Discussion
Swerni!Bushmaster said:
supersingle said:
My mum died of lung cancer 2 weeks ago. She was sixty four, had never smoked a cigarette and had a very 'healthy' lifestyle.
I asked one of the doctors if there would ever be a cure for cancer. She replied 'No'. Simple as that. There are a few cancers they can do something about such as testicular and some lymph and blood cancers. The rest have to be cut out before they spread. It's the only cure. Once it has spread the best that modern medicine can do is slow the progression and sometimes create remission. Sorry to be blunt but this is the truth seldom talked about.
Also, make sure you don't get cancer in the UK as the NHS is very low down the list for international cancer survival rates. I've seen the service from the inside of a supposed centre of excellence. Excellent wasn't the first word that came to my mind...
Sorry if this is a bit depressing. All I can advise it to live life to the full whilst you can.
Sorry to hear that.I asked one of the doctors if there would ever be a cure for cancer. She replied 'No'. Simple as that. There are a few cancers they can do something about such as testicular and some lymph and blood cancers. The rest have to be cut out before they spread. It's the only cure. Once it has spread the best that modern medicine can do is slow the progression and sometimes create remission. Sorry to be blunt but this is the truth seldom talked about.
Also, make sure you don't get cancer in the UK as the NHS is very low down the list for international cancer survival rates. I've seen the service from the inside of a supposed centre of excellence. Excellent wasn't the first word that came to my mind...
Sorry if this is a bit depressing. All I can advise it to live life to the full whilst you can.
I had a cancerous tumour 20 years ago, luckily enough it got found early and have been lucky to have no further occurances.
I have asked about survival rates and was told it's virtually impossible to estimate because the treatments are improving so fast, they're unable to collate statistics, as people are living thru it and have no real idea as to how long patients such as me will live..
I have asked about survival rates and was told it's virtually impossible to estimate because the treatments are improving so fast, they're unable to collate statistics, as people are living thru it and have no real idea as to how long patients such as me will live..
AUDIHenry said:
If a cure were to be found, it would be bought out by some giant pharm company with the intent to make billions upon billions, all the while preventing others from copying it and thus only curing those willing to fork over hundreds of thousands, and those with insurance.
That's the only reason I disagree with you, because capitalists don't subscribe to noble ideas.
I have no clinical expertise, but I do have a reasonable amount of experience of how big pharma "works" and, more to the point, some commonsense.That's the only reason I disagree with you, because capitalists don't subscribe to noble ideas.
This kind of conspiracy theory is utterly counter intuitive - however unethical you might think pharmaceutical companies are, they are, at worst, companies that are being run for a profit. How long do you think such a company would actually last, were this "theory" of perpetuating misery found to be true?
IforB said:
supersingle said:
IforB said:
Sorry about your Mum. I'm not surprised you are on a downer about cancer care.
My experience is totally different, but then again I'm "lucky" enough to have had a cureable cancer. I cannot praise the NHS or the unit I was treated at highly enough. I have literally had money thrown at my treatment. At no time was cost an issue, but then again, when there is a chance of a positive result, then that is usually where the money goes.
It is harsh, but money is allocated where it will do the most good. I'm just glad that I was "worth" them chucking hundreds of thousands at me and that I was treated at a unit with an exceptional record.
It is only right that extra resources are allocated to curable cancers. Good luck to you and I hope things work out well in the future. My experience is totally different, but then again I'm "lucky" enough to have had a cureable cancer. I cannot praise the NHS or the unit I was treated at highly enough. I have literally had money thrown at my treatment. At no time was cost an issue, but then again, when there is a chance of a positive result, then that is usually where the money goes.
It is harsh, but money is allocated where it will do the most good. I'm just glad that I was "worth" them chucking hundreds of thousands at me and that I was treated at a unit with an exceptional record.
I do get very angry when I look at the amount that my parents have paid into the system compared to what they got out. As far as I'm concerned all the chavs and immigrants can go hang and I don't care who hears me say it. I'd like to see a contributory insurance scheme. It will happen eventually as the middle class simply withdraw their consent from the current system. We are miles behind the rest of the western world when it comes to survival rates.
At the moment the NHS treats incurable cancer with one course of treatment which is government targeted. Any further treatments don't fall under targets which means that the medics operate a 'Wait and see' policy after initial treatment. You can imagine what that means in practice...
They can't let emotions get in the way of their decisions. For example there was a case up here of a chap with a few weeks to live wanting an experimental treatment that might prolong his life by a few weeks.
My immediate thought is to give him it of course and hang the cost, but when you realise what giving him that will mean for other patients as that finite pot of money is used up.....................Your attitude changes.
I wouldn't want to make that call for all the tea in China though.
Our cancer survival rates in the UK aren't great to be honest. Overall 5 year survival for all diagnoses of cancer is 35ish% whereas the EU average is 39ish%. I'm sure there are lots of reasons far too complicated for discussions between lay people on here, but it doesn't look good really.
Incurable cancer is a pretty nasty way to go with or without treatment. But I wish things where better in the uk. It's not even about lack of resources. We're pretty much up there with the rest of Europe when it comes to spending. The outcomes should be better than they are.
I only wish I had been more proactive with my Mum at the start of her treatment. It took more than two months for her treatment to start after diagnosis. She was a typical uncomplaining mum who was just grateful for her lot. But when I look at the standard uk treatment for her illness and compare it to treatment in the USA I wonder what might have been...
To anyone unfortunate enough to get cancer I would suggest you arm yourself with knowledge and remember that you've paid for your treatment in advance and that the professionals should jolly well deliver! Don't be fobbed off with platitudes and hand-patting, too many are.
Edited by supersingle on Monday 29th December 02:13
Famous Graham said:
AUDIHenry said:
If a cure were to be found, it would be bought out by some giant pharm company with the intent to make billions upon billions, all the while preventing others from copying it and thus only curing those willing to fork over hundreds of thousands, and those with insurance.
That's the only reason I disagree with you, because capitalists don't subscribe to noble ideas.
I have no clinical expertise, but I do have a reasonable amount of experience of how big pharma "works" and, more to the point, some commonsense.That's the only reason I disagree with you, because capitalists don't subscribe to noble ideas.
This kind of conspiracy theory is utterly counter intuitive - however unethical you might think pharmaceutical companies are, they are, at worst, companies that are being run for a profit. How long do you think such a company would actually last, were this "theory" of perpetuating misery found to be true?
There are countless examples of drugs that are prevented from duplicated without a license and in some cases entire countries have gone ahead and done so anyway to save their people.
It is hardly a theory: it's business.
AUDIHenry said:
Famous Graham said:
AUDIHenry said:
If a cure were to be found, it would be bought out by some giant pharm company with the intent to make billions upon billions, all the while preventing others from copying it and thus only curing those willing to fork over hundreds of thousands, and those with insurance.
That's the only reason I disagree with you, because capitalists don't subscribe to noble ideas.
I have no clinical expertise, but I do have a reasonable amount of experience of how big pharma "works" and, more to the point, some commonsense.That's the only reason I disagree with you, because capitalists don't subscribe to noble ideas.
This kind of conspiracy theory is utterly counter intuitive - however unethical you might think pharmaceutical companies are, they are, at worst, companies that are being run for a profit. How long do you think such a company would actually last, were this "theory" of perpetuating misery found to be true?
There are countless examples of drugs that are prevented from duplicated without a license and in some cases entire countries have gone ahead and done so anyway to save their people.
It is hardly a theory: it's business.
However ethical or unethical one might consider that practice (and clearly some consider the patent lifetime too long and the drug too expensive to adhere to said rules), that wasn't my point.
The drugs you refer to, are known to exist. They are already being prescribed in, for example, developed countries at vaguely affordable prices, but the costs are not affordable in third world locations. So some take it upon themselves to ignore the patents and reverse engineer them, or simply steal and smuggle the original drug.
And in such cases, the pharmcos who produce the drugs in question either let it slide, or make gestures of freebies to the third world countries that need it. Both are PR victories.
However, to assert that there is some mythical drug that cures cancer (or any other life-threatening disease) and that those responsible are holding it back for reasons of maximising current income, is tin-foil hattedness in the extreme and, frankly, utterly barmy. It's completely counter productive - the ramifications of being found out FAR outweigh any current income from treatment rather than cure medicines. It's a clear case of Occam's Razor.
Famous Graham said:
AUDIHenry said:
Famous Graham said:
AUDIHenry said:
If a cure were to be found, it would be bought out by some giant pharm company with the intent to make billions upon billions, all the while preventing others from copying it and thus only curing those willing to fork over hundreds of thousands, and those with insurance.
That's the only reason I disagree with you, because capitalists don't subscribe to noble ideas.
I have no clinical expertise, but I do have a reasonable amount of experience of how big pharma "works" and, more to the point, some commonsense.That's the only reason I disagree with you, because capitalists don't subscribe to noble ideas.
This kind of conspiracy theory is utterly counter intuitive - however unethical you might think pharmaceutical companies are, they are, at worst, companies that are being run for a profit. How long do you think such a company would actually last, were this "theory" of perpetuating misery found to be true?
There are countless examples of drugs that are prevented from duplicated without a license and in some cases entire countries have gone ahead and done so anyway to save their people.
It is hardly a theory: it's business.
However ethical or unethical one might consider that practice (and clearly some consider the patent lifetime too long and the drug too expensive to adhere to said rules), that wasn't my point.
The drugs you refer to, are known to exist. They are already being prescribed in, for example, developed countries at vaguely affordable prices, but the costs are not affordable in third world locations. So some take it upon themselves to ignore the patents and reverse engineer them, or simply steal and smuggle the original drug.
And in such cases, the pharmcos who produce the drugs in question either let it slide, or make gestures of freebies to the third world countries that need it. Both are PR victories.
However, to assert that there is some mythical drug that cures cancer (or any other life-threatening disease) and that those responsible are holding it back for reasons of maximising current income, is tin-foil hattedness in the extreme and, frankly, utterly barmy. It's completely counter productive - the ramifications of being found out FAR outweigh any current income from treatment rather than cure medicines. It's a clear case of Occam's Razor.
The fear of cancer is so strong, that anything is better than having to take on board the belief that it is incurable (and hence 'hopeless') - even the belief that there is a cure and it's being hidden
God don't get me started.
Having Cancer in America is a double-edged sword. On one hand we have some truly excellent Oncologists and cutting edge treatments.
On the other hand having Cancer in America can financially destroy you. I don't mean eat your savings, I mean absolutely f
king ruin you.
Oh, STRONGLY suggest anyone who is in treatment look at this, I'm over 6 months clear, and that's quite the accomplishment
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/
Having Cancer in America is a double-edged sword. On one hand we have some truly excellent Oncologists and cutting edge treatments.
On the other hand having Cancer in America can financially destroy you. I don't mean eat your savings, I mean absolutely f
king ruin you.Oh, STRONGLY suggest anyone who is in treatment look at this, I'm over 6 months clear, and that's quite the accomplishment
http://www.depmed.ualberta.ca/dca/
AUDIHenry said:
Famous Graham said:
AUDIHenry said:
If a cure were to be found, it would be bought out by some giant pharm company with the intent to make billions upon billions, all the while preventing others from copying it and thus only curing those willing to fork over hundreds of thousands, and those with insurance.
That's the only reason I disagree with you, because capitalists don't subscribe to noble ideas.
I have no clinical expertise, but I do have a reasonable amount of experience of how big pharma "works" and, more to the point, some commonsense.That's the only reason I disagree with you, because capitalists don't subscribe to noble ideas.
This kind of conspiracy theory is utterly counter intuitive - however unethical you might think pharmaceutical companies are, they are, at worst, companies that are being run for a profit. How long do you think such a company would actually last, were this "theory" of perpetuating misery found to be true?
There are countless examples of drugs that are prevented from duplicated without a license and in some cases entire countries have gone ahead and done so anyway to save their people.
It is hardly a theory: it's business.
i) safe
ii) more effective than the current standard of care
iii) Can be sold at a price point to cover the failures
I cannot think of a single drug that's been developed from the public purse. It's simply too costly and is *very* high risk capital.
The real worry is that it's getting harder and more expensive to develop new treatments; for example aspirin & paracetamol would not even get into clinical testing today due to too many side effects. At some point that risk capital is going to chase a better return in web 3.0 or gold mining.
my dad was diagnosed with bowel cancer 6 yrs ago
had it cut out and a bag fitted
2 yrs later he had the bag removed and a reversal job done
did well for 3 yrs then........
diagnosed with liver cancer
had a third of his liver removed and did well for 2 yrs then..
last week 2 days before xmas diagnosed lung cancer and tumours on the adrenol gland
what a nice xmas present he had
but I will say this ,the treatment on the nhs has been superb for him at different hospitals
throught the country
his own doctors surgery couldn't give a
for the last 2 yrs he's been having the wrong blood tests at the surgery !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
apparently if he'd had the correct ones it would have been spotted earlier
had it cut out and a bag fitted
2 yrs later he had the bag removed and a reversal job done
did well for 3 yrs then........
diagnosed with liver cancer
had a third of his liver removed and did well for 2 yrs then..
last
week 2 days before xmas diagnosed lung cancer and tumours on the adrenol gland what a nice xmas present he had
but I will say this ,the treatment on the nhs has been superb for him at different hospitals
throught the country
his own doctors surgery couldn't give a
for the last 2 yrs he's been having the wrong blood tests at the surgery !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
apparently if he'd had the correct ones it would have been spotted earlier
rocket377 said:
'A cure for all types of known cancer has been found but is being with held from general release because it would eliminate part of the 'natural selection' element of the human race. If everyone who was diagnosed with cancer was cured, more people would live longer thus exponentially increasing the drain on resources'
Interested to hear PH views.
100%, grade A, nonsense.Interested to hear PH views.
supersingle said:
My mum died of lung cancer 2 weeks ago. She was sixty four, had never smoked a cigarette and had a very 'healthy' lifestyle.
I asked one of the doctors if there would ever be a cure for cancer. She replied 'No'. Simple as that. There are a few cancers they can do something about such as testicular and some lymph and blood cancers. The rest have to be cut out before they spread. It's the only cure. Once it has spread the best that modern medicine can do is slow the progression and sometimes create remission. Sorry to be blunt but this is the truth seldom talked about.
Also, make sure you don't get cancer in the UK as the NHS is very low down the list for international cancer survival rates. I've seen the service from the inside of a supposed centre of excellence. Excellent wasn't the first word that came to my mind...
Sorry if this is a bit depressing. All I can advise it to live life to the full whilst you can.
Sorry to hear that mate, I hope you are getting through it ok. Not a nice place to be.I asked one of the doctors if there would ever be a cure for cancer. She replied 'No'. Simple as that. There are a few cancers they can do something about such as testicular and some lymph and blood cancers. The rest have to be cut out before they spread. It's the only cure. Once it has spread the best that modern medicine can do is slow the progression and sometimes create remission. Sorry to be blunt but this is the truth seldom talked about.
Also, make sure you don't get cancer in the UK as the NHS is very low down the list for international cancer survival rates. I've seen the service from the inside of a supposed centre of excellence. Excellent wasn't the first word that came to my mind...
Sorry if this is a bit depressing. All I can advise it to live life to the full whilst you can.
10 years ago next April, my mum died of Cancer. It got her the second time round. At the time, it seemed that Cancer Research were getting nowhere fast so our donations ended up going to the hospice she ended up in. It seemed to make more of a difference for it to go to the "end" users where there was a tangible effect.
A cure for Cancer being held back?? The stuff of bad novels.
Sorry I can't be much more use........not the best timeof year for it, is it?
A cure for Cancer being held back?? The stuff of bad novels.
Sorry I can't be much more use........not the best timeof year for it, is it?
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff