$30,000-a-Month Cancer Drug
Comments
-
You're right....PhillieG said:Special interests
There are so many special interests involved in this debate/discussion. Sadly, it's part human nature and part good old greed. The drug and medical lobbyists too often control what happens to us, the people who are affected by the $$$ decisions. Bottom line too often is $$$. It's what drives too many people, not JUST Americans but we're damn good at it.
This sort of reminds me of the automotive industry. America COULD have been making fuel efficient, solid, dependable cars and trucks for years. We had what should have been the "wake up call" in the 70's with the earlier gas crisis. Other countries take situations like that and find solutions. But what did we do? NOTHING. We made bigger, crappier cars and thought of foreign competition as a joke. We did nothing as far as getting off our "addiction" to oil. We encouraged more of the same as long as the bottom line ($$$) grew. Here we are again with problems in health care that have been trying to be addressed since 1916 if not before. Again we look at "foreigners" as not knowing what they are doing and refusing to look at what works and take it seriously.
I'm sure many will disagree and that's fine, we all have our opinions. Then there are the facts. I've tended to stay clear of this because I've been involved in many of these endless circular threads that are lose/lose situations.
I just felt like throwing in my two cents in for what it's worth.
(it used to be worth two cents, now it seem to be nonsense)
I agree, Phillie...
I remember those times gone by of odd/even gas days and waiting in long lines to get gas, back when all gas stations were full serve. I was a little too young to fully understand what it was all about, but looking back now I'm perplexed by how little we've learned. It seems that we like things here bigger, more flashy, and more, more, more of it...quality and conservation sadly is rarely addressed until we're in crises, just like you said. I'm hoping we do learn from these economic hard times and follow the example of our parents and grandparents...
Good points you made...as for your two cents? Let's see, two cents, adjusted for inflation, the decline of the American dollar, current CPI...it's now about .002 cents compared to 1975...although, you have acquired some wisdom since two cents was worth two cents, so you should add back a premium for that wisdom, so factoring that back in, your two cents should now be worth = .004 cents. Considering this, your two cents is worth much more if you had two pennies dated 1975, which if you melted them down, their value in copper would actually be worth two cents. If you had four 1855 half cents, even in well worn condition, you would have ~$152 in collectable coins.
Funny money...
Hmmm...what does it mean if the value of the material that money is made with is worth more than the money itself? Is this why gold has gone up in price?0 -
ive been thinking of this
ive been thinking of this same topic for some time now. the simple fact is cancer...and healthcare in general...has become a BUSINESS. all these new cancer drugs coming out arent really cancer drugs per se. avastin and erbitux all make traditional drugs (like oxaliplatin) more effective. thats it. while that might be all fine and dandy, i find it hard to believe that oxalitplatin, a 30 year old cancer drug, has not been replaced with something more effective. yet drug companies can invent drugs that give 80 year olds boners (viagra), or treat 'restless leg syndrome'???? just watch '60 minutes' on a sunday night and look at how many commercials there are for pointless drugs. truly outrageous.
i dont want to get political or anything, but this country has spent ONE TRILLION DOLLARS over the past 9 years fighting two useless wars. if they spent that money instead fighting cancer, that disease wouldve disappeared a long time ago.
something to think about; if genentech or roche or any other big pharma company was to invent drug ABC (as an example) that completely cured cancer, but also had drug XYZ(for example) that simply treated it and allowed you to live the rest of your life as long as you had to take XYZ every single month....which drug do you think would be marketed and which drug would be hidden away in the company vault for no one else to see ever again???
its truly sad how society has become.0 -
I hate to say this out loudpetppetp said:ive been thinking of this
ive been thinking of this same topic for some time now. the simple fact is cancer...and healthcare in general...has become a BUSINESS. all these new cancer drugs coming out arent really cancer drugs per se. avastin and erbitux all make traditional drugs (like oxaliplatin) more effective. thats it. while that might be all fine and dandy, i find it hard to believe that oxalitplatin, a 30 year old cancer drug, has not been replaced with something more effective. yet drug companies can invent drugs that give 80 year olds boners (viagra), or treat 'restless leg syndrome'???? just watch '60 minutes' on a sunday night and look at how many commercials there are for pointless drugs. truly outrageous.
i dont want to get political or anything, but this country has spent ONE TRILLION DOLLARS over the past 9 years fighting two useless wars. if they spent that money instead fighting cancer, that disease wouldve disappeared a long time ago.
something to think about; if genentech or roche or any other big pharma company was to invent drug ABC (as an example) that completely cured cancer, but also had drug XYZ(for example) that simply treated it and allowed you to live the rest of your life as long as you had to take XYZ every single month....which drug do you think would be marketed and which drug would be hidden away in the company vault for no one else to see ever again???
its truly sad how society has become.
I hate to say this out loud ,
but I think drug companies are not in the business to CURE diseases,
( they would eventually put themselves out of business,right?)
but to keep diseases under control and alleviate symptoms.
I believe,like the electric car ( which was first invented in 1901)
they DO have cures,hidden in a basement safe somewhere.
( and I'm not even a conspiracy theorist)
There was a guy in the 70's or 80's I believe, who invented a battery that
NEVER needed replacement.( I wonder whatever happened to him ?)0 -
Who are THEY???petppetp said:ive been thinking of this
ive been thinking of this same topic for some time now. the simple fact is cancer...and healthcare in general...has become a BUSINESS. all these new cancer drugs coming out arent really cancer drugs per se. avastin and erbitux all make traditional drugs (like oxaliplatin) more effective. thats it. while that might be all fine and dandy, i find it hard to believe that oxalitplatin, a 30 year old cancer drug, has not been replaced with something more effective. yet drug companies can invent drugs that give 80 year olds boners (viagra), or treat 'restless leg syndrome'???? just watch '60 minutes' on a sunday night and look at how many commercials there are for pointless drugs. truly outrageous.
i dont want to get political or anything, but this country has spent ONE TRILLION DOLLARS over the past 9 years fighting two useless wars. if they spent that money instead fighting cancer, that disease wouldve disappeared a long time ago.
something to think about; if genentech or roche or any other big pharma company was to invent drug ABC (as an example) that completely cured cancer, but also had drug XYZ(for example) that simply treated it and allowed you to live the rest of your life as long as you had to take XYZ every single month....which drug do you think would be marketed and which drug would be hidden away in the company vault for no one else to see ever again???
its truly sad how society has become.
Who are THEY, who have cancer cures locked in a vault?
Something to think about is as a species on planet Earth humans are not suffering cancer in the singular, but rather CANCERS, plural. Colon cancer is different from rectal cancer, which is different from lung cancer, which is different from pancreas cancer, which is different from Leukemia, which is different from brain, breast, bone, skin cancers. Further, my colon cancer is different from my husband's colon cancer, whose is different from Donna's colon cancer, whose is different from Kim's colon cancer. Cancer is not one illness, it's many different illnesses.
Cancers, all types of cancer, are very complex groups of cells - they are very unique from person to person. In the same way that each of us are genetically different, so are cancers genetically different from person to person and from cancer type to cancer type. This explains why chemo drugs for a breast cancer patient is different than a colon cancer patient, and why you can have two people with stage III colon cancer who follow the same treatment regime have two different outcomes.
Considering how complex cancers are and how many individuals have some form of cancer it is understandable that finding a cure, even treatments, are difficult. We're not looking for one cure; we are looking for many cures. This is why the failure rate of developing new formularies and protocols are so high and a solid cure for any type of cancer is so elusive. However, there is a lot of good news and indications that the scientific community is moving closer and closer to finding better treatments and cures for the various cancers.
For instance, Gardisil is a recently approved vaccine for use to prevent a viral condition, HPV-Human Papillomavirus, which has high rates of developing into cervical cancer. With the vaccine preventing the condition that causes cervical cancer, it could be considered a cure via preventation. I suppose we will see if widespread use of Gardisil results in substantial decreases in cervical cancer incidence rates in the following years.
I mentioned Dennis Slamon, MD, PhD, an oncologist, who made incredible discoveries in the genetics of a type of breast cancer cell that affects 25% - 30% of all women with breast cancer. Dr. Slamon's discovery lead to the development of Trastuzumab / Herceptin. Herceptin is not a chemotherapy drug. It is a monoclonal antibody that interrupts molecular communication / instructions in cancer cells, which prevents cancer from forming or growing. It's a life changing discovery by successfully extending the lives of women with breast cancer. And the beauty is Herceptin does not have the adverse side effects that chemotherapy does, vastly improving the quality of life for patients. Herceptin works on the cellular level, rather than the systemic level, and it is a biologic product, rather than an inorganic chemical.
These two examples of new methods of cancer prevention and treatment are truly paving the way for preventing and/or curing other types of cancers and illnesses. The exciting thing about these two examples is they provide information about cellular mechanisms that scientists and biologists can build upon to make future discoveries. They are also serving to change the paradigm from "killing" cancer cells, which also kills important healthy cells, to preventing and suppressing cancer cells from growing at all.
In fact, this year's 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine was awarded to three American scientists working in the United States who made an important discovery in chromosomal physiology and function that has promising potentials to cure a multitude of illnesses, including cancer. As their discovery moves from basic scientific research to applied scientific research, we can have real hope that the following research will lead to new treatments and protocols in the future. Exciting, isn't it?
So you see, it would be highly unlikely that a cure for cancer is locked up in a basement vault of a greedy pharmaceutical executive. There are far too many people not associated with big pharma working on the problem of illness and cancer, too many people who are working on the problem who are not motivated by sheer monetary profit. Most scientists are inspired by the excitement and promise of meaningful scientific discovery and the positive applications for mankind. The notoriety they receive for fantastic discoveries is far more gratifying than money - things like recognition, respect from peers, receiving numerous awards like the Nobel Prize, and joining the ranks of much lauded scientists like Linus Pauling, Marie Curie, Jonas Salk, James Watson, Paul Ehrlich, et al. They also are well enriched by helping their fellow mankind. Trying to cap a lid on a cancer cure would be akin to attempting to cap a lid on Kilauea in Hawaii. It cannot be done – any attempts to cap either would result in a blow up.
As a group of cancer survivors, we must be careful what and how we communicate the cause of cancer so as not to unwittingly impede the fund raising efforts of organizations like ACS, C3-Colon Cancer Coalition, Stand Up to Cancer, Susan G. Koman, etc., who support cancer research with grants and awards. If we refute the statistics that we are making strides in the treatment of cancer, or if we promote conspiracy theories that a cancer cure is suppressed for monetary or power gains, or that a future cure would be, we would not inspire people to support the organizations that support us.
Throughout the course of the history of man many attempts have been made to stifle scientific discovery for a multitude of reasons - power, politics, religion, fear, control the masses, etc. But there have been far more reasons to promote scientific discovery - it has endless value to our primary goal on Earth - survival.
Links:
ACS: Secret Cancer Cure Myth
http://www.cancertreatmentwatch.org or Cancer Treatment Watch: Is There Really a Conspiracy to Suppress Cancer Cures?0 -
Marketing pharmaceuticals does pose ethical dilemmas…jscho said:marketing budgets?
I was wondering if you have any data on marketing versus research budgets for big pharma, since you seem to have researched this topic a fair amount. I've heard the argument before that drugs need to be expensive to recover research costs, but what amount of their budget is actually devoted to drug development?
Marketing expenses are a dead loss to patients, though important to the companies.
Best,
Jeremy
Dr. Jerome Groopman, an oncologist and author, wrote a great article for the New Yorker, about marketing drugs to physicians. Click on the blue link to read the article. Dr. Groopman revisits the marketing of pharmaceuticals to doctors in his book, How Doctors Think.
Dr. Groopman’s articles and books are both informative and inspiring. As a patient, his writing has given me a glimpse into the mindset of doctors. How Doctors Think is a good book; his book the Anatomy of Hope is excellent. Every doctor, nurse and healthcare provider should read it.
As for pharmaceutical marketing strategies? IMHO, marketing pharmaceuticals directly to patients seems an unethical practice. Pharmaceuticals are to treat specific medical conditions that can and should be identified and assessed by a proper face-to-face medical consultation with licensed medical doctors. A patient does not have the knowledge and experience to propose treatment protocols for illness unless they have specific medical knowledge of the specific condition they wish to treat. It seems more proper to prescribe medications to treat medical conditions, not searching for an illness that meets the prescription guidelines for specfic medication a patient wants.
We should expect a certain amount of marketing to doctors, so that doctors can learn of new drugs that are available, but to use undue incentives and payments to doctors from big pharma certainly raises questions of ethics and who or what is being served. It’s really no different than politicians taking money from big pharma for legislative favors.
“Money power denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes”
~ William Jennings Bryan0 -
Wow.
A cancer cell is a normal cell that has been damaged. If it is damaged
in such a way that it stops accepting proteins or signals, the brain
loses control of the cell's existence. The damaged cell then turns to
the fermentation process to survive.
Fermentation involves taking in glucose and expelling lactic acid.
Cancer cells rob the body of it's energy, by using the glucose the
body needs for survival. That is why late stages of cancer produces
skinny people.
So basically, there aren't "all different types" of cancer cells, like
there are different types of virus, etc.. The cancer cell is a normal
cell that has been damaged. A cancer cell is a cancer cell. Period.
A cancer cell that is a damaged colon cancer cell, will look like
a mutated colon cell, regardless if it travels to the lung and continues
to grow there. You don't then have "lung cancer", you have colon
cancer in your lung.
It's unfortunate, but if an doctor doesn't see any signs of colon cancer,
and you have cancer in your lung, it can be misdiagnosed as lung cancer.
The treatment is only different, due to the chemicals that have been
"invented" to kill fast growing cells in specific areas of the body.
Prostrate cancer is slow growing, while generally, lung cancer
can grow much faster.
Valid cancer remedies have indeed been put to rest by the industry.
I've mention in previous posts (now archived) three in particular that
had merit, but were side-lined. Large corporations; the leaders in
Chemotherapy drugs, invest heavily in the "new drugs", and the drugs
all manage to fail testing.
They did it with Hydrazine Sulfate, they are doing it now, with Trovax,
Oxford Med's compound.
One Chinese herb that is now being studied by Merck in an effort to
find what the chemical is that manages to kill cancer cells specifically,
is also said to be failing their tests.
I use that herb, and it is useless if used alone. Almost all herbs are to
be used with other herbs in a compound. That specific herb must be
used with a second specific herb, if it is to work at all.
So why would a company spend millions to test a new possible way
to fight cancer, and cause it to fail testing? Why indeed. People seem
to be convinced that the Emperor actually has new clothes.....
The story at the link that follows, is a great example of the truth
of what's been really going on.
The Syracuse Cancer Research Institute does not sell anything;
it is a non-profit. They have absolutely no financial gain, any more
than I have, with this drug. It can be purchased in Canada, or in the
USA from suppliers.
If one goes this route, it should be with a physician's guidance,
since the drug is a MAOI, and requires a special diet and the
absence of most pharmaceuticals.
And again, this is nearly the most perfect example of what I see
repeated again and again.
Hydrazine Sulfate
Syracuse Cancer Research Institute
Better health to us all.0 -
Biology of CancerJohn23 said:Wow.
A cancer cell is a normal cell that has been damaged. If it is damaged
in such a way that it stops accepting proteins or signals, the brain
loses control of the cell's existence. The damaged cell then turns to
the fermentation process to survive.
Fermentation involves taking in glucose and expelling lactic acid.
Cancer cells rob the body of it's energy, by using the glucose the
body needs for survival. That is why late stages of cancer produces
skinny people.
So basically, there aren't "all different types" of cancer cells, like
there are different types of virus, etc.. The cancer cell is a normal
cell that has been damaged. A cancer cell is a cancer cell. Period.
A cancer cell that is a damaged colon cancer cell, will look like
a mutated colon cell, regardless if it travels to the lung and continues
to grow there. You don't then have "lung cancer", you have colon
cancer in your lung.
It's unfortunate, but if an doctor doesn't see any signs of colon cancer,
and you have cancer in your lung, it can be misdiagnosed as lung cancer.
The treatment is only different, due to the chemicals that have been
"invented" to kill fast growing cells in specific areas of the body.
Prostrate cancer is slow growing, while generally, lung cancer
can grow much faster.
Valid cancer remedies have indeed been put to rest by the industry.
I've mention in previous posts (now archived) three in particular that
had merit, but were side-lined. Large corporations; the leaders in
Chemotherapy drugs, invest heavily in the "new drugs", and the drugs
all manage to fail testing.
They did it with Hydrazine Sulfate, they are doing it now, with Trovax,
Oxford Med's compound.
One Chinese herb that is now being studied by Merck in an effort to
find what the chemical is that manages to kill cancer cells specifically,
is also said to be failing their tests.
I use that herb, and it is useless if used alone. Almost all herbs are to
be used with other herbs in a compound. That specific herb must be
used with a second specific herb, if it is to work at all.
So why would a company spend millions to test a new possible way
to fight cancer, and cause it to fail testing? Why indeed. People seem
to be convinced that the Emperor actually has new clothes.....
The story at the link that follows, is a great example of the truth
of what's been really going on.
The Syracuse Cancer Research Institute does not sell anything;
it is a non-profit. They have absolutely no financial gain, any more
than I have, with this drug. It can be purchased in Canada, or in the
USA from suppliers.
If one goes this route, it should be with a physician's guidance,
since the drug is a MAOI, and requires a special diet and the
absence of most pharmaceuticals.
And again, this is nearly the most perfect example of what I see
repeated again and again.
Hydrazine Sulfate
Syracuse Cancer Research Institute
Better health to us all.
Cancer cells are not "normal" cells that morph into cancer cells. Cancer cells are cells with genetic mistakes / mutations made during cell division, basically altering the DNA of whatever type of cell is dividing or being reproduced (liver cell, skin cell, bone cell, blood cell, etc.), causing all subsequent cells to be mutated. The body does have a mechanism to make corrections to these mutated cells (tumor suppressors), however when that mechanism fails the cells do not die off as in normal cell life cycles, but rather continues with uncontrolled growth that ultimately develops into masses / tumors. There are also inherited cancers caused by inherited mutations in cells that are passed from parents to children. Those mutated cells would never be considered normal cells. Information for cells to reproduce, stop growing, make corrections, etc. do not come from the brain, the information, more specifically the instructions, come from DNA (the body's instruction manuals for life).
Click on link to review ACS information: ACS: What is cancer?
Click on link to review information about Basic Biology and Cancer:
American Association for Cancer Research: Not All Cancers Are The Same
National Cancer Institute: What is Cancer?0 -
My dear Kat...usakat said:Biology of Cancer
Cancer cells are not "normal" cells that morph into cancer cells. Cancer cells are cells with genetic mistakes / mutations made during cell division, basically altering the DNA of whatever type of cell is dividing or being reproduced (liver cell, skin cell, bone cell, blood cell, etc.), causing all subsequent cells to be mutated. The body does have a mechanism to make corrections to these mutated cells (tumor suppressors), however when that mechanism fails the cells do not die off as in normal cell life cycles, but rather continues with uncontrolled growth that ultimately develops into masses / tumors. There are also inherited cancers caused by inherited mutations in cells that are passed from parents to children. Those mutated cells would never be considered normal cells. Information for cells to reproduce, stop growing, make corrections, etc. do not come from the brain, the information, more specifically the instructions, come from DNA (the body's instruction manuals for life).
Click on link to review ACS information: ACS: What is cancer?
Click on link to review information about Basic Biology and Cancer:
American Association for Cancer Research: Not All Cancers Are The Same
National Cancer Institute: What is Cancer?
My dear Kat...
It would really be a great idea to read a bit more in-depth literature
regarding "cancer cells".
"Sometimes obvious facts are so overlooked by those of high intellect."
(I'll let you look that one up)
Better health to you.
Oh... PS:
Here's a link or two for -you- to get started:
CancerHelp UK
The Association for International Cancer Research
I would include more, but it would be redundant.
Stay well!0 -
And your point is???John23 said:My dear Kat...
My dear Kat...
It would really be a great idea to read a bit more in-depth literature
regarding "cancer cells".
"Sometimes obvious facts are so overlooked by those of high intellect."
(I'll let you look that one up)
Better health to you.
Oh... PS:
Here's a link or two for -you- to get started:
CancerHelp UK
The Association for International Cancer Research
I would include more, but it would be redundant.
Stay well!
The links you provided say the same things the links I provided do, and all confirm what I wrote. So yes, perhaps it was redundant, but thanks for confirming the information I provided is valid and has concurrence among many sources.
I do agree that "sometimes obvious facts are so overlooked by those of high intellect."
The National Cancer Institute has a great slide show that illustrates cell mitosis and what happens when an error or damage occurs during the cycle which brings about genetic changes that sometimes result in unregulated growth of cells. It is the unregulated growth of cells that can cause cancer. Check it out. It's a great source/tool to learn about cancer.0 -
Holy Moleyusakat said:And your point is???
The links you provided say the same things the links I provided do, and all confirm what I wrote. So yes, perhaps it was redundant, but thanks for confirming the information I provided is valid and has concurrence among many sources.
I do agree that "sometimes obvious facts are so overlooked by those of high intellect."
The National Cancer Institute has a great slide show that illustrates cell mitosis and what happens when an error or damage occurs during the cycle which brings about genetic changes that sometimes result in unregulated growth of cells. It is the unregulated growth of cells that can cause cancer. Check it out. It's a great source/tool to learn about cancer.
I'm always amazed at how some individuals love to argue.
Kate, you are missing the point, and the facts, and you are
continuing to perpetuate false assumptions.
I'll try again, and if you actually read at the links, you will see that
what I have said, and will try again to say, is exactly what is
said at those same links.
-A cancer cell is a damaged normal cell.
-A cancer cell, once damaged, can not receive instructions that
other normal cells receive, regarding how to survive.
-A cancer cell then resorts to basic survival, by means of
fermentation.
-A cancer cell stays alive by taking in glucose, since that is
how the fermentation process works.
-A cancer cell from the colon, is a damaged (or "mutated") normal
colon cell; it has all other characteristics of a colon cell.
-A cancer cell from the brain, is a damaged (or "mutated") normal
brain cell; it has all other characteristics of a brain cell.
-A cancer cell from the skin, is a damaged (or "mutated") normal
cell from the skin; it has all other characteristics of a skin cell.
They are "types of cancer", only as far as where they got their start,
in ALL other respects they are exactly the same. They all are damaged
normal cells, and they ALL live by using the fermentation process.
That concept is not argued by anyone, of any caliber of medical
schooling; cancer cells live by the fermentation process.
The PET scan was devised based on that fact. They use radioactive
glucose to locate cancer cell masses. They use glucose, because
cancer cells take on more glucose than other normal cells. And the
cancer cells do that, because they have to, to survive.
This is really, really simple stuff, Kat.
A cancer cell is the same, regardless of where it got it's start;
it lives by the same process as all other cancer cells - fermentation.
(similar to an amoeba)
There has been serious speculation regarding the immune system
not being able to recognize a caner cell, because a cancer cell starts
as a normal cell. The autoimmune drug "Trovax" was based on the
concept that the immune system might be able to be trained to
know the difference between a normal cell and a cancer cell by the
protein it contains.
The bottom line, is that a cancer cell is a cancer cell. They are
all the same; they survive by the exact same method.
If you wanted to kill all the fish in your pond by draining out all the water,
would anyone be justified in telling you it can't be done, because all
the fish are different?
I would leave that propaganda to the industry that keeps the
money flowing into the cancer industry coffers.
I'm not sure if you just love arguing, or just arguing semantics,
but facts are facts.
But.... I loveya' just the same!
Stay well!0 -
No Arguing - Just a SuggestionJohn23 said:Holy Moley
I'm always amazed at how some individuals love to argue.
Kate, you are missing the point, and the facts, and you are
continuing to perpetuate false assumptions.
I'll try again, and if you actually read at the links, you will see that
what I have said, and will try again to say, is exactly what is
said at those same links.
-A cancer cell is a damaged normal cell.
-A cancer cell, once damaged, can not receive instructions that
other normal cells receive, regarding how to survive.
-A cancer cell then resorts to basic survival, by means of
fermentation.
-A cancer cell stays alive by taking in glucose, since that is
how the fermentation process works.
-A cancer cell from the colon, is a damaged (or "mutated") normal
colon cell; it has all other characteristics of a colon cell.
-A cancer cell from the brain, is a damaged (or "mutated") normal
brain cell; it has all other characteristics of a brain cell.
-A cancer cell from the skin, is a damaged (or "mutated") normal
cell from the skin; it has all other characteristics of a skin cell.
They are "types of cancer", only as far as where they got their start,
in ALL other respects they are exactly the same. They all are damaged
normal cells, and they ALL live by using the fermentation process.
That concept is not argued by anyone, of any caliber of medical
schooling; cancer cells live by the fermentation process.
The PET scan was devised based on that fact. They use radioactive
glucose to locate cancer cell masses. They use glucose, because
cancer cells take on more glucose than other normal cells. And the
cancer cells do that, because they have to, to survive.
This is really, really simple stuff, Kat.
A cancer cell is the same, regardless of where it got it's start;
it lives by the same process as all other cancer cells - fermentation.
(similar to an amoeba)
There has been serious speculation regarding the immune system
not being able to recognize a caner cell, because a cancer cell starts
as a normal cell. The autoimmune drug "Trovax" was based on the
concept that the immune system might be able to be trained to
know the difference between a normal cell and a cancer cell by the
protein it contains.
The bottom line, is that a cancer cell is a cancer cell. They are
all the same; they survive by the exact same method.
If you wanted to kill all the fish in your pond by draining out all the water,
would anyone be justified in telling you it can't be done, because all
the fish are different?
I would leave that propaganda to the industry that keeps the
money flowing into the cancer industry coffers.
I'm not sure if you just love arguing, or just arguing semantics,
but facts are facts.
But.... I loveya' just the same!
Stay well!
The attached link is from the National Cancer Institute. It is a slide show that illustrates what cancer is and how it ultimately becomes a tumor. Note the "different" types of cancer listed. It is clear and easy to understand and doesn't take long to read through. Be sure to look at each slide from 1 to 61 to get a deeper understanding of cancer, what it is, what causes it, etc. It's very enlightening:
NCI Slide Show0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 121.6K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 446 Bladder Cancer
- 308 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 395 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.3K Kidney Cancer
- 671 Leukemia
- 791 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 234 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.1K Ovarian Cancer
- 56 Pancreatic Cancer
- 487 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.4K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 534 Sarcoma
- 719 Skin Cancer
- 646 Stomach Cancer
- 190 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.9K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards