 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Asthma / April 2007all the research in the world and all the 10ks runs for
cancer research is useless is useless, just giving hospitals more money for something they can't do anything about pollution. Which I suggest is the largest conspiracy in the US ever with more people dying because of it then anything ever .let alone people getting respitory illness and asthma before they had to. We have leaders who have sacrificed cities and people in them as a way to enrich corporations. We need fuel yes but there is a point at which they don't tell you how polluted and how much people have to in hale this poison in order to allow these corporation to profit. Our leaders should have protected us but didn't. There is no undoing the poison from pollution ever, so keep believing its a magical scourage when I suggest comparisons could prove SO HELP ME GOD the magnitude of the Giant conspiracy to keep this from people. I never believed in conspiracies as much as I do now. > cancer research is useless > is useless, just giving hospitals more money for something they can't do [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > people. > I never believed in conspiracies as much as I do now. Yes, you are very accomplished at believing in conspiracies. That translates to your even greater lack of credibility, and such ignorant statements as cancer research being useless. There are many types of cancer and they have many different causes. You see everything through the prism of your pet obsession, and don't let things like reality intrude on your ongoing delusion. Is your life so unoccupied that you have to just sit and obsessively grind out this cookie-cutter tripe? ARoberts, I just take these posts for what they are. Pathetic attempts for attention. Why give it? > ARoberts, I just take these posts for what they are. Pathetic attempts > for attention. Why give it? I haven't responded to him in about 6 months. In light of his googleplex of postings here during that time, I believe that it's admirable restraint. > > Yes, you are very accomplished at believing in conspiracies. Very true with so many. I've read about many breakthrus over the years in cancer research but I haven't seen much actively being applied at least in the USA. The standard approach to dealing with cancer continues to be chemo. Are the newer developed methods just not used that much, only for rare cases or is it just not making the news? >> > Yes, you are very accomplished at believing in conspiracies. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > chemo. Are the newer developed methods just not used that much, only for > rare cases or is it just not making the news? From what I have read, some of the newer therapies have fairly narrow application. Regarding the news, you could be right. I heard a teaser announcement about a "breakthrough in MS", but after listening for 10 minutes, I realized that the details were not forthcoming; it would have interfered with the vital saga of Anna Nichole Smith. Cable news tends to thrive on 3- to 4-story saturation coverage, to the detriment of wider scope and more useful reporting. It's much cheaper (and gleans more ratings) to recyle the scandalous and titillating material endlessly. > I realized that the details were not forthcoming; it would have > interfered with the vital saga of Anna Nichole Smith. Its been awful. I hadn't turned on the TV in a several days. I had thought the Smith issue had been covered and done. Not so lucky. Turned on the news and first story up, more of the same. The truth is that you, like most people, probably don't really know what is being applied here in the U.S. Most people don't know what the standard protocol is for various types of cancer until they or a loved one is faced with it. Of course there are new things being done that have upped the odds of survival. Gene therapy, hormone therapy, biological therapy, photodynamic therapy, etc. These don't necessarily replace standard treatment of chemotherapy, but either improve the effect of chemotherapy treatment, or coupled with radiation or chemotherapy, up the odds of survival. Much improvement has been seen in the treatment of many types of cancers, such as testicular, breast, cervical, lymphoma, etc. That's why people from all over the world come here to be treated. > The truth is that you, like most people, probably don't really know what is > being applied here in the U.S. Most people don't know what the standard > protocol is for various types of cancer until they or a loved one is faced > with it. Doesn't apply to me. I've lost several loved ones from 20 years ago to just recently. > Of course there are new things being done that have upped the odds of > survival. Gene therapy, hormone therapy, biological therapy, photodynamic > therapy, etc. Most are not widely used as standard approach. They are the exception for specific cases. I agree they hold promise but they are not yet mainstream. >>>Most are not widely used as standard approach. They are the exception for specific cases. I agree they hold promise but they are not yet mainstream.>>> Really? Which ones aren't widely used? > Really? Which ones aren't widely used? Take prostate cancer. How was it treated 10 years ago? How is it treated now? Pick any other more common cancer and ask the same questions. There are some slight differences but the major breakthru cancer treatments haven't hit mainstream yet. They need more research. >>Take prostate cancer. How was it treated 10 years ago? How is it treated now? Pick any other more common cancer and ask the same questions. There are some slight differences but the major breakthru cancer treatments haven't hit mainstream yet. They need more research.<< You didn't answer my question, so I will. Gene therapy is the only one that is being used solely in trials and not as standard treatment for certain types of cancer. Thirty years ago chemotherapy was used to treat NonHodgkins lymphoma and hardly anyone survived. Today, with the use of different chemotherapy drugs, plus biological therapy (aka immunotherapy), the survival rate has greatly improved. The survival rate of nearly every cancer has improved over the past twenty years, and there has been an improvement in the survival rate of many cancers in the past ten years. Certain breast cancers, for example, have seen an increase of more than forty percent in the survival rate during the past ten years. There are new agents being used for chemotherapy, different combination of drugs being used, and coupled with the more advanced breakthroughs I've already pointed out, save for gene therapy which is still being used in trials, they are major advances that have hit the mainstream, resulting in many people winning the battle. To say that chemotherapy was used ten years ago and is being used today so only slight improvements have been made, is simplistic. To state that all cancer research is useless is offensive. > Certain breast cancers, for example, have seen an increase of more than > forty percent in the survival rate during the past ten years. Mostly because of advances in awareness and early detection. > There are new agents being used for chemotherapy Yes. My point was that Chemo is still the predominate method for treating most cancers. Other methods have shown promise but need more research before they become the standard. > To state that all cancer research is useless is offensive. I agree. It wasn't me that said otherwise. >> cancer research is useless >> is useless, just giving hospitals more money for something they can't do [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > on your ongoing delusion. Is your life so unoccupied that you have to > just sit and obsessively grind out this cookie-cutter tripe? Except for cigarettes and possibly diet, there is no great cause of cancer ,earlier morbidity and respiratory adult onset respiratory disease then pollution , most likely particulate pollution. The areas and cities that have the most particulate pollution have the most illness correlated to how close and how often they are made to breathe it. These people are affected much more then people who live in clean air places. The extent to which I have proposed could show much much more disparity then what is shown now. There has to be a reason this is not reported ... Our city has most asthma, most asthma deaths, much more cancers, higher morbidity ( up to 30 percent higher), lowest percentage of people graduating school, lowest reading levels, most depression, most murders lowest percentage of people achieving a post secondary education etc etc etc... Anyway you compare the people between two different areas.(clean air and polluted air)who generally ate the same things, and you will find for the most part those that get cancer and respiratory disease and ill health and die faster are in polluted areas and those that get those things least are in clean air places.Things like stress tests and outlay of medical and prescription costs, even results from 10k especially older people who lived in those stated conditions for more then ten years, could and would show exactly how much what I am saying is true. Hold your breath for those studies , let alone warn people who are most affected. because the news people would rather tell you things that are much less important like how vitamin e study or a brow revision knowhows,, and what pharmacies to take after they poison you instead. Finally roberts, you putting me down has no affect, cause I believe in god and doing the right things, and truth, you rather deal with asthma and taking meds not what causes it.I would think I have helped save many people by getting them to think where the live as oppossed to what meds to be treated with. Let god sort it out.. > cancer research is useless > is useless, just giving hospitals more money for something they can't do [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > leaders who have sacrificed cities and people in them as a way to enrich > corporations. We have leaders telling us all about pollution and the need to conserve and then they go home to their huge energy hungry mansions. If anything is going to ever change then it starts with leaders leading by example. Next are those that complain about how government is failing with regards to pollution but do little themselves to conserve. High gas prices should be welcome by these folks as that is what causes others to conserve, yet they complain. Why? Because conservation is something only others must do in their beliefs. I will gladly support a well written treaty that deals with the problems of pollution on a global scale. Kyoto is/was a joke. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.