No money in curing cancer
Comments
-
Lou: I thought the same thing when I watched the Dr. Sanjay Gupta report with Lance Armstrong a few weeks ago. They flat out said that metastized cancer is the #1 killer, and the one that has the least research funds,and the response from the 'experts' was that the answer was prevention and early detection, therefore it should never get to mets. I have a huge problem with this statement because screening would never have helped the very many of us that are under the screening age (50) for early detection. There is also an article in the Scientific American February 2007 issue about the many benefits of curcumin on cancer and many other diseases. They are going to start clinical trials, but this is another 'drug' that would be inexpensive and give the pharmaceutical companies cause for concern. Monica0
-
Someone put these thoughts in my mind a year ago, and I havent been able to take it out of my mind...too much money involved...Early detection? I was only 45 when Dx...and there are a lot of younger people here...what about prostate cancer,or pancreatic...sorry about "feeling down on this again", but I am having a ct scan in 3 weeks...this will be it to see if the avastin is working or not...and I am very scared....0
-
It's sickening that it is so true!!!!!! Makes you ask why The Lance Armstrong Foundation or ACS won't sponsor them.....again they too are in bed with Big Pharma.
I dream of starting a foundation that only funds clinical trials for non-toxic and more natural remedies that no one gets rich off of. If a medicine is natural, it can no longer be considered able to cure anything. The FDA changed the definition of cure a few years back (after extensive lobbying by Big Pharma) to something that has to be man-made......so an orange can not longer be considered a cure for scurvy. STUPID!!!!!! Just pisses me off that money does rule and no one really gives a rat's **** about our health and well-being.
Thanks Lou for getting my blood pressure up. I think I'll go make some bellpepper juice.
Lisa P.0 -
The altruism that started these organizations dies a slow death along with the cancer patient. Those who make the decisions are bought and paid for long before they can address the real issues.scouty said:It's sickening that it is so true!!!!!! Makes you ask why The Lance Armstrong Foundation or ACS won't sponsor them.....again they too are in bed with Big Pharma.
I dream of starting a foundation that only funds clinical trials for non-toxic and more natural remedies that no one gets rich off of. If a medicine is natural, it can no longer be considered able to cure anything. The FDA changed the definition of cure a few years back (after extensive lobbying by Big Pharma) to something that has to be man-made......so an orange can not longer be considered a cure for scurvy. STUPID!!!!!! Just pisses me off that money does rule and no one really gives a rat's **** about our health and well-being.
Thanks Lou for getting my blood pressure up. I think I'll go make some bellpepper juice.
Lisa P.0 -
when a single dose of avastin costs $25,000.00 what kind of decisions do you think they are going to make regarding a course of treatment?alta29 said:Someone put these thoughts in my mind a year ago, and I havent been able to take it out of my mind...too much money involved...Early detection? I was only 45 when Dx...and there are a lot of younger people here...what about prostate cancer,or pancreatic...sorry about "feeling down on this again", but I am having a ct scan in 3 weeks...this will be it to see if the avastin is working or not...and I am very scared....
for your consideration; Avastin has been known to reduce tumor size when administered in combination with other drugs.0 -
Lou- thanks for such an interesting post. Too bad we're all draining our personal finances on our own cancer - wouldn't it be nice if every cancer patient had the funds to stand up, say no to big pharma, and fund it ourselves?! Wishful thinking, I know.Monicaemilia said:Lou: I thought the same thing when I watched the Dr. Sanjay Gupta report with Lance Armstrong a few weeks ago. They flat out said that metastized cancer is the #1 killer, and the one that has the least research funds,and the response from the 'experts' was that the answer was prevention and early detection, therefore it should never get to mets. I have a huge problem with this statement because screening would never have helped the very many of us that are under the screening age (50) for early detection. There is also an article in the Scientific American February 2007 issue about the many benefits of curcumin on cancer and many other diseases. They are going to start clinical trials, but this is another 'drug' that would be inexpensive and give the pharmaceutical companies cause for concern. Monica
Monica- we're on the same page as you. Early detection! Come on! My husband was diagnosed at 37 - Stage IV. That's 13 years before insurance would have paid for his first colonoscopy. Shameful.
Cheers,
Kate0 -
I didn't catch the doctors name but it was on CNN. I apologized for watching that channel but Fox was a repeat. He was with a Canadian University. There was no pharma involved because the chemical compounds (drug) is readily available via chemical companies. Sorry I didn't get the details I sorta went are you #%@&^%$ me? Unfortunately that tends to tune me out to relevant details.JADot said:Lou, who's the person interviewed, what's the compound and who's the pharma? I'll have to refrain until I know the facts ;-)
Ying0 -
Interesting so according to them its our fault if we get cancer because it coulda, shoulda, woulda been detected before its too late? I had a sigmoid at 50- clear. Blood tests clear age 55 no problems. I had a routine physical and doctor who cares about his patients suggested I get a complete colonscopy. He did so as a preventative step. I was careful and did what I was suppose to do when I was supposed to do it. What do you know I'm now a semicolon. So much for detection and prevention. Yes early detection and prevention is nice but it isn't the answer if you already have it. Cervical cancer is caused by a virus. How long did it take to discover that and how many died? How many more will be saved by a vaccine then by the detection of it?Monicaemilia said:Lou: I thought the same thing when I watched the Dr. Sanjay Gupta report with Lance Armstrong a few weeks ago. They flat out said that metastized cancer is the #1 killer, and the one that has the least research funds,and the response from the 'experts' was that the answer was prevention and early detection, therefore it should never get to mets. I have a huge problem with this statement because screening would never have helped the very many of us that are under the screening age (50) for early detection. There is also an article in the Scientific American February 2007 issue about the many benefits of curcumin on cancer and many other diseases. They are going to start clinical trials, but this is another 'drug' that would be inexpensive and give the pharmaceutical companies cause for concern. Monica
0 -
alta we are all scared every day especially before a test. $25,000 a dose... for that much money there should be a money back guarantee. My chemo cost $1600 a dose. I mused no wonder the nurse wears a mask "its a robbery"alta29 said:Someone put these thoughts in my mind a year ago, and I havent been able to take it out of my mind...too much money involved...Early detection? I was only 45 when Dx...and there are a lot of younger people here...what about prostate cancer,or pancreatic...sorry about "feeling down on this again", but I am having a ct scan in 3 weeks...this will be it to see if the avastin is working or not...and I am very scared....
0 -
Lou,LOUSWIFT said:I didn't catch the doctors name but it was on CNN. I apologized for watching that channel but Fox was a repeat. He was with a Canadian University. There was no pharma involved because the chemical compounds (drug) is readily available via chemical companies. Sorry I didn't get the details I sorta went are you #%@&^%$ me? Unfortunately that tends to tune me out to relevant details.
As far as over the counter stuff for treating cancer, for years the colon cancer mainstay was a drug called lavamisole, used with 5-FU. Prior to that, lavamisole was exclusively used for treating tape worms in farm animals. aaaggghhhh!
If you search the forum for "tapeworm", you will see an earlier thread put up by yours truly :-)
Cheers,
Ying0 -
Ying, believe me lavamisole is the most disgusting thing I have ever had to take. I can still smell it after 13 years. We are dairy farmers and I have a new understanding of what our stock are put through. That said maybe I would not be still around without my 12 months of the dreaded drug!JADot said:Lou,
As far as over the counter stuff for treating cancer, for years the colon cancer mainstay was a drug called lavamisole, used with 5-FU. Prior to that, lavamisole was exclusively used for treating tape worms in farm animals. aaaggghhhh!
If you search the forum for "tapeworm", you will see an earlier thread put up by yours truly :-)
Cheers,
Ying
Foxy.0 -
This is a very sore topic with me. It is unbelievable how money plays such a huge role in everything. I get so upset when I hear about these reports. Of course no one will sponsor a potential cancer curing drug. How would these large drug companies make any profits? There is so much money to be made off of people with diseases. I have researched so many natural remedies for all types of diseases. There is published documentation that some of these natural treatments work. Of course, you won't hear about it because the drug companies don't want us to know that. It seems like these large corporations, and maybe even some cancer centers want us to believe that the only hope for cancer patients is chemotherapy and/or radiation. I'm not saying that they don't work, but there are definitely other ways to treat diseases besides poisoning patients with toxic drugs. Why are these natural treatments so taboo among the medical community? It wouldn't hurt to try it, right? In my opinion, trying to treat diseases through supplements and diet can't hurt a person anymore than some of these toxic drugs would.
I do want to add, however, that I noticed a clinical trial for curcumin and cancer. I don't remember who is sponsoring the trial, but it can be found on the NIH website. We'll see how far they'll go with it.0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 121.8K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 446 Bladder Cancer
- 309 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 397 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.4K Kidney Cancer
- 671 Leukemia
- 793 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 237 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.1K Ovarian Cancer
- 61 Pancreatic Cancer
- 487 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.5K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 539 Sarcoma
- 730 Skin Cancer
- 653 Stomach Cancer
- 191 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.8K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards