re: Are we ever gonna beat cancer?

quote:

---

I don’t think you understand how any of this works. But apparently you’re not the only one.

---

Things are tough for us folks who don't live on Elysium.

Your post reveals that you have no experience with cancer.

quote:

---

Are we ever gonna beat cancer?

---

You (and most folks) ask the wrong question

The better question is “what is cancer” = disregulated cell growth

Next question should be “what causes disregulated cell growth” = lack of balance of pro-growth factor and regulating elements (mainly immune system)

What influences these factors (in general):

Genetics
Sum of exposures during your life (biggest being the quality of your nutrition, exercise, stress, environment and sleep/rest)

*Genetics load the gun, epigenetics (environment/exposures) pull the trigger...

Sequencing the human genome has not led to promised /hoped for miracle cures because it is becoming clearer that epigenetic factors may play a larger role than genetics...

Another analogy

Genetics = piece of music
Epigenetics = the band/symphony

You can take poor/average genetics and make good music with the life you live (A great band can a play simple piece well)

If you have great genetics you can still make shitty music if your lifestyle is poor (A terrible band can make the best written music sound horrible)

*there are corner cases with rare genetic conditions

In 2017, we live in a society that places very little priority on maintance of health (proper diet, exercise, sleep, stress management). We drive our bodies like cars we just stole in a chronically stressed, pro-inflammatory state in complete opposition to the environment we evolved in. Some do so with the hopes that modern medicine will save them in the end while they assume a fatalistic genetic predeterminism (the prior faulty/incomplete paradigm). In doing so, they sew the seeds for cancer.

In summary, do everything in your power to PREVENT a pro-cancer environment as many of the treatments for cancer are reactive in nature (with associated side effects)

Prior TD thread where more is discussed

quote:

---

Potential Tactics for Defeating Cancer — A Toolkit in 1,000 Words

---

LINK

see the links at the bottom of the piece linked above (and listed below)

quote:

---

There is a deluge of writing about cancer.

Below, I’ve suggested a top-10 list of articles as starting points. Some are for lay audiences, some are technical, but all are worth the time to read. Here you go:

Looking for articles to pass to your parents, or to read as a lay person? Read these, in this order:
1. Non-technical talk by Craig Thompson, Pres/CEO of Sloan-Kettering
2. Science piece written about cancer (for non-technical audience) by Gary Taubes

Have a little background and want the 80/20 analysis, the greatest bang for the buck? Read this:
3. Relatively non-technical review article on the Warburg Effect written by Vander Heiden, Thompson, and Cantley

Peaking on modafinil during a flight to Tokyo? Want to deep dive for a few hours? Here are three recommendations, in this order:
4. Detailed review article by Tom Seyfried
5. Review article on the role of carb restriction in the treatment and prevention of cancer
6. Talk given by author of above paper for those who prefer video

Want four bonus reads, all very good? As you wish:
7. Moderately technical review article by Shaw and Cantley
8. Clinical paper on the role of metformin in breast cancer by Ana Gonzalez-Angulo
9. Mouse study by Dom D’Agostino’s group examining role of ketogenic diet and hyperbaric oxygen on a very aggressive tumor model
10. Mechanistic study by Feinman and Fine assessing means by which acetoacetate (a ketone body) suppresses tumor growth in human cancer cell lines

---

LINK

[quote]An Old Idea, Revived:
Starve Cancer to Death
In the early 20th century, the German biochemist Otto Warburg
believed that tumors could be treated by disrupting their source
of energy. His idea was dismissed for decades — until now.

I’m a survivor, there may not be a cure, but the outcomes are not to bad.....

quote:

---

There are all kinds of novel treatments currently under investigation. Biologics, cell therapy, and physiological (like the one you linked) will change the outlook we have over cancer in the next decade.

---

In the end it all comes down to the money though.

My BIL worked for Lilly on their 1st ever joint venture developing a cure for Toxic Shock, the #1 inpatient killer (treating diseases and injuries causing the good and bad biologics within us to die rapidly and overwhelming the body's abilities to process the esults essentially).

The result was successful 50% of the time. That means half of the hospital deaths in the nation would NOT occur. The single dose med cost $10,000 though and no insurance company would cover it at only a 50% success rate.

So to this day hundreds of thousands of people have died without that drug.

quote:

---

My brother was diagnosed in 2004 and died in 2012. I can't imagine the money that it cost..After he died my SIL received a bill for $180,000+..I think since he died it was forgiven..

---

My bill from late Dec to June was about $250k and that doesn't include secondary costs. And that was for a very straightforward diagnostic and staging process and first line chemo. No surgeries or other procedures apart from chemo port in and out, a bone marrow biopsy and a bronchoscopy. Thank God our insurance worked.

quote:

---

The single dose med cost $10,000 though and no insurance company would cover it at only a 50% success rate.

---

Your premise is correct, and would be a much better thread topic. That is, what is the max cost/benefit ratio of medical treatment (especially anti-cancer therapy) that insurance companies should be expected to cover? Some of these newer drugs (avastin, CAR-T, most gene therapies) are/will be very expensive.

But your example must be from quite a few years ago, since insurance companies currently pay well over $10,000 for drugs that are much less than 50% effective.

My grandfather beat it, and me grandma beat it twice

quote:

---

My BIL worked for Lilly on their 1st ever joint venture developing a cure for Toxic Shock, the #1 inpatient killer (treating diseases and injuries causing the good and bad biologics within us to die rapidly and overwhelming the body's abilities to process the esults essentially).

The result was successful 50% of the time. That means half of the hospital deaths in the nation would NOT occur. The single dose med cost $10,000 though and no insurance company would cover it at only a 50% success rate.

---

Toxic Shock Syndrome occurs in .0035% of the population. That means it would take more than 40 years of present treatment to cause your "100s of thousands of people died without that drug"


It is a very severe disease that requires hospitalization, but it is NOT the #1 inpatient killer. Furthermore, it is not the sole cause of hospital deaths so even a drug with 50% efficacy wouldn't cut "hospital deaths" in half. Also, hospital deaths is a horrible phrase that implies any death in a hospital.

He seems to be referring to nosocomial infections but that is so broad of a term that there isn't a single wonder drug that would limit them all. Further, it is fatal in "only" 5% of hospital admissions.

quote:

---

Unfortunately there is a good argument that there is too much money in not curing it.

Good example recently was when Gilead Sciences, who was making a hep C drug, accidentally made it “too good”. The stock price plummeted on the news, presumably bc they wouldn’t be able to sell a lot of the drug in perpetuity.

---

I see this argument and I raise you with another:




Vaccines exist.