Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / November 2008
We Fought Cancer
And Cancer Won.
|
|
Thread rating:  |
J - 12 Nov 2008 09:47 GMT We Fought Cancer
And Cancer Won. http://www.newsweek.com/id/157548/page/1 After billions spent on research and decades of hit-or-miss treatments, it's time to rethink the war on cancer. Fighting Cancer: A Timeline 5 Pages
Steve B - 14 Nov 2008 06:41 GMT Gotta say a bit about this.
We tell you about Mayberry because his case sheds light on why cancer is on track to kill 565,650 people in the United States this year—more than 1,500 a day, equivalent to three jumbo jets crashing and killing everyone aboard 365 days a year. First, it shows the disconnect between the bench and the bedside, between what science has discovered about cancer and how doctors treat it. Biologists have known for at least two decades that it is the rare cancer that can be completely cured through surgery. Nevertheless, countless proud surgeons keep assuring countless anxious patients that they "got it all."
The big C is a strange disease. If 3 jets a day crashed the politicians would be all over it like a wet sheet. But with the 'C' word no one seems to care. The feeling seems to be let them die or ignore them.
Steve B Date of Birth 12-1950 Dx date 2-2007:CS=T4N1Mb, age57:1st measured PSA 1.6, 5-2004:PSA at DX 9.6 , gleason 9, psa doubling time at Dx 3.5 mo: Treatment ACT | Searching for a cure for androgen independent PCa | Last measured PSA 5.99 11/4/08 after ADT failure, last psa doubling time 3.5 month, T< 20 Esitmated survival time 2 years. Planned lifespan over 90.
This disease sucks...
> We Fought Cancer…And Cancer Won. > http://www.newsweek.com/id/157548/page/1 > After billions spent on research and decades of hit-or-miss treatments, > it's time to rethink the war on cancer. > Fighting Cancer: A Timeline > 5 Pages Alan Meyer - 17 Nov 2008 15:24 GMT > We Fought Cancer…And Cancer Won. > http://www.newsweek.com/id/157548/page/1 > After billions spent on research and decades of hit-or-miss treatments, > it's time to rethink the war on cancer. > Fighting Cancer: A Timeline > 5 Pages Looking through the responses to that article, bypassing the usual silly claptrap, I found this response by "sbvandepol".
I thought it was pretty good.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment: The overall tone of the article is one of frustration. I think this arises from a gross underestimate by everyone of the scope and complexity of the problem. "Curing cancer" will require a fundamental understanding of life. It is the most difficult and complex problem in the history of man. It was always our ignorance of the difficulty that gave rise to misplaced optimism that this could be solved in 37 years and 200 billion dollars (1 year of the war in Iraq). Curing cancer is not a 37 year project, it is a 75 to 100 year project. The idea that we could uncover the mystery of a single living cell, and then how billions of cells co-operate together to make a human being (that usually prevents even one aberrant cell from "declaring independence" to make a cancer) in a 37 year "war" is laughable. The 'war on cancer" has not been a failure, it has been a spectacular success, but we are only one third into it!
The "war on cancer" is the wrong metaphor. In earlier eras, a town would devote over 100 years to the building of a cathedral for the glory of God. It was accepted that the cathedral would not be completed in the lifetime of even two generations. Despite our great resources, the dedication of our physicians and scientists, and the spectacular advance of technology, we are engaged in a similar undertaking that is expensive, intense, and the work of generations. Although rethinking priorities and questioning approaches is always appropriate, understand that we are building a cathedral of knowledge, stone by stone, and it will be the most glorious in history, and it will last forever. It requires faith, persistence, resources, and dedication. Understanding this might also give a little peace of mind to those who are disappointed that the goal is not yet achieved in their own lives or in the lives of a stricken loved one. The correct response is not to walk away, leaving foundations and walls without a ceiling, but is to pick up a stone, carefully place it, and then another.
J - 17 Nov 2008 16:44 GMT > > We Fought Cancer
And Cancer Won. > > http://www.newsweek.com/id/157548/page/1 [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > away, leaving foundations and walls without a ceiling, but is to pick up > a stone, carefully place it, and then another. Comment from an oncologist "Nice synopsis, critical but balanced." J
ALICIA PARKER - 22 Nov 2008 16:57 GMT if i could take you back 30 years in time, and you were to relate a description of an i-phone, or even a laptop, you would be brandished as insane, and such things are totally out of the realm of possiblities! So why can't we cure cancer?
> > > We Fought Cancer.And Cancer Won. > > > http://www.newsweek.com/id/157548/page/1 [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > "Nice synopsis, critical but balanced." > J I.P. Freely - 22 Nov 2008 19:02 GMT > if i could take you back 30 years in time, and you were to relate a > description of an i-phone, or even a laptop, you would > be brandished as insane, and such things are totally out of the realm of > possiblities! So why can't we cure cancer? Engineering is basically arithmetic constrained by materials and applications (the laser worked on paper for many years before "they" thought of an actual use for it and began fabricating them). The human body is FAR more complex than a large pile of simple widgets such as the space shuttle.
I.P.
DoubleOwSeven - 22 Nov 2008 21:45 GMT >if i could take you back 30 years in time, and you were to relate a >description of an i-phone, or even a laptop, you would >be brandished as insane, and such things are totally out of the realm of >possiblities! So why can't we cure cancer? It's not a question of whether we can "cure" it. And the word "cure" may not even be the right word. It may be that the solution is to prevent it. Who knows. But whether we cure it or prevent it or do something else that eliminates it, we *will* some day understand it even if we can't cure or solve it, it's just a question of when. Some problems are tougher then others, cancer is a tough problem and it may be a long time yet before we have the answers. We still can't "cure" the common cold and people continue to get hang-nails. Perhaps some things have no cure nor realistic solution. Cancer may be a byproduct of solar radiation combined with other factors, if so, the only total cure might be complete avoidance of sunlight and other solar radiation. Would that be realistic?
rosbif - 23 Nov 2008 08:41 GMT >if i could take you back 30 years in time, and you were to relate a >description of an i-phone, or even a laptop, you would >be brandished as insane, and such things are totally out of the realm of >possiblities! So why can't we cure cancer? This is my kind of thinking though, given cancer's evident intractability, I'm perhaps less optimistic. OTOH I find prophetic posts especially those delivered in a proclamatory style to be vain and of zero value. Nobody knows when a cancer cure will arrive, or even if we'll see it before we expire as a species. Science doesn't move at uniform speed and we've absolutely no means of gauging the distance of our objectives so playing around with t = s/v tells us nothing. It could be relatiavely soon, but equally it might not happen for 1000s of years.
We can only hope.
|
|
|