Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Sept 24, 2013 22:15:40 GMT -5
sesfw... I am so happy to read your post.
|
|
happyscooter
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 5, 2011 9:04:06 GMT -5
Posts: 2,416
|
Post by happyscooter on Sept 25, 2013 7:54:43 GMT -5
I would rather give to someone who is collecting money for a certain individual or Cancer services in general. I will donate to a group that gives wigs or breast prosthesis, gas gift cards to someone undergoing chemo, reconstructive surgery, etc...
Research? They should have found a cure YEARS ago.
|
|
happyscooter
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 5, 2011 9:04:06 GMT -5
Posts: 2,416
|
Post by happyscooter on Sept 25, 2013 7:55:23 GMT -5
Oops, #31, in my opinion.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 8:05:10 GMT -5
Research? They should have found a cure YEARS ago
When you figure out exactly how to do research so we get the exact desired results on your desired time frame, please let us know. And if you can figure out how to bypass all the testing and regulations to get a drug/therapy thru the FDA AND have it be safe for human useage without all that red tape, please let us know.
|
|
happyscooter
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 5, 2011 9:04:06 GMT -5
Posts: 2,416
|
Post by happyscooter on Sept 25, 2013 8:12:50 GMT -5
I do not remember the particulars but there was a high school student who had discovered a gene or something about a year ago that a medical group looked at and said 'yes she was onto something that could possibly treat cancer.' REALLY? A 17 year old girl knows something that researchers have spent 40 years and $$$$$$$$$$ trying to find?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 25, 2013 8:14:43 GMT -5
Sometimes it feels like there's more money to be made in the treatments than in the cure.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 8:18:39 GMT -5
Key word there is POSSIBLY. She did intial research, which everyone has to do. Now her discovery has to be further investigated and tested. Just because she found a gene doesn't mean any kind of therapy can be derived from it.
That gene may also have a very important function BESIDES cancer that if shut down can result in serious complications or worse death for the patient. If that's the case her intial findings while interesting are pretty much useless unless someone can figure out how to develop a targeted treatment which depending on the gene could involve having to create a transgenomic mouse model which takes YEARS to do and would then have to be tested in that model for many years before even being considered for human trials.
But go ahead and believe all researchers are involved in a giant conspiracy and Big Pharma shills or we're all too stupid to figure out how to "cure cancer".
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,479
|
Post by chiver78 on Sept 25, 2013 8:25:09 GMT -5
kudos to my colleagues in pharma and research for even trying to explain the process to people that just refuse to believe. I don't have the patience for that this AM. sesfw - thank you for sharing your experience. I'm so happy you are cancer free
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 8:39:47 GMT -5
I'm waiting for samples to thaw, I have time to kill. My grandfather is alive thanks to a new therapy that costs less than traditional and is a lot faster. He's lived five years since his intial diganosis. Average time of death after diganosis with his form of brain cancer: six months. If it's all a giant conspiracy to make money why would they even bother offering him the investigational drug? Why not keep him on the traditional one that takes longer and costs a ton more? Another huge problem is getting enough people to participate in investigative studies because people don't understand how important they are and/or are unwilling to be "lab rats". Research cannot progress without human volunteers. Micheal J Fox talked about that in relation to Parkinson's Research, there are many new treatments approved for human testing but not enough volunteers. He's started a web site to connect Parkinson's patients with clinical researchers in the hopes of getting more participants for drug trials.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 25, 2013 8:47:01 GMT -5
'Trust me, if you ever get cancer (which I sincerely hope never happens) you will be very grateful for modern treatment options.' As a person whose last radiation/chemo was August 6 I'm grateful for the second life that has been given me. I have a friend, and her mother died about 40 years ago of the type that I HAD, stage 3 colon. When I entered the hospital last Dec I was dying and I knew it. I had surgery and it was cut completely out, but a couple of the lymph nodes had some bad cells so I had the chemo/radiation treatments. 40 years ago these treatments were not available. During treatment I met wonderful people fighting nausea, diarrhea, fear, depression ...... but each of us were fighting. And we had wonderful nurses, Dr and everyone else helping us. I chose to stay away from Cancer Treatment Centers of America. They spend too much money on advertising and I'll bet the upper floor white collar set get nice bonuses every year. I asked my Dr about it and he said for each type of the more common diseases the treatments are the same ....... and every improvement is published to everyone. The treatments are tweaked for each individual. I started with full dosage but I don't have enough body mass and it was making me too sick and weak. It was cut down by 30% and I tolerated it a lot better. I had a CT scan a week ago and yesterday the Dr told me my liver, kidneys, intestines were clear of disease. So last night after choir practice a group of us went to the local frozen yogurt shop to celebrate. That was good enough for me. We did the happy dance. This is exactly my point, however. Decades of money and research, and we still basically have the same treatments we had decades ago - radiation, chemotherapy, surgery, etc. We have better versions of those treatments, but they are still the same basic treatments, and the cost has increased a hundred-fold. I don't ever see a cure in th efuture, unless said cure can cost as much, if not more, than treatments.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 25, 2013 8:50:06 GMT -5
I'm waiting for samples to thaw, I have time to kill. My grandfather is alive thanks to a new therapy that costs less than traditional and is a lot faster. He's lived five years since his intial diganosis. Average time of death after diganosis with his form of brain cancer: six months. If it's all a giant conspiracy to make money why would they even bother offering him the investigational drug? Why not keep him on the traditional one that takes longer and costs a ton more? Another huge problem is getting enough people to participate in investigative studies because people don't understand how important they are and/or are unwilling to be "lab rats". Research cannot progress without human volunteers. Micheal J Fox talked about that in relation to Parkinson's Research, there are many new treatments approved for human testing but not enough volunteers. He's started a web site to connect Parkinson's patients with clinical researchers in the hopes of getting more participants for drug trials. Because he is being their guinea pig...believe me, if that treatment ever becomes mainstream, the cost will go up. It may still be cheaper than the alternatives, but will not be as cheap as during the trials.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 8:52:09 GMT -5
Research builds on what we already know. Do you want to spend millions on random "cures" that more than likely will never make it past the lab bench, let alone human trials because it makes the general public feel like something is being done and "progress" is being made or would you rather we build on what we know and make it better eventually leading to a potential "cure".
Reinventing the wheel over and over is a giant waste of time and money.
But that seems to be what people want researchers to do. If you have a problem at work and know how to fix it do you sit there in meetings and try to find a new solution for it every day or do you take what you already know and build on it?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Sept 25, 2013 8:53:29 GMT -5
So scientists should spend decades researching and studying new treatments and then give them away for free? Wouldn't that be...oh, what's the word... communism?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 9:21:12 GMT -5
If this is all a giant money making conspiracy I'm seriously underpaid. I invite everyone who thinks they can do this job so much better than those already involved to get their MDs, PhD's, PhDRN (nurse researcher) etc and come work for us. After all we could use you since clearly you have it all figured out and we're too stupid to get it. My grandfather was part of a trial FIVE YEARS ago, the therapy is already on the market. It's still cheaper than the traditional method of treating his form of brain cancer.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Sept 25, 2013 9:42:25 GMT -5
DQ, bless you and your grandfather.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 9:51:16 GMT -5
It's pretty amazing, we're really glad he agreed to be part of the study. He's had the longest remission time of anyone enrolled in the study and when it came back the tumor was significantly smaller. Unfortunately another person we know who has this cancer isn't responding as well. Cancer is extremely personal, what works for one person will not work for another. New treatments are always being developed so hopefully if one don't work another will. The whole idea that we should have "found a cure already" is stupid because there is no one cause for cancer of any type. The HPV vaccine is an amazing development but there are THOUSANDS of cervical cancer cases that don't involve HPV at all for whom the vaccine is "useless". Each of those cervical cancer patients expresses their own unique cancer pattern. If every case of cancer was 100% the same there probably would be a cure, but they're not. It's not like malaria where we know exactly what pathogen causes it therefore we target that pathogen. What can be a cure for one person with cancer could kill or severely harm another. Caner's an incredibly complex process that people who've spent their whole lives studying it are just understanding. I really doubt YM posters can waltz in and find a "cure" overnight like we're apparently supposed to.
|
|
Formerly SK
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2011 14:23:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,255
|
Post by Formerly SK on Sept 25, 2013 9:55:45 GMT -5
Phil Knight (Nike) just pledged 500 million to a local hospital for cancer research. He already gave them 100 million a few years ago. I somehow don't think he'd do that if there weren't results.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Sept 25, 2013 10:12:28 GMT -5
'Trust me, if you ever get cancer (which I sincerely hope never happens) you will be very grateful for modern treatment options.' As a person whose last radiation/chemo was August 6 I'm grateful for the second life that has been given me. I have a friend, and her mother died about 40 years ago of the type that I HAD, stage 3 colon. When I entered the hospital last Dec I was dying and I knew it. I had surgery and it was cut completely out, but a couple of the lymph nodes had some bad cells so I had the chemo/radiation treatments. 40 years ago these treatments were not available. During treatment I met wonderful people fighting nausea, diarrhea, fear, depression ...... but each of us were fighting. And we had wonderful nurses, Dr and everyone else helping us. I chose to stay away from Cancer Treatment Centers of America. They spend too much money on advertising and I'll bet the upper floor white collar set get nice bonuses every year. I asked my Dr about it and he said for each type of the more common diseases the treatments are the same ....... and every improvement is published to everyone. The treatments are tweaked for each individual. I started with full dosage but I don't have enough body mass and it was making me too sick and weak. It was cut down by 30% and I tolerated it a lot better. I had a CT scan a week ago and yesterday the Dr told me my liver, kidneys, intestines were clear of disease. So last night after choir practice a group of us went to the local frozen yogurt shop to celebrate. That was good enough for me. We did the happy dance. This is exactly my point, however. Decades of money and research, and we still basically have the same treatments we had decades ago - radiation, chemotherapy, surgery, etc. We have better versions of those treatments, but they are still the same basic treatments, and the cost has increased a hundred-fold. I don't ever see a cure in th efuture, unless said cure can cost as much, if not more, than treatments. We still use the "old" treatments because they WORK. There are new formulations such as gene vectors which use a patient's DNA structure to figure out how to target the radiation and chemo agents to individualized cells. Many of these treatments are still experimental and often have unwanted side effects, are not FDA approved, etc. The cost has increased because of the improvements made in the delivery technology, and also because of rules and regulations that require more oversight and more technical staff involved in the treatments. It used to be cancer was a death sentence. Now, most people live. I'm sorry you don't think that is worth anything.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Sept 25, 2013 10:34:34 GMT -5
I don't understand why people are saying we don't have a cure.
To cure something, one must first be sick. While we don't have 100% cure rate (defined as 5 yrs disease-free survival after treatment) for every type and presentation of cancer, we DO CURE most cancers. Especially extremely prevalent ones that are relatively easy to diagnose early - breast, prostate, cervical. Some of these are in the 90%++ rate of cure.
Some cancers we are NOT good at treating. Pancreatic, Liver, certain types of brain cancer. These have very low cure rates. We do not have a lot of good options for these cancer patients. But part of it is that this is a very small percentage of all cancers. Most funding and attention goes to the big 2: prostate and breast which count for more than 50% of the cancers. Cancer rates for pancreatic patients are very very small. Why would you deflect a huge % of the research money to just a few people? It's not how the money distribution works.
There are huge advances in cancer prevention. Such as the HPV vaccine. Not only do we now know that HPV causes cervical cancer, it also causes anal cancer, and many types of head and neck cancers (thanks Michael Douglas! lol). So that is another huge stride.
If someone wants to say "we'll never PREVENT cancer 100% from happening" ... well, yeah, I think I agree with that. There's billions of cells in the human body and 7 billion people in the world - I don't know how you can make sure all cells from all people all divide properly 100% of the time.
But we do have a CURE for most cancers.
*jumps off pedestal*
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 10:38:43 GMT -5
If someone wants to say "we'll never PREVENT cancer 100% from happening" ... well, yeah, I think I agree with that. There's billions of cells in the human body and 7 billion people in the world - I don't know how you can make sure all cell from all people all divide properly 100% of the time
YM can do it, why can't you I think this thread shows one of my biggest pet peeves and that's the gap between our understanding and the understanding of those on the outside. There really needs to be more attempts to bridge that gap and NOT thru popular media because 99% of the time they don't get it right and reduce the information to a catchy headline not remotely representing the actual facts. Not sure how to do that but it needs to happen because I'm tired of people insisting I should have "figured it out by now". Yeah you come do my job for a day and see how much you instantaneously "figure out" and you don't even have a science background.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 25, 2013 10:41:35 GMT -5
This is exactly my point, however. Decades of money and research, and we still basically have the same treatments we had decades ago - radiation, chemotherapy, surgery, etc. We have better versions of those treatments, but they are still the same basic treatments, and the cost has increased a hundred-fold. I don't ever see a cure in th efuture, unless said cure can cost as much, if not more, than treatments. We still use the "old" treatments because they WORK. There are new formulations such as gene vectors which use a patient's DNA structure to figure out how to target the radiation and chemo agents to individualized cells. Many of these treatments are still experimental and often have unwanted side effects, are not FDA approved, etc. The cost has increased because of the improvements made in the delivery technology, and also because of rules and regulations that require more oversight and more technical staff involved in the treatments. It used to be cancer was a death sentence. Now, most people live. I'm sorry you don't think that is worth anything. Except for when they don't...and I don't hear the people they don't work for cheering about the "successes" in research.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 25, 2013 10:43:34 GMT -5
I don't understand why people are saying we don't have a cure. To cure something, one must first be sick. While we don't have 100% cure rate (defined as 5 yrs disease-free survival after treatment) for every type and presentation of cancer, we DO CURE most cancers. Especially extremely prevalent ones that are relatively easy to diagnose early - breast, prostate, cervical. Some of these are in the 90%++ rate of cure. Some cancers we are NOT good at treating. Pancreatic, Liver, certain types of brain cancer. These have very low cure rates. We do not have a lot of good options for these cancer patients. But part of it is that this is a very small percentage of all cancers. Most funding and attention goes to the big 2: prostate and breast which count for more than 50% of the cancers. Cancer rates for pancreatic patients are very very small. Why would you deflect a huge % of the research money to just a few people? It's not how the money distribution works. There are huge advances in cancer prevention. Such as the HPV vaccine. Not only do we now know that HPV causes cervical cancer, it also causes anal cancer, and many types of head and neck cancers (thanks Michael Douglas! lol). So that is another huge stride. If someone wants to say "we'll never PREVENT cancer 100% from happening" ... well, yeah, I think I agree with that. There's billions of cells in the human body and 7 billion people in the world - I don't know how you can make sure all cells from all people all divide properly 100% of the time. But we do have a CURE for most cancers. *jumps off pedestal* Remission is not a cure...its a temporary reprieve. And if you ever get cancer, there is a greater chance of getting it again.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Sept 25, 2013 10:47:56 GMT -5
We still use the "old" treatments because they WORK. There are new formulations such as gene vectors which use a patient's DNA structure to figure out how to target the radiation and chemo agents to individualized cells. Many of these treatments are still experimental and often have unwanted side effects, are not FDA approved, etc. The cost has increased because of the improvements made in the delivery technology, and also because of rules and regulations that require more oversight and more technical staff involved in the treatments. It used to be cancer was a death sentence. Now, most people live. I'm sorry you don't think that is worth anything. Except for when they don't...and I don't hear the people they don't work for cheering about the "successes" in research. Well, both my parents had cancer. One lived. One didn't. I still think that's better than 0/2 and I still cheer. Of course that was 30 years ago. I think many of the treatment options available now maybe would have cured my parent that didn't make it. Obviously I'm not impartial, this is my career. It's easy when you watch children, parents, whole families - die of cancer to think this doesn't work, what am I doing here? But you learn early on to focus on the ones that DO make it (the majority, numerically speaking), to focus on the patients coming back for their 20, 25, 30 year follow ups. The stories about how they were treated in the 60's with some crazy potions and are still around kicking it. Seeing their grandchildren grow up and marry. The children we DO cure that can go on to live productive and happy lives. No, not everybody makes it. But I cheer for the ones that do.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Sept 25, 2013 10:48:12 GMT -5
If someone wants to say "we'll never PREVENT cancer 100% from happening" ... well, yeah, I think I agree with that. There's billions of cells in the human body and 7 billion people in the world - I don't know how you can make sure all cell from all people all divide properly 100% of the time
YM can do it, why can't you I think this thread shows one of my biggest pet peeves and that's the gap between our understanding and the understanding of those on the outside. There really needs to be more attempts to bridge that gap and NOT thru popular media because 99% of the time they don't get it right and reduce the information to a catchy headline not remotely representing the actual facts. Not sure how to do that but it needs to happen because I'm tired of people insisting I should have "figured it out by now". Yeah you come do my job for a day and see how much you instantaneously "figure out" and you don't even have a science background. This right here, is an argument for colleges requiring everyone to have knowledge in many areas. This sort of thing wouldn't be going on if there weren't so many educated people who were completely ignorant of science and so many scientists who can't write well enough for a lay person to understand.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 10:53:22 GMT -5
so many scientists who can't write well enough for a lay person to understand.
DH said he understood "and" "the" and the period at the end of my sentences when he read the paper I wrote. Actually besides the technical terms and numbers I have to use he understood the purpose of the study and was able to commuicate back to me what our results were and what they mean. I was pretty proud of myself considering it's my first paper. I'm still waiting around for my boss to edit it so I can get started on the second draft. I'm sure my technical aspects need cleaning up.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Sept 25, 2013 11:02:21 GMT -5
I don't understand why people are saying we don't have a cure. To cure something, one must first be sick. While we don't have 100% cure rate (defined as 5 yrs disease-free survival after treatment) for every type and presentation of cancer, we DO CURE most cancers. Especially extremely prevalent ones that are relatively easy to diagnose early - breast, prostate, cervical. Some of these are in the 90%++ rate of cure. Some cancers we are NOT good at treating. Pancreatic, Liver, certain types of brain cancer. These have very low cure rates. We do not have a lot of good options for these cancer patients. But part of it is that this is a very small percentage of all cancers. Most funding and attention goes to the big 2: prostate and breast which count for more than 50% of the cancers. Cancer rates for pancreatic patients are very very small. Why would you deflect a huge % of the research money to just a few people? It's not how the money distribution works. There are huge advances in cancer prevention. Such as the HPV vaccine. Not only do we now know that HPV causes cervical cancer, it also causes anal cancer, and many types of head and neck cancers (thanks Michael Douglas! lol). So that is another huge stride. If someone wants to say "we'll never PREVENT cancer 100% from happening" ... well, yeah, I think I agree with that. There's billions of cells in the human body and 7 billion people in the world - I don't know how you can make sure all cells from all people all divide properly 100% of the time. But we do have a CURE for most cancers. *jumps off pedestal* Remission is not a cure...its a temporary reprieve. And if you ever get cancer, there is a greater chance of getting it again. Remission = <5 yrs from disease Cure = >5 yrs from disease That is the clinically used definition of "Cure". Whether or not patients ever FEEL CURED, I doubt they really do for a very long time. I can tell you my mom thinks she's cured. She had cancer in the 70's. Yes, many treatments give you an increased chance of a secondary cancers. Usually those appear 10 - 20 yrs later. I can't tell you how to feel or what to think, but I'd suggest you look at the data, see the improvements, and see that we are getting somewhere, albeit slowly.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 11:04:36 GMT -5
Didn't know that Honey. Thanks for the information it helps me better understand the terminology thrown around when my grandma gives me updates.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Sept 25, 2013 11:12:47 GMT -5
Didn't know that Honey. Thanks for the information it helps me better understand the terminology thrown around when my grandma gives me updates. Well, it's sort of a cluster____.... There's lots of terms and they are not all used properly by people all the time because of the "lay" speak that goes around. Even myself!! Typically we talk about "cure" rates. That usually refers to people with no evidence of disease at 5 yrs from end of treatment. Usually if a patient relapses it will be within 5 yrs, so 5 yrs is the "cure" time. Sometimes there will also be a 1 yr "cure" rate, 10 yr, etc which usually comes from published data quoting survival rates (not the same as cure rate). Remission, usually is that time in between 0 -5 where we think all the cancer is gone, but not always the case. We usually talk about remission in blood-cancers like lymphomas, or in bone diseases, where a primary cancer has been metastatic. You might even go beyond 5 yrs for some cancers which are really lingering. So one could be in remission for more than 5 yrs depending on the type of cancer. Another term is NED - no evidence of disease. This is usually when someone has a biopsy and there are no cancer cells in the sample. So someone might be 2 yrs NED. So yeah, it doesn't really make all that much sense even to me so it certainly is confusing to everyone else!!
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,073
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 25, 2013 11:16:50 GMT -5
It gets awkward for me because people want me to explain it all to them. I have to tell them I'm in pharmacokinetic and immunotherapy research which is NOT the same thing. I can help on a very basic level but I'm not in cancer research and I'm definetly not an MD.
|
|
kent
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:13:46 GMT -5
Posts: 3,594
|
Post by kent on Sept 25, 2013 11:16:50 GMT -5
I do not remember the particulars but there was a high school student who had discovered a gene or something about a year ago that a medical group looked at and said 'yes she was onto something that could possibly treat cancer.' REALLY? A 17 year old girl knows something that researchers have spent 40 years and $$$$$$$$$$ trying to find? From: www.scpr.org/news/2011/12/08/30262/california-teen-wins-grand-prize-potential-cancer-/Bingo Drama! I'm in two long-term studies. One for cancer (clean for six years now) and another for possible radiation poisoning decades ago (military and civilian possibility). I look at it as an opportunity/duty to provide health information that "might" help someone else down the road.
|
|