- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Cancer breakthroughs
Posted on 2/11/25 at 12:14 pm to BoogaBear
Posted on 2/11/25 at 12:14 pm to BoogaBear
quote:
Ivermectin will get rid of cancer because cancer is just a parasite.
A simple pubmed search will show some research on the subject. It isn’t as conspiracy theory as you’d think. I haven’t taken a deep dive on it, but there is some smoke.
Inhibiting Colorectal Cancer Cell Growth
ovarian cancer
melanoma
Prostate
1
Posted on 2/11/25 at 12:22 pm to scottydoesntknow
quote:
Just my gut intuition, I have no known studies to cite...but I dont think there will ever be a failsafe, easy cure for most cancer
There’s already cures for several cancers and they will continue to find cures for additional cancers.
quote:
It seems that lifestyle changes are the remedy. There was a point in human history where cancer wasnt a common thing. The remedy seems to have the closest lifestyles to those people(in terms of exposure) as you possibly can. Obviously there is no way to actually do this completely but getting as close as you can is probably a good bet
The human life expectancy has greatly increased due to modern medicine. Diet and environmental factors definitely play a part in causing cancer, but a lot of people historically died much earlier in life. Cancer has always existed.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 12:27 pm to Foreskinski
quote:
I'm hopeful that with the advancement of AI there with be vast improvements in treatment available.
I expect it will be, but only for the ultra rich.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 12:28 pm to scottydoesntknow
quote:That's because life expectancy was only 42 in 1890. The longer we live the greater the chance for a particular disease to impact us.
It seems that lifestyle changes are the remedy. There was a point in human history where cancer wasnt a common thing.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 12:33 pm to Jake88
quote:
That's because life expectancy was only 42 in 1890. The longer we live the greater the chance for a particular disease to impact us.
Is this factoring in infant and childhood mortality?
Posted on 2/11/25 at 12:37 pm to scottydoesntknow
Yes, along with diseases that would have responded to antibiotics and other therapies that were yet to be known.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 12:48 pm to cfish140
quote:
I don’t even know if this is a medical fact but personally I’m a big believer that stress and anxiety have alot to do with cancer. Your body isn’t meant to be in constant fight or flight mode. I try to eliminate as much stress as possible from my life and live it to the fullest along with being physically healthy. The mental health part dosent get talked about enough
The human body is designed to last about 40 years. For the vast majority of the time mankind has existed he did indeed live every minute of every day in flight or fight mode. It may well be that living longer than 40 years may be the reason folks get sick.....hard to get very sick when you died of old age at 32.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 12:49 pm to AwgustaDawg
quote:
The human body is designed to last about 40 years.
wtf are you talking about?
Posted on 2/11/25 at 12:52 pm to Novastar
quote:
Fasting has increasingly become a new method of prevention and treatment. It's certainly something to look into. The results and effects on cancer and the body are fascinating to say the least.
Fasting has been the way humans ate for about 99% of the time we have been around. I have been on a 16/8 fast since November of 2023 and it has been life changing for me. I eat breakfast between 330 and 730 am and I am done eating for the day within 8 hours of breaking fast in the morning....not religiously but about 90% of the time. After a month or so of explaining to my wife and kids that I did not hate them just because I was not eating dinner with them at 7 PM they got on board and its been very simple to maintain. For me it has worked like magic. Loads of energy, sleep better, enjoy food much more when I do eat....worked like a charm for me.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 1:00 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
quote:
The human body is designed to last about 40 years.
wtf are you talking about?
For about 99% of the time we have existed as a species our life expectancy has been very short compared to what it is today.....things like antibiotics, readily available sources of food, clean drinking water and the like were unknown for most of human existence and has increased life expectancy. Along with that longer life there is more opportunity for more stress, more accidents, more disease.....thus we get hurt more often, get sick more often and get treated instead of killing over and dying. It is actually a pretty simple concept...for about 99% of the time we have existed as a species a 40 year old was a wise elder, now its the a-hole buying the $80K truck and $100k bass boat on a $70K a year salary....
Posted on 2/11/25 at 1:01 pm to thumperpait
I'm so sorry to hear that. You have all of my prayers and positive thoughts coming your way!
Posted on 2/11/25 at 1:05 pm to jdd48
quote:
He finally got referred to MD Anderson and is going there today actually.
My brother just lost his second wife to breast cancer/
When his second wife first got it, they decided to fight aggressively and made that trip to MD Anderson for 2 years until she died last spring.
She was a healthy vegan that owned a Physical Therapy clinic in Bogalusa.
The END
Posted on 2/11/25 at 1:06 pm to jdd48
quote:
, I am not fully convinced that big pharma is not holding back cancer research.
I think there's truth to it without a doubt. And I also think the the vast majority of people in charge want a cure for cancer. If you do'nt have a close family member or friend who has died from cancer, you probably don't have any family or friends.
I was at a big pharma plant in PA last year for work looking at helping them downszie some equipment. They started making a new medicine for Crohn's disease a few years ago that is a lot more effective and that plant went from seeing $3B/yr in revenue to a little over $1B. They've laid off tons of people over the last few years b/c of it. When you see something like that it makes it real easy to think big pharma doesn't want to really cure cancer, but it's just so hard to fathom that people wouldn't want to cure it considering it kills so many people annually, and affects almost everyone.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 1:17 pm to Giantkiller
I think the biggest positive is that the medical field is learning more as a whole about individual cancers. You have to think of each cancer type as a different animal- caused by different mutation, different response to surgery/chemo/radiation/immunotherapy.
“Minor details” like a molecular marker being positive or negative can have huge impact on treatment and survival.
In the last 10 years, massive advances in tonsil and base of tongue cancer have been made, such that generally 90%+ survive it (if the patient is p16+/ HPV RNA+). Treatments have been advanced to decrease side effects without decreasing cure. There is a blood test that can theoretically catch recurrence very early, but this is still being worked out.
Thyroid cancer has a 90%+ general survival rate, and there are new immunotherapy medications to manage metastatic thyroid cancer (which is fortunately rare).
However other things like cancer in the mouth (tongue, cheeek, etc) and voice box (larynx) are very different than the tonsil and things have not changed much recently.
Overall things are improving and I think will continue to do so.
Source: surgically remove these cancers
“Minor details” like a molecular marker being positive or negative can have huge impact on treatment and survival.
In the last 10 years, massive advances in tonsil and base of tongue cancer have been made, such that generally 90%+ survive it (if the patient is p16+/ HPV RNA+). Treatments have been advanced to decrease side effects without decreasing cure. There is a blood test that can theoretically catch recurrence very early, but this is still being worked out.
Thyroid cancer has a 90%+ general survival rate, and there are new immunotherapy medications to manage metastatic thyroid cancer (which is fortunately rare).
However other things like cancer in the mouth (tongue, cheeek, etc) and voice box (larynx) are very different than the tonsil and things have not changed much recently.
Overall things are improving and I think will continue to do so.
Source: surgically remove these cancers
Posted on 2/11/25 at 1:43 pm to Giantkiller
My $0.02 as someone who has had cancer since 2012 and works directly in biomedical research... all research, especially cancer research, has advanced tremendously in the last 10 years. Technology is catching up to the research and really pushing discoveries up big time.
For example, my second round of treatment for hodgkins lymphoma was a stem cell transplant. It didn't hold, so my next treatment was an immunotherapy that kept the lymphoma at bay for over 5 years. 3 years ago I did what is called CAR-T, another advanced immunotherapy. I've had clear scans ever since.
All that to say that a recent discussion with my very capable oncologist at MD Anderson hinted that, with advancements in treatment, even stem cell transplants are becoming not necessary in some diseases.
Advancements across the board are being made because of amazing leaps in technology.
I'm not in the camp that thinks that big pharma is holding back cures. Curing cancer is VERY difficult and I'm not sure "cure" is how I would think about it. Cancers adapt and are very specific. Treating cancer continues to be the direction I think we'll continue to see in the future. Not comparing cancer to the flu...it's not. But we're not curing the flu, as it adapts. I see pharma (and research in general) continuously chasing better treatments to cancers, much like the flu. Simply put, treating these diseases has become less harsh with the introduction (for example) of immunotherapy, which has contributed to the survivability. There's still big money to be made in the treatment of disease.
I think you'll see tremendous advancements in treating already survivable cancers, to where certain cancers won't be a scary word. I also think you'll see more and more cancers (and other diseases, like Parkinsons) have major breakthroughs. I think we'll see these advancements in our lifetime....for someone like me, I hope that means science is kind for my specific disease.
For example, my second round of treatment for hodgkins lymphoma was a stem cell transplant. It didn't hold, so my next treatment was an immunotherapy that kept the lymphoma at bay for over 5 years. 3 years ago I did what is called CAR-T, another advanced immunotherapy. I've had clear scans ever since.
All that to say that a recent discussion with my very capable oncologist at MD Anderson hinted that, with advancements in treatment, even stem cell transplants are becoming not necessary in some diseases.
Advancements across the board are being made because of amazing leaps in technology.
I'm not in the camp that thinks that big pharma is holding back cures. Curing cancer is VERY difficult and I'm not sure "cure" is how I would think about it. Cancers adapt and are very specific. Treating cancer continues to be the direction I think we'll continue to see in the future. Not comparing cancer to the flu...it's not. But we're not curing the flu, as it adapts. I see pharma (and research in general) continuously chasing better treatments to cancers, much like the flu. Simply put, treating these diseases has become less harsh with the introduction (for example) of immunotherapy, which has contributed to the survivability. There's still big money to be made in the treatment of disease.
I think you'll see tremendous advancements in treating already survivable cancers, to where certain cancers won't be a scary word. I also think you'll see more and more cancers (and other diseases, like Parkinsons) have major breakthroughs. I think we'll see these advancements in our lifetime....for someone like me, I hope that means science is kind for my specific disease.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 2:43 pm to Giantkiller
It's a race against the convergence of Informatics and Biology (Bioinformatics) and it being buttressed by AI and the increase in raw computational power. If you're not aware, google created Alphafold (predicts the 3D structure of proteins from their amino acid sequences}. This with change the approach to drugs and their approval cycles radically (it's worth reading about)
I think we'll reach a place in the next 5-10 years where new targeted drugs will exceed anything we can comprehend today. Then again, i think we'll reach Longevity Escape Velocity in the mid 2030s.
I think we'll reach a place in the next 5-10 years where new targeted drugs will exceed anything we can comprehend today. Then again, i think we'll reach Longevity Escape Velocity in the mid 2030s.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 2:47 pm to theCrusher
I couldn't agree more! AI will shoot science out of a cannon.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 2:53 pm to OldmanBeasley
quote:
Breast cancer is the most common cancer while testicular cancer is much rarer so it makes sense that there’s a lot more funding for it.
5x more prevalent than lymphoma? 2x pancreatic? Testicular was chosen as the example because it's the closest in funding, and it's way behind.
Lymphoma is between 70-80% survivable, breast cancer is 90%+ survivable. Pancreatic is at 13%. Ovarian at 50% if not detected early. Is it time for a rebalancing of priorities? It's at least something to consider.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 2:56 pm to TeddyPadillac
quote:
plant went from seeing $3B/yr in revenue to a little over $1B
Well, they can't continue to lose $2B/yr on a single drug and stay a functioning company... What is your solution, nationalize the precursor chemicals to the drug, invalidate the patents they have to pay for?
Posted on 2/11/25 at 3:05 pm to jdd48
quote:
On the topic, I am not fully convinced that big pharma is not holding back cancer research.
I work in the industry and this one always gets me LOLing.
The people in this industry are very smart but this assumes:
- They can find the "cure for cancer", which would need to be confirmed via published clinical trials at multiple stages (so we'd know results along the way)
- At some point, I'm not sure where...once they've "found the cure"...they would need to re-engineer it so that it only "almost cures it"
- Many people actually die during treatment so money would be left on the table
- Even though it would violate their new drug application, this intentionally less effective drug would still need to garner FDA approval while still being more effective than the standard of care for that particular tumor type
This narrative also ignores:
- The amount of money that a true cure for difficult-to-treat cancers would fetch
- The fact that many cancers which were difficult to treat years ago are now curable or manageable long term with modern medicine and treatments
Page 3 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News