemo, as one specific example. I thought this made a lot of sense, but this doesn't mean I think chemo is always ineffective (I do think it's generally dangerous due to the myriad side effects).

Certainly, there are SOME doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc. that make fraudulent and/or disingenuous claims about medical treatments. That doesn't make them all dishonest or incompetent -- even if our ability to fight cancer thus far is basically pathetic. Tough problems take a long time to solve, and we may never be able to make a dent in some problems. (Perhaps pancreatic cancer will always be a 100% fatal thing, as it is today -- we don't know yet).

[Pops]

Yet why I they still be marketed and promoted as the way to "cure" cancer or at least treat it.

.. I recommend to all reading this to check a doctor-author named Gerson who had some ideas of the type of diet that could best be used to treat and even cure cancer.

That is pretty funny.

[Pops]

Ah crap, that was my 15,000th post, how embarrassing.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

If I have advanced or aggressive cancer, I don't plan to let idiot doctors poison me with chemo or radiation in the time I have left. (Paying a lot to be made sicker and suffer more doesn't sound like a good deal to me). However, that's a quality of life issue, not a belief that random claims by internet quacks are more effective than medicine at curing cancer.

You also have to take into account that some chemo and radiation is done for palliative purposes. Just because you are terminal, doesn't mean it can't improve your quality of life. I'm not implying that you don't know that, but just wanted to clarify.

[Outcast_Searcher]

If I have advanced or aggressive cancer, I don't plan to let idiot doctors poison me with chemo or radiation in the time I have left. (Paying a lot to be made sicker and suffer more doesn't sound like a good deal to me). However, that's a quality of life issue, not a belief that random claims by internet quacks are more effective than medicine at curing cancer.

You also have to take into account that some chemo and radiation is done for palliative purposes. Just because you are terminal, doesn't mean it can't improve your quality of life. I'm not implying that you don't know that, but just wanted to clarify.

A valid point. I might be willing to try that in some circumstances, but would want to stop if it didn't clearly help. I have known people in that situation (such as my former next door neighbor with lung cancer, who was not helped by the radiation and soon had them stop doing that) -- what bothers me is that what doctors often claim will be palliative may not be for a lot of such patients -- or the side effects end up worse than the palliative effects.

My main concept here is that doctors should work with (reasonably well informed) patients. Just because you're sick doesn't mean you have no rights or are suddenly completely helpless.

Let me be clear on where I'm coming from here (my caution about medicine isn't just random). First, I've watched several loved ones die horribly while doctors did the best they could. Bad as things were, having someone (me) who would do things like fire bad doctors for better ones, ensure the patients' interests were honored, and worked to bridge a doctor's assumptions about an average patient to specific things I was well aware of as layman caretaker to the patient in question made a bad situation significantly better, especially at the end, than it might have been. (Heaven help those who have NO advocate or help and are seriously ill).

Second, I've had some weird intermittent joint pain problem (which is occasionally pretty nasty indeed) that medicine seems clueless about, but seems at least close to mild rheumatoid arthritis for 34 years now. It has taught me things like limits of medical knowledge, how wildly doctors differ in their attitude about working with patients, and how to do your own work to make your life better (where managing a non-lethal condition can yield better results than the pills the doctor (best of intentions) tries and don't work).

[jesus_of_suburbia]

I agree, especially when it comes to elderly patients.

I'm almost thirty, with a family. As far as I'm concerned, I'd want to pull out all the stops on any form of treatment until I was told there simply isn't anything that could be done to prolong my life. Not for my sake, but for my loved ones.

Now, if I make to seventy, I would definitely have a different perspective.

Edit: Just saw you added that second part.

That's why getting a second opinion is so important, when you can get one.

Ultimately, it's your decision to take the information and expertise given to you and apply it to how you feel it will benefit you.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Can anyone dispute that pesticides and GMO food are bad for the body. Also, that chemo which is a poison that indiscriminately can kill both bad and good cells and which has been proven to weaken immune system is not a very effective treatment especially long-term. I just post this so we can all give our opinion about Cancer especially here in the US. Like many trends I think this one is trending in a bad way. Oh well something is gonna get us all sooner or later

By the way, instead of raving about things like GMO's and assuming they cause cancer, and such unscientific activities, one might try looking at actual data.

Per my former GP and looking at statistics -- as people get older, they tend to get a lot more cancers. Well, the first world population is aging significantly in a lot of countries, including the US. Also, scanning techniques are getting better, and are often agressively pushed, to find such cancers (as long as the patient or their insurance will pay for it, of course).

So better detection and diagnosis as well as an aging population are logical, scientific reasons that we are seeing increasing rates of cancer in the US (without the need to randomly use pseudo science and point at whatever we don't like).

My main objection to your line of "cancer advice" in this thread is your belief that your diet has a significant impact on "curing" cancer. There is no scientific evidence for that, and there have been fraudulent doctors (and medical "aid" peddlers pretending to be doctors) convicted for making such claims -- it's called fraud.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

Also, scanning techniques are getting better, and are often agressively pushed, to find such cancers (as long as the patient or their insurance will pay for it, of course).

This is kind of a hot-button issue in terms of over-treating, as well.

I don't have the stats at hand, but I read that a majority of men die with some form of prostate cancer. Not because of it, they just have it at their time of death. I've seen similar findings regarding thyroid and breast cancer.

There's a big debate going on about whether routine mammogram screenings are really having the positive impact they appear to have on breast cancer survival. Check out lead time bias.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I don't have the stats at hand, but I read that a majority of men die with some form of prostate cancer. Not because of it, they just have it at their time of death.

Yes, I'd seen this too. Many prostate cancers are very slow growing, so for many old men, they just watch instead of treating. Of course, most don't even know they have it, though they may well have an elevated PSA. I think the statistic I'd seen was that the majority of men OVER AGE 65 die with prostate cancer.

There's a big debate going on about whether routine mammogram screenings are really having the positive impact they appear to have on breast cancer survival. Check out lead time bias.

True. What strikes me about this is how BONKERS many groups, aided by congresswomen who saw a chance to score big political points on emotion, went, with the new cancer screening guidelines in 2009 recommending (in part, based on studies/data):

a). Wait on screening until age 50, instead of 40
b). Do the screening bi-annually instead of every year.
c). These are general recommendations - gynocologists will still recommend earlier or more frequent screenings for patients they deem to be at higher risk.

So this was a core concept of rational, evidence based treatment -- one of the key ways for Obamacare to bend down the cost curve over the long run. (I'm not saying I'm pro or con the ACA -- just pointing out the logic for changing guidelines for things such as screening tests).

This was all over the news, and you would have thought they were going to rape everyone's grandmother. Women yelling, holding up signs, and as I said, all fully abetted by congresswomen vowing to fight these guidelines and make sure their constituents get annual screening, since that's what they were calling in and demanding. (No opportunity to buy votes missed).

Observations:

1). So much for the idea of bending down the cost curve by curtailing unnecessary tests.
2). This behavior came from both sides of the aisle -- so much for blaming just the GOP for being irrational about medical treatment policy.
3). Every argument I saw against doing this was bolstered by some teary-eyed tale of someone who got breast cancer before age 50. None of these even mentioned if the patient was in a high risk group that would have been screened anywy. None of this even MENTIONED that we can't afford to do everything since things must be paid for out of a finite budget.
4). The fear from laypeople isn't surprising. The complete unwillingness by congress to have doctors on the panel who made the recommendation come and testify and use logic and reason as (at least the starting point for) the debate is a VERY bad sign for a future with US medical costs under reasonable control -- regardless of the specifics of the system.
5). Note that this doesn't mean they can't have the test. It just means they can't have it FREE. It's amazing how much grandstanding goes on to ensure constituencies get "free stuff".

http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforc ... -screening

[jesus_of_suburbia]

It's scary and unfortunate, but some people's cancer is determined to kill them no matter how early it is caught. I think that's what those who are so outraged over revised screening schedules fail to understand. Cancer is a very personalized disease. Lance Armstrong's cancer was in full-blown stage IV, but testicular cancer typically responds very well to chemotherapy. Some women have their tumor removed while it's still confined to their breast and follow recommended screenings after surgery, only to have it show up in their bones 10 years later.

[PrestonSturges]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/05/the-end-of-roundup/

Roundup ready corn and soy are routinely dowsed with Roundup to kill off any weeds that may have infested the plantings. The fact that evolution is creating super weeds that are no longer killed by Roundup is a familiar story but it is not the subject of Sempsel and Seneff’s paper. Instead they describe ways in which exposure to glyphosate can contribute to Obesity, Autism, Alzheimer’s disease , Parkinson’s disease, and digestive issues to name just a few of the diseases that have seen epidemic increase in the years since GMOs were introduced. How is it possible that glyphosate might be the causative agent in these epidemics when since its introduction it has been touted as safe?

Derp! Derp! Derp!

[dissident]

Yeah, some clown posting a stupid picture totally nullifies the fact that glyphosate is a chemical that damages DNA and RNA and therefore is a carcinogen.

Twerp, twerp, twerp.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Yeah, some clown posting a stupid picture totally nullifies the fact that glyphosate is a chemical that damages DNA and RNA and therefore is a carcinogen.

Twerp, twerp, twerp.

This misunderstands what cancers are.

Cancer Listeni/ˈkænsər/, also known as a malignant tumor or malignant neoplasm, is a group of diseases involving abnormal cell growth with the potential to invade or spread to other parts of the body.[1][2]

Most cancers and especially tumors are complex organs (or functions) that hijack our bodies nutrition and defense systems. A damaged RNA/DNA is non-functional RNA/DNA, incapable of carrying out its program. It is ridiculous to generalize re glyphosate this way. I would be disappointed if the the hysteria in this post is typical of your other political opinions.

Maybe before criticizing another person's scientific illiteracy about cancer, you should learn the difference between the plural of body (bodies), and the possessive form of body (body's), and which to use in a sentence?

Oh, let me guess. This makes me politically incorrect and mean too? Cancer is when abnormal cell growth results in uncontrolled growth. Abnormal growth and mutations cause a risk of cancer.

Look, I'm not convinced the current hysteria over glyphosate is warranted (sample sizes, how much are the rats eating and how long, etc., how good a proxy for humans are rats, etc. matter), but you appear to be playing a semantics game here.

edit to add disclosure:

Disclosure: I own some long term call options in Monsanto, since I believe feeding people is a laudable goal. The amount of MON financial interest I hold is well under 0.1% of my financial assets (so if Monsanto is truly doing "evil", I wouldn't hesitate to sell out my position. So far, the people whining about the "evils" of Monsanto aren't exactly coming up with viable ways to feed a global population of well over 7 billion, and growing at an alarming rate, however. (And as a capitalist, I don't believe "profit" in itself is evil.))