LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksCurrently, how advanced is the field of cancer research?
Is breast cancer publicity adversely affecting the funding for other types of cancer research?
11Likes
October 20th, 2013, 11:47 AM
Currently, how advanced is the field of cancer research?
Is breast cancer publicity adversely affecting the funding for other types of cancer research?
There's research in all cancers. Just look at the marvelous improvements in survival rates for childhood cancers.
I suspect it’s not moving very fast as every day there are new types of cancer. As technology advances it tries to keep up with new substances we humans are exposed to. On the other hand I suspect cancer research is quite far in terms of where we are coming from.Originally Posted by larali
While I am not entirely sure about the progress of research on individual cancer types, I do think that there have been great advances recently in general cancer research, particularly considering the great improvements in genome sequencing and the modern tendency toward "personalized medicine" (which is probably about to really start taking off as a therapeutic approach). Generally, I think cancer researchers do not have too much trouble finding funding for their projects. If you just mention the word cancer in a grant proposal, it seems like chances of getting funded are increased exponentially (nothing is a sure-in, though). I'm sure there are still certain cancer research projects that are experiencing difficulty finding funding.
I stil don't get it why is cancer worser than... other disseases...??? or more important
A lot of those numbers of cancer diagnoses and deaths can be attributed to people living long enough to get active cancer in the first place.
As well as the success of the various public health campaigns decreasing the morbidity and mortality from things like vehicle accidents and heart disease and the reduction in smoking - leaving more room for cancer deaths. After all, we're all going to die from something. The only questions are when, and how hard or long the process is of getting there.
wait... are you saying second most responsible disease or all the deaths???and like adlady said people live to long without dying... so cancers takes over it...
No. I said that is it one of the leading causes of death in the U.S. and in the U.K.
The leading cause (according to the same statistics) is (coronary) heart disease.
Plus, you can make a lot of money from a disease that scares people to death.
Yes, but I do think it is more moral to earn a lot of money by curing people than by scaring people.
There is no cancer that is not important.
Not one.
anyway we don't hear a half about heart disease as we hear about cancer...
No. I said that is it one of the leading causes of death in the U.S. and in the U.K.
The leading cause (according to the same statistics) is (coronary) heart disease.
that's the problem... if you make money from curing people you actually never want a full cure... but rather half cure keep coming back
Yes, but I do think it is more moral to earn a lot of money by curing people than by scaring people.
yes but what if you scare them into after death...Plus, you can make a lot of money from a disease that scares people to death.
Morally yes, profitable no.
Yes, but I do think it is more moral to earn a lot of money by curing people than by scaring people.
that's the problem... if you make money from curing people you actually never want a full cure... but rather half cure keep coming back
Yes, but I do think it is more moral to earn a lot of money by curing people than by scaring people.
That does not explain the efforts of the WHO to eradicate infectious diseases.
Immoral in my standards.that's the problem... if you make money from curing people you actually never want a full cure... but rather half cure keep coming backVERY WRONG!!!
Yes, but I do think it is more moral to earn a lot of money by curing people than by scaring people.
This business of drug companies not wanting to cure people is bunk. The longer people live, the more likely they are to need one or more medications for the rest of their lives. Arthritis drugs, heart or blood pressure drugs, statins, dozens of things. Anyone who knows a few old people knows that most of them take one, or one dozen, medications a day.
Curing people of illness when they're 20 or 40 or 60 means that you've got a guaranteed customer for something for 10 or maybe 30+ years worth of prescriptions when they're older.
EDIT: Whoops - wiped out half of it.
And for all the years they're alive there are anti-histamines, analgesics, contraceptives, skin treatments, and all those other pharmaceutical over the counter or routine prescription items. They might even have children who will also be potential customers. Keeping your customers for repeat or recommended business is good business practice. For pharmaceutical companies that means keeping them alive to buy more stuff.
how about dentist industry... of toothpastes... and other stuff...
how about dentist industry... of toothpastes... and other stuff...
What?
I think there is a lot money going into it...What?
I don't buy this.that's the problem... if you make money from curing people you actually never want a full cure... but rather half cure keep coming back
Yes, but I do think it is more moral to earn a lot of money by curing people than by scaring people.
The fallout from public disclosure that a company is withholding advanced medicine for profit would absolutely devastate anyone involved. That's like suggesting your surgeon during your hip replacement put it in improperly so you'd have to come back. Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I cannot accept that notion.
oke let me ask you different do you agree there are much to much uneeded spendings in total health care...I don't buy this.that's the problem... if you make money from curing people you actually never want a full cure... but rather half cure keep coming back
Yes, but I do think it is more moral to earn a lot of money by curing people than by scaring people.
The fallout from public disclosure that a company is withholding advanced medicine for profit would absolutely devastate anyone involved. That's like suggesting your surgeon during your hip replacement put it in improperly so you'd have to come back. Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I cannot accept that notion.
Are you talking about global health care of are you talking about the health care of a particular country?
I don't understand the question.
I don't believe we (I mean Americans) spend too much on medical research. I'm not actually sure there is a "too much" in terms of medical research.
I do believe we are wasteful in the way we run our healthcare system, but I fail to see how that implies pharma companies was to keep people sick...
im not talking about research but about health care do you agree there are to much spendings in health care uneeded...I don't understand the question.
I don't believe we (I mean Americans) spend too much on medical research. I'm not actually sure there is a "too much" in terms of medical research.
I do believe we are wasteful in the way we run our healthcare system, but I fail to see how that implies pharma companies was to keep people sick...
Care to give any examples?im not talking about research but about health care do you agree there are to much spendings in health care uneeded...I don't understand the question.
I don't believe we (I mean Americans) spend too much on medical research. I'm not actually sure there is a "too much" in terms of medical research.
I do believe we are wasteful in the way we run our healthcare system, but I fail to see how that implies pharma companies was to keep people sick...
What you say is true, however each type of cancer is different disease and some of these different diseases kill more people than the other ones do. If you are going to invest your dollars in cancer research, most likely you'll want your money to be spent working on the cancer that may affect your life the most. If your a woman, breast cancer is most likely at the top of your list. If your a man, prostrate cancer will rank fairly high, and if you have ever been a smoker or have family members and friends that have been smokers, then lung cancer would top your list.
Regardless of what cancer type is at the top of your list, early detection is the best means of beating it. So finding better ways of detecting it early is a good place to invest lots of money.
As has been stated, something is going to kill you. The point being is the longer the medical profession can keep you alive the more you will ultimately spend on your health issues. So curing your cancer 100% will not decrease the amount of money they will get from you. If anything they will get more money from you for other problems.that's the problem... if you make money from curing people you actually never want a full cure... but rather half cure keep coming back
Yes, but I do think it is more moral to earn a lot of money by curing people than by scaring people.
toothpaste? Already a big business....but it isn't a career. Denistry...you can make good money.I think there is a lot money going into it...What?
I really don't know too many people who have UNNEEDED HEALTH CARE!im not talking about research but about health care do you agree there are to much spendings in health care uneeded...I don't understand the question.
I don't believe we (I mean Americans) spend too much on medical research. I'm not actually sure there is a "too much" in terms of medical research.
I do believe we are wasteful in the way we run our healthcare system, but I fail to see how that implies pharma companies was to keep people sick...
well I know its hard to be proved but e person I know got into the hospital for his kidneys and the doctor send him for some anal analysis (I can hardly belive it has anything to do with kidneys...) but there are so much examples of it don't get me wrong I know there are people who check if some analysis is needed or notCare to give any examples?im not talking about research but about health care do you agree there are to much spendings in health care uneeded...I don't understand the question.
I don't believe we (I mean Americans) spend too much on medical research. I'm not actually sure there is a "too much" in terms of medical research.
I do believe we are wasteful in the way we run our healthcare system, but I fail to see how that implies pharma companies was to keep people sick...
not uneeded health care but inside that health care uneeded things...I really don't know too many people who have UNNEEDED HEALTH CARE!im not talking about research but about health care do you agree there are to much spendings in health care uneeded...I don't understand the question.
I don't believe we (I mean Americans) spend too much on medical research. I'm not actually sure there is a "too much" in terms of medical research.
I do believe we are wasteful in the way we run our healthcare system, but I fail to see how that implies pharma companies was to keep people sick...
such as?blackscorp
]not uneeded health care but inside that health care uneeded things
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I have to admit that not so many years ago I regarded individual hospital rooms for everyone who asked for one/ could pay for one was an unnecessary luxury - I scorned what I saw as luxury motel accommodation for routine hospital care as an extravagance. And so it might have been for some of those people at that time.not uneeded health care but inside that health care uneeded things...
Nowadays with all the problems of managing infections transmitted within hospitals, individual rooms for most if not all patients is becoming a life-saving necessity.
Is that the sort of thing you mean?
Not to mention a faster recovery....each patient has different needs and they being woken up because of your and vice versa sucks.....we ony have single bed rooms in our little hospital. They took good care of me but I was drugged out for days
no im talkin about that hospitals and whole medicine industry don't want you to be cured afcourse the insurance don't wanna spend money and wil monitor if such things happen
I am sorry, but you really don't make any sense to me.no im talkin about that hospitals and whole medicine industry don't want you to be cured afcourse the insurance don't wanna spend money and wil monitor if such things happen
Cancer is scary because it is by nature a revolt of our own tissues aginst us. All medical aproches work by the medicine being less dangerous to "us", our body, than it is to "them", the diease organism. Cancer is all "us" with no "them".
you can see it also otherway with people in room they can call someone for you.. if you are old and alone maybe the care wont be to good...Not to mention a faster recovery....each patient has different needs and they being woken up because of your and vice versa sucks.....we ony have single bed rooms in our little hospital. They took good care of me but I was drugged out for days
That's what the call button is for.if you are old and alone maybe the care wont be to good...
there is also something like reality outside the theory... but than again you have to have some experience...
WHO is aggressive in trying to eradicate, or at least control, infectious diseases because, worldwide, they are the biggest killer of the young.
"BURDEN OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
The biggest killer of the young
Six diseases cause 90% of infectious disease deaths
Infectious diseases are also among the biggest disablers"
- WHO Report on Infectious Diseases Chapter 16 text
Cancer is one of the biggest killers in developed countries primarily because of our success in managing infectious disease, through public health measures, immunizations, and antibiotics.
Clarissa
Looking at the problem realistically you have to admit that the more medication one consumes the more side effects is evident. I do not consider that to be efficient. The testing for medication these days are based on profit and not health. I am sure it’s a question of quality of life, and not so much quantity because people end up dead at some point.
So basically cancer in general is not a big killer in a young population. Makes me wonder what might be the big killer of an older population once we have cancer under control? As always it's a given that something is going to kill you sooner or hopefully later.WHO is aggressive in trying to eradicate, or at least control, infectious diseases because, worldwide, they are the biggest killer of the young.
"BURDEN OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
The biggest killer of the young
Six diseases cause 90% of infectious disease deaths
Infectious diseases are also among the biggest disablers"
- WHO Report on Infectious Diseases Chapter 16 text
Cancer is one of the biggest killers in developed countries primarily because of our success in managing infectious disease, through public health measures, immunizations, and antibiotics.
Clarissa
Side effects are always going to be a possibility when introducing new things into your body. That doesn't mean the medication doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
What? It's almost like you have literally no idea what process a medication has to go through before it reaches the consumers.
That's why you need an experienced doctor monitoring your medication usage. When I get treated for anything now I have to provide a list of all medications and supplements I'm currently taking, and that includes OTC medications and vitamins.
The testing for medication these days are based on profit and not health.
I would think you can't have profits without the health benefits. These days it anything goes wrong with a drug they get sued and see their drug appearing in bad drug commercials which is not good for bottom line.
Side effects are always going to be a possibility when introducing new things into your body. That doesn't mean the medication doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
What? It's almost like you have literally no idea what process a medication has to go through before it reaches the consumers.Side effects cannot be the main feature of a medication, that will only lead to more complications and more medicine.Side effects are always going to be a possibility when introducing new things into your body. That doesn't mean the medication doesn't do what it's supposed to do.
I am not saying that test are not done, I am saying most test are not based on people but on profit, that is why some of the medications testing procedure are not going through the test cycle that would benefit people. Things have changed maybe it was so at one time but certainly not now.
Could you provide examples?
Just check out Monsanto and the pharmaceuticals, there are loads of information out there
Could you provide examples?
They aren't. Just because they are possible, doesn't mean they always happen. People have an option to, you know, not take the medicine if they don't want to...but then they might die.
Again, you have zero understanding of the process that medications must go through before being approved and distributed to the consumer.
I have to agree with you that I do not have the knowledge of the processes the testing of medication go through to be ready for distribution. However, I am the end consumer I have to know if it works or not. If I am paying more for less I have to question the purpose.They aren't. Just because they are possible, doesn't mean they always happen. People have an option to, you know, not take the medicine if they don't want to...but then they might die.
Again, you have zero understanding of the process that medications must go through before being approved and distributed to the consumer.
YOu can always say, "No thank you." I did.Looking at the problem realistically you have to admit that the more medication one consumes the more side effects is evident. I do not consider that to be efficient. The testing for medication these days are based on profit and not health. I am sure it’s a question of quality of life, and not so much quantity because people end up dead at some point.
It might be easier said than done when you are embedded in the system. In one sense we are not using the natural processes to verify safe use, but speeding them up with artificial means to make a quick profit. I agree we can always say no and accept the consequences.YOu can always say, "No thank you." I did.Looking at the problem realistically you have to admit that the more medication one consumes the more side effects is evident. I do not consider that to be efficient. The testing for medication these days are based on profit and not health. I am sure it’s a question of quality of life, and not so much quantity because people end up dead at some point.
What is very easy to do, is to educate yourself about the cancer you have and all the available treatments both the accepted ones and the new ones still going through trials. The information on the Internet is very complete and easy to understand. Now when you go talk to your doctor, it's a different experience altogether.
I was actually talking about the testing methods and the end use. Even if you study the canser all you can do is to read the indications given and decidde if you want to take the medication or not.What is very easy to do, is to educate yourself about the cancer you have and all the available treatments both the accepted ones and the new ones still going through trials. The information on the Internet is very complete and easy to understand. Now when you go talk to your doctor, it's a different experience altogether.
Then you're not reading the right blogs let alone the relevant literature.I am not saying that test are not done, I am saying most test are not based on people but on profit, that is why some of the medications testing procedure are not going through the test cycle that would benefit people. Things have changed maybe it was so at one time but certainly not now.
One of the biggest problems in researching possible drugs and therapeutic approaches is that failed research is not published. There's now a new process for reporting this stuff but it's not set up to find earlier stuff that didn't work out, not even to get all possible reports now. If anyone sincerely wanted to cut down unnecessary costs in pharmaceutical research, ensuring that everyone knows what others have done that didn't work out would save a lot of effort and expense currently wasted in trying to reinvent non-useful wheels.
As for drugs not being for patients' benefit. It's rubbish. The testing and reporting procedures are lengthy, onerous and expensive. It might well be that a particular drug might turn out to be not the best way to handle certain conditions or no better than existing drugs, but that doesn't mean that the drugs themselves are ineffective or deleterious. One of the best ways to come to this conclusion is to look at the spectacular publicity that comes with drugs that do fail - usually because of their side-effects. Considering how many medications come onto the market, the infrequency of such events should be reassuring rather than reason for doubt.
As for cancer drugs. Yes, they're poisons. The whole object of the process is to kill living cells - without killing the person unfortunately harbouring those cells. When they said "The dose makes the poison" they could have been talking about chemotherapy and no other poisonous chemicals at all. The people who administer these drugs do know what they're doing and they're willing to explain everything to patients.
My own feeling is that it depends on how old you are and what your condition is when you make the decision to go ahead or to decline adjunct chemotherapy - there aren't really any options if your cancer is not treatable by surgery. There are good statistics available about what the improvement in survival rate is for people who do and people who don't take it on. If the 5 year survival rate for surgery alone for a particular cancer is 85% and with additional chemo is 87%, I wouldn't bother at any age unless the 10 year survival rates showed a much larger benefit. If it's 60% for surgery, and 70+% for surgery plus chemo, I'd make the decision in a flash regardless of the 10 year statistics. ( For the first round with the cancer. People make different decisions when they're dealing with recurrences, even if the odds are "good" in strictly medical terms.)
When you are diagnosed with cancer through a biopsy they usually have a pretty good idea how advanced the cancer is and how fast you must make a decision on your recommended treatment. Usually you have several days to think about it.
There are many people that have very bad experience with chemo, but more and more these days, people over all are doing better with chemo. The doctors have more experience now with various types of chemo and effective dosages, and how to combine it with other therapies such as focused radiation. People are starting to live longer with treatment and not suffering from serious side effects of the treatment.
Adelady, although I know you know your stuff and you are always seem to be making sure of what you say, and what you say in your post is true. The other side of the story is not so good. I am now completely not sure what to believe. The scientists fight each other and often times the public is not presented with the total information. It was not like that at one time but it has become like that. Medication is coming from all over the world going to all over the world. Some not really tested.
There was never a golden age when lofty-minded scientists calmly debated opposing views of scientific topics and graciously conceded defeat to others' stronger or more elegant points. Think plate tectonics or the germ theory of disease or half a dozen other scientific conclusions that are now taken for granted. They didn't get to be taken for granted because polite people said "Oh, you're right. Whyever didn't I think of that."The scientists fight each other and often times the public is not presented with the total information. It was not like that at one time but it has become like that.
The process of science is basically one of constant contest. For many is is to be the first or the best or the strongest in advancing whatever theory or point or process you've hitched your wagon to. It might look dispassionate and dry, even tedious, when you just read the literature, but the history of science tells another story. That contest is not like a debate - it's more like a race or a jousting match - get ahead of the competition or knock them off their horses, both if you can manage it. And it's been like that for as long as we know about it.
Mom is 89, almost 90...when they try to give her any medication she is always "allergic" to it. *chuckle*.....probably kept her alive, mind in a good place...then again so is having a tough life and being hard working. I'm taking my Mom's cue!It might be easier said than done when you are embedded in the system. In one sense we are not using the natural processes to verify safe use, but speeding them up with artificial means to make a quick profit. I agree we can always say no and accept the consequences.YOu can always say, "No thank you." I did.Looking at the problem realistically you have to admit that the more medication one consumes the more side effects is evident. I do not consider that to be efficient. The testing for medication these days are based on profit and not health. I am sure it’s a question of quality of life, and not so much quantity because people end up dead at some point.
Yes, but you need to educate yourself also.When you are diagnosed with cancer through a biopsy they usually have a pretty good idea how advanced the cancer is and how fast you must make a decision on your recommended treatment. Usually you have several days to think about it.
There are many people that have very bad experience with chemo, but more and more these days, people over all are doing better with chemo. The doctors have more experience now with various types of chemo and effective dosages, and how to combine it with other therapies such as focused radiation. People are starting to live longer with treatment and not suffering from serious side effects of the treatment.
Yes, very true, I know we will never stop the competition, and to some extent I think it is good. What we do need though is a less self-serving attitude and a leaning towards people and general health. people today rely on science more than ever before, the technological progress has brought us many new diseases, with the diseases more competition, and consequently more corruption.
Most times our parents leave us very pertinent information, we sometimes do not realise how powerful the info is untill they are no longer in the flesh.Mom is 89, almost 90...when they try to give her any medication she is always "allergic" to it. *chuckle*.....probably kept her alive, mind in a good place...then again so is having a tough life and being hard working. I'm taking my Mom's cue!It might be easier said than done when you are embedded in the system. In one sense we are not using the natural processes to verify safe use, but speeding them up with artificial means to make a quick profit. I agree we can always say no and accept the consequences.YOu can always say, "No thank you." I did.Looking at the problem realistically you have to admit that the more medication one consumes the more side effects is evident. I do not consider that to be efficient. The testing for medication these days are based on profit and not health. I am sure it’s a question of quality of life, and not so much quantity because people end up dead at some point.
I retain knowledge, generally. I have no problem learning lessons and retaining them. Hard work is a good thing. I strive to work hard and do whatever I do well.Most times our parents leave us very pertinent information, we sometimes do not realise how powerful the info is untill they are no longer in the flesh.Mom is 89, almost 90...when they try to give her any medication she is always "allergic" to it. *chuckle*.....probably kept her alive, mind in a good place...then again so is having a tough life and being hard working. I'm taking my Mom's cue!It might be easier said than done when you are embedded in the system. In one sense we are not using the natural processes to verify safe use, but speeding them up with artificial means to make a quick profit. I agree we can always say no and accept the consequences.YOu can always say, "No thank you." I did.Looking at the problem realistically you have to admit that the more medication one consumes the more side effects is evident. I do not consider that to be efficient. The testing for medication these days are based on profit and not health. I am sure it’s a question of quality of life, and not so much quantity because people end up dead at some point.
I half agree. I think the notion of public service has been sadly neglected over the last 30 years or so, though I'm convinced that most medical practitioners, as individuals, are motivated by a wish to succeed at the difficult business of curing ill people. Corporate behaviour, on the other hand, has a way of finding the route of collective self-interest. Which is why capitalism only works with tough controls (anti-trust etc) to channel the self-interest in the right directions for society. But given that fact, I think competition, supervised by ruthless scrutiny and accountability, which is what you more or less have with the treatment of high profile lethal diseases, is the best system for rapid progress.Yes, very true, I know we will never stop the competition, and to some extent I think it is good. What we do need though is a less self-serving attitude and a leaning towards people and general health. people today rely on science more than ever before, the technological progress has brought us many new diseases, with the diseases more competition, and consequently more corruption.
| « Nanotechnology papers soaring | Study on 23andMe results and comprehension » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
