- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: CIA Kept Soviet Cancer Research Classified for 64 Years
Posted on 3/10/26 at 4:18 pm to Earnest_P
Posted on 3/10/26 at 4:18 pm to Earnest_P
Sounds like there’s a lot of frustration and pain behind that story. Watching someone you care about choose a path you believe is harming them can be incredibly hard. At the same time, people facing serious illness are often scared and trying to find hope wherever they can. These situations tend to be tragic rather than simple.
0
Posted on 3/10/26 at 4:21 pm to Earnest_P
quote:
Practically speaking, how would “they”monetize an already-created generic drug that cured cancer?
By billing their insurance the other drugs they also make that the survivor takes (dead people don't take meds, but living people keep taking their anti-hypertensives, statins, antidepressants, etc.).
Posted on 3/10/26 at 4:24 pm to Earnest_P
quote:
Practically speaking, how would “they”monetize an already-created generic drug that cured cancer?
They wouldn't, but also that doesn't exist
quote:
heoretically, they come up with new drugs to cure things, and they are paid well for that.
exactly.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 4:25 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
That's literally the textbook example of anecdotal evidence
You didn't read the entire pretend quote. Anecdotal evidence that is not really evidence. Earlier in the thread the pretend doctors were trying to say there was NO evidence whatsoever. And that isn't true. Because anecdotal evidence is still evidence whether the pretend doctors want to admit it or not.
Read better.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 4:39 pm to AlterEd
Anecdotes are observations, sure. The tricky part is figuring out how much weight to give them compared to larger studies looking at lots of patients. How do you usually think about that tradeoff?
Posted on 3/10/26 at 4:42 pm to TigerDoc
Well we need larger studies in order to be able to consider that, don't we? There is PLENTY of preclinical and lab based evidence showing these drugs fight cancer. I'm curious about the reluctance to bring this stuff to clinical trials.
Could it be because the drugs we are talking about only cost pennies? I don't know what the reason is, but it's worth considering. Again, research and development for cancer drugs is supposed to eclipse 300 billion per year by 2030.
Could it be because the drugs we are talking about only cost pennies? I don't know what the reason is, but it's worth considering. Again, research and development for cancer drugs is supposed to eclipse 300 billion per year by 2030.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 4:44 pm to AlterEd
quote:
This is just more anecdotal evidence that isn't really evidence.
He wasn't able to get into the trial for this treatment at Harvard Medical School using this treatment. Instead a PhD gave him the formulation to take.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 4:45 pm to AlterEd
Sure, but that's not the decision current patients are making. They're choosing ivermectin/febendazole + current standard of care or else take it instead of.
How should doctors encourage them to work through that?
How should doctors encourage them to work through that?
Posted on 3/10/26 at 4:46 pm to CitizenK
Earlier in the thread I posted a peer reviewed protocol based on preclinical data. It would be worth considering for those who may be affected by this disease and are interested in going in an alternative route. 
Posted on 3/10/26 at 4:46 pm to AlterEd
quote:
You didn't read the entire pretend quote. Anecdotal evidence that is not really evidence. Earlier in the thread the pretend doctors were trying to say there was NO evidence whatsoever. And that isn't true. Because anecdotal evidence is still evidence whether the pretend doctors want to admit it or not.
You are out of your league. Anecdotal evidence by anonymous posters on TD meets your evidentiary bar? There’s a reason the joke “Level V anecdotal evidence” exists. 
Posted on 3/10/26 at 4:47 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
How should doctors encourage them to work through that?
By encouraging them to read as much as they can on it before making a decision.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 4:54 pm to AlterEd
Sure, but many people feel overwhelmed by DYOR. They're untrained medically and they have cancer - sick and anxious and aren't confident that they can parse complex medical information. They often ask doctors how to interpret between competing anecdotes and statistical information they encounter.
How should I handle situations like this with patients better?
How should I handle situations like this with patients better?
Posted on 3/10/26 at 4:54 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Anecdotal evidence by anonymous posters on TD meets your evidentiary bar?
Do I need to quote your words back to you when you yourself said it was the textbook definition of anecdotal evidence?
quote:
You are out of your league
Ironic.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 4:57 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
How should I handle situations like this with patients better?
It's a tough question from your perspective and I can appreciate that. You're open to litigation and shite. I don't know how to answer that.
I think in the end, until more clinical trials and things are done, it's important for people to get the word out, such as this thread serves to do, so more people become aware of it on their own, without the input of a doctor who may not be able to breech the subject for legal reasons.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 5:00 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Sure, but many people feel overwhelmed by DYOR. They're untrained medically and they have cancer - sick and anxious and aren't confident that they can parse complex medical information. They often ask doctors how to interpret between competing anecdotes and statistical information they encounter. How should I handle situations like this with patients better?
What I hate is anti-parasites were very easy to get if you came back from overseas. Now doctors refuse to prescribe without a huge array of pretty inaccurate tests. It’s safer than aspirin.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 5:02 pm to TigerAllNightLong
quote:
What I hate is anti-parasites were very easy to get if you came back from overseas. Now doctors refuse to prescribe without a huge array of pretty inaccurate tests. It’s safer than aspirin
Ivermectin is now being sold over the counter in Arkansas and other states.
Remember when they put the blitz on ivermectin during COVID and they were telling bullshite stories about how it was dangerous? That shite was frickin criminal.
But again, the pretend doctors in here will tell you it isn't about money.
Why use this drug that costs pennies when we want you on remdesivir and taking experimental gene therapy jabs.
This post was edited on 3/10/26 at 5:04 pm
Posted on 3/10/26 at 5:23 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
How should I handle situations like this with patients better?
It's great that you ask this question! This book may be a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the topic. Cancer Care: The Role of Repurposed Drugs and Metabolic Interventions in Treating Cancer
quote:
Cancer Care is a review of the published literature showing options for repurposed drugs that can be used in cancer treatment. It is not intended as a stand-alone guide to treating cancer. The goal is to provide a well-researched clearinghouse of information that picks up where traditional cancer therapies leave off. Providers caring for cancer patients can use this information to think creatively about readily available interventions, with science to back up their efficacy, that could improve their patients’ outcomes.
It can be downloaded for free at https://imahealth.org/research/cancer-care/
Posted on 3/10/26 at 5:33 pm to idsrdum
Appreciate the link. I’ll take a look. When I’m evaluating something like this for patients I usually try to figure out a few things like who’s publishing it, whether the claims are based on controlled trials or mostly case reports, and whether the treatments have been tested by independent groups. Have any of the approaches in that book actually been tested in larger clinical studies yet?
Posted on 3/10/26 at 5:33 pm to AlterEd
quote:
Do I need to quote your words back to you when you yourself said it was the textbook definition of anecdotal evidence?
What value do you place on anecdotal “evidence” from anonymous sources? Want to get you on the record before I drop some anecdotes.
Posted on 3/10/26 at 5:37 pm to TigerAllNightLong
I can understand the frustration and have felt it myself. Doctors prescribe those drugs for parasitic infections because we know the parasite they target and the expected benefit is clear. When someone wants to try the same drug for something like cancer, how do you think doctors should weigh the possible benefit against the risk if we don’t know whether it actually helps that disease or whether it's even safe in that condition (some generally safe meds are less so in cancer patients)?
Page 14 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News