Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Isn't the government stopping the cure?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by mastermind View Post
    From your link I dont see any change in survival rates over several years except that lung cancer death rate is even higher, so what effect does chemo this costly drug have?

    Cancer Mortality in the United States
    Changing patterns for 11 Major Cancers in U.S. Males, 1950-91
    Death Rates for Males, per 100,000, for 11 Sites,
    1950-91, Age-adjusted to 1970 U.S. Standard
    What about Stomach rates? Hmmm.. nice cherry you picked. but what about this one from the same report?


    Several are decreasing here, not just one. Oh and then look at this graph here- notice the slope of the line after 1990? Notice the date range? Not 20 years old like the ones above.


    Now I'll do some cherry picking of my own- check out these mortality rates, and then tell me these treatments developed over the past 20 years have no effect.

    Last edited by dr.zapp; 02-27-2011, 07:17 PM. Reason: broken links

    Comment


    • #47
      why did this thread go from sci to cancer
      C5/C6 Complete since 08/22/09

      Comment


      • #48
        We are very much on topic- any government interested in blocking a cure to something with such a low incidence like SCI is of course going to be all over the Big Money involved in a cure for cancer... Lol!!!

        Comment


        • #49
          i never thought of it the way you guys are thinking of it, im very pleased to have joined this. i have a lot to learn.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Mac85 View Post
            why did this thread go from sci to cancer
            Mac85,

            That's a good question. It is relevant. The implication is that we are only "a small pool" of (deserving) cases. There is much truth in that. However, if we include all the other conditions, including big time misery maker Alzheimer's, as possible targets for stem cell research, there is some justification in the SCI community's making a fuss.

            OK, throwing the proverbial toys out of the pram will not of it's own, bring a cure for SCI, but as StemcellsandAtombombs rightly says, if the Manhattan Project (an exercise in mass destruction) could be hurried through in a mere 5 years, then the same level of (Western) government commitment across the board could have found a cure; not just a cure for SCI, but address a huge remit including the alleviation of world poverty, and the eradication of what is the world's No 1 killer, malaria.

            Another problem, (I know it is a favourite soap box of mine!) is that we all expect a 100% guaranteed cure, before it's worth considering. If so, it would be the first instance in the history of medicine. There are therapies out there, that can bring significant functional improvement beyond initial rehab that cannot be explained as natural recovery, and I am attempting some kind of research on this.

            The reasons for this effort are quite easy to understand:

            1 I would prefer it!
            2 It would take so much pressure off those close to me.
            3 It would reduce the care costs to the NHS. (I owe it to the community to get my arse of the wheel chair if possible)
            4 It could make access to a less heavily modified for of independent transport.
            5 I could be handing back the disability living allowance, (currently c. £5000 per head per year.)
            6 Therapies such as stem cells, when and if, would stand a much better chance of success.
            2010 SCINet Clinical Trial Support Squad Member
            Please join me and donate a dollar a day at http://justadollarplease.org and copy and paste this message to the bottom of your signature.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by dr.zapp View Post
              We are very much on topic- any government interested in blocking a cure to something with such a low incidence like SCI is of course going to be all over the Big Money involved in a cure for cancer... Lol!!!
              How the government allows continued use of chemo year after year on the cancers that don't respond well shows all they care about is letting the drug companies sell expensive useless treatments. And we let them do it to us. The same will hold true for sci treatments. Look how many people still go for sci treatments even after they have been found not to work. They think maybe it will work for them. And the answer isn't fda approved treatments either, as they allow chemo even with such a poor track record.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by chris arnold View Post
                Mac85,
                OK, throwing the proverbial toys out of the pram will not of it's own, bring a cure for SCI, but as StemcellsandAtombombs rightly says, if the Manhattan Project (an exercise in mass destruction) could be hurried through in a mere 5 years, then the same level of (Western) government commitment across the board could have found a cure; not just a cure for SCI, but address a huge remit including the alleviation of world poverty, and the eradication of what is the world's No 1 killer, malaria.
                There really is no way to compare the Manhattan project w/ finding an SCI cure... apples and oranges. There was almost 50 years of intense research prior to the Manhattan project even starting, so it was more like a 55 year program. It was based on theories using well understood physics and chemical laws. With SCI, we don't even know all the basics of how the CNS functions on a cellular level, much less a molecular one. Biological systems are infinitely more complex and less understood.

                Originally posted by mastermind View Post
                How the government allows continued use of chemo year after year on the cancers that don't respond well shows all they care about is letting the drug companies sell expensive useless treatments.
                Did you look at the graphs I posted? There are quite a few new treatments that are very effective for certain cancers. By continuing to use the so-called "useless" chemo, we are able to answer some very detailed questions about WHY they don't work for some, but do for others, leading to further development, that has begun to pay off (see the mortality graph for all types of cancer I posted previous, note significant drop from ~1990 to present). Also, once something has been proven safe to use, the government lets the free market decide what stays and what goes- they only step in when safety is an issue.
                Using that logic, the government must be secretly conspiring with homeopathics to make them rich- they sell far more treatments (percentage-wise) that have been proven over and over to be no more effective than placebo.

                This is a topic I know well- I've been in cancer research for 20 years. The past 10 specific for glioblastoma, which is one of those that despite everything we have thrown at it, shows no improvement in survival. Yet about 5% of glioblastoma patients will actually respond and be cured with these "useless" chemo agents. To those 5%, they are anything but useless. We have one such patient that donates $25,000.00 every year to help us find out why they were cured, and 95% of others are not... guess we just need to give all the rich people an SCI and then they would be more motivated to fund it ;-)
                Last edited by dr.zapp; 02-28-2011, 02:22 PM. Reason: readability

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by dr.zapp View Post
                  There really is no way to compare the Manhattan project w/ finding an SCI cure... apples and oranges. There was almost 50 years of intense research prior to the Manhattan project even starting, so it was more like a 55 year program. It was based on theories using well understood physics and chemical laws. With SCI, we don't even know all the basics of how the CNS functions on a cellular level, much less a molecular one. Biological systems are infinitely more complex and less understood.



                  Did you look at the graphs I posted? There are quite a few new treatments that are very effective for certain cancers. By continuing to use the so-called "useless" chemo, we are able to answer some very detailed questions about WHY they don't work for some, but do for others, leading to further development, that has begun to pay off (see the mortality graph for all types of cancer I posted previous, note significant drop from ~1990 to present). Also, once something has been proven safe to use, the government lets the free market decide what stays and what goes- they only step in when safety is an issue.
                  Using that logic, the government must be secretly conspiring with homeopathics to make them rich- they sell far more treatments (percentage-wise) that have been proven over and over to be no more effective than placebo.

                  This is a topic I know well- I've been in cancer research for 20 years. The past 10 specific for glioblastoma, which is one of those that despite everything we have thrown at it, shows no improvement in survival. Yet about 5% of glioblastoma patients will actually respond and be cured with these "useless" chemo agents. To those 5%, they are anything but useless. We have one such patient that donates $25,000.00 every year to help us find out why they were cured, and 95% of others are not... guess we just need to give all the rich people an SCI and then they would be more motivated to fund it ;-)
                  I looked at your graphs and I am not impressed at all. The survival rate has increased not because treatments work but because years ago people didn't even know they had cancer growing so now with earlier detection the survival rate appears to be longer.

                  I also don't think you as a person who works with cancer and relies on funding really has an unbiased opinion.

                  I do think the main issue is as with cancer and with sci there are so many who will take whatever is offered and pray it works for them. And that in itself doesn't make the treatment better cause people try it. I also think Youngs Acorda treatment ampyra is a sign of what sci should expect. Its a scandal

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by mastermind View Post
                    I looked at your graphs and I am not impressed at all. The survival rate has increased not because treatments work but because years ago people didn't even know they had cancer growing so now with earlier detection the survival rate appears to be longer.
                    These are adjusted mortality rates, not 5 year survival, they correct for age of diagnosis too, so when comparing rates across a large date range like this you can make valid comparisons.
                    I may be biased because of my employment, but I'm also well informed by it. Things have never looked better in the fight against cancer.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X