- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | Austin |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 9 |
| Registered on: | 11/16/2020 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
quote:
quote:
The reason why anal cancer rates are increasing among older women remains unclear, but Robinson has a theory. “Most older women were beyond the recommended age for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination when it first became widely available,” she explained.
Serious question- not trolling. Was anal cancer an issue before the HPV vaccine? I had honestly never heard of it until there was a vaccine to reduce the incidence of if. I’m not saying don’t get the vaccine- both of my kids have had it, so I’m definitely a believer, I had just beer heard of a al cancer before a few years ago. Maybe people just aren’t taking about it.
It was an issue but a relatively rare cancer.
0
quote:
quote:
esophageal cancer from hpv
Are these cancers caused but the genital warts HPV or the regular warts HPV or both?
Esophageal not thought of as HPV related.
Most common are cervical, head and neck, anal, and vulvar. Vaginal and penile also HPV related but rare cancers.
quote:
Invermectin, if it had any potential as a cancer medication, would be prescribed.
I don't have a dog in the ivermectin fight, but I do not believe any industry, even the medical industry, would solve problems that create its own destruction.
That's not how humans or capitalism work.
Every physician I work with tries to decrease cancer risk for their patients.
We tell patients to have colonoscopies where the colon cancer can be removed as a polyp before it needs chemo and surgery. We tell patients to stop smoking which cuts lung and bladder cancer rates-among others. A significant portion of liver cancer is caused by hepatitis caused cirrhosis and drugs can now cure Hep C at high rates. We tell people to get skin cancer screening to catch melanoma before immunotherapy is needed. We perform genetic testing on a large number of patients in case they have genes that code for cancer so more intense screening or procedures can be implemented to prevent a patient from getting cancer or catching at an early stage where chemotherapy will not be required( for example bilateral mastectomy and oophorectomy in BRCA carriers).HPV vaccines were developed in order to decrease cervical, anal, and head and neck cancer prevalence- of which a high percentage are caused by the HPV infection.
And our newer anticancer therapies cure a higher percentage of cancer cases.
Cancer is not one disease- it is many- there are over 60 subtypes of just lymphoma. One drug is not curing all cancer. Hence even if ivermectin worked to some degree, it almost assuredly would only work for a small fraction of cancer. Chemotherapy did not cure all cancer , the new immunotherapy agents are a step forward but do not work for all cancer, etc. Oncologists have no fear they will suddenly be destitute from ivermectin or any of the other miracle cures we have heard about over the years. ( laetrile, noni juice, Gershon method, antineoplastins, colloidal silver, alkaline diet, CBD, shark cartilage, etc). If its too good to be true- it is. There is not a cure of a hundred diseases with no side effects. And indeed there is money to be made from these agents- the people who tout these miracle cures make plenty.
re: Ivermectin: Cancer killer Are you aware of these studies?
Posted by DocOnc on 3/4/25 at 8:56 am to wallowinit
In looking at the data for this( and leaving out all the political and financial arguments), the big issue is that it is not as compelling as many other drugs in development. There are hundreds of drugs that destroy cancer in mice and human cell lines- that is needed before considering progressing to Phase I trials.
Essentially all drugs now are designed specifically to target certain pathways on certain cancers with the aim to increase effectiveness and decrease toxicity.,
Even with excellent in vitro results with these agents, less than 10% of drugs make it from Phase I to Phase 2, and only about 20% make it out of Phase 2. Even after all that only about half of the phase 3 trials are positive.( So you can see less than 1 in 100 drugs at the end make it).
Looking at the data with no real specific cancer this targets or pathway it hits better than drugs in development, the chance this drug would make it through all of those hurdles is near zero. Investigators who will spend years developing a drug are going to go after a drug that separates itself from the others, and this agent does not look as promising as many in development.
Essentially all drugs now are designed specifically to target certain pathways on certain cancers with the aim to increase effectiveness and decrease toxicity.,
Even with excellent in vitro results with these agents, less than 10% of drugs make it from Phase I to Phase 2, and only about 20% make it out of Phase 2. Even after all that only about half of the phase 3 trials are positive.( So you can see less than 1 in 100 drugs at the end make it).
Looking at the data with no real specific cancer this targets or pathway it hits better than drugs in development, the chance this drug would make it through all of those hurdles is near zero. Investigators who will spend years developing a drug are going to go after a drug that separates itself from the others, and this agent does not look as promising as many in development.
quote:
What are you seeing in the 2nd gen of Alpelisib?
Better containment of the hyperglycemia?
I do not have any patients on those agents- the high blood sugars are still an issue from what I gather.
quote:
I appreciate grasping at straws, but Invermectin hasn't shown to be of any benefit, beyond some unsubstantiated, anecdotal reports.
I took the shots b/c of chemo, and I'd do it again. Their resistsnce was so low...
Im surprised you didn't, but to each his own.
n)
Fighting cancer at the genetic level shows the most promise, IMO.
Indeed. Nearly all of the new agents being developed target specific enzymes/proteins/pathways ( or genetics of the cancer cell essentially) in the cancer cells-which leads to better responses and less toxicity than the traditional chemotherapies.
The first of these was imatinib in the early 2000s which targets a bcr-abl gene in chronic myelogenous leukemia. Essentially all patients with this leukemia have a chromosomal alteration called the 9;22 translocation. Currently a person diagnosed with this cancer has similar survival to age matched controls, versus around a 5 year average survival in the late 1990s. Imatinib is now generic and can be obtained for about $50-$100 per month I believe- and studies have been run to evaluate safety of completely discontinuing these drugs to minimize toxicity and cost. In fact, I have taken several of my patients off of these agents with chronic myelogenous leukemia who are in a complete remission.
re: Ivermectin: Cancer killer Are you aware of these studies?
Posted by DocOnc on 3/2/25 at 5:37 pm to wallowinit
quote:
LINK
I don’t know how many people are aware of this and I’d like to try to find out because it really clouds the argument against ivermectin use.
This isn’t just about Covid or river blindness or parasitic worms.
That study is a summary of cell lines that show inhibition from ivermectin. None show any effect in humans. Before one prescribes medications for patients, safety and effectiveness need to be shown in clinical trials involving patients with the illness targeted. Many drugs have shown effectiveness in cell lines and do not pan out when used in actual patients. I do not believe you will find any trials in cancer patients that show a significant response rate.
re: Cancer breakthroughs
Posted by DocOnc on 2/12/25 at 8:56 am to Giantkiller
quote:
Recently lost a friend to cancer and not gonna lie, it majorly bummed me out. Like I usually do with anything, it sent me down a wormhole of information but this time (and not withstanding my loss) I'm feeling a little more positive about where the future leads. For all of you who are struggling with it, I think there's more hope on the horizon.. but reasons to be more positive than ever before.
Obviously they always throw radiation and chemo at the problems, but immunotherapy, precision medicine, CAT-T cell therapy seem to be having some interesting breakthrough's of late. I recently had a physical and during the labs, I was curious as to why they can't find cancer in your blood. Turns out they sort of can with these liquid biopsies. Why they don't screen it along with all the other shite they're looking for, I'm not sure. I guess cost.. But hopefully we're moving to that being kind of routine.
The five year survival rate has risen dramatically. Some childhood leukemias and certain breast cancers are sporting almost a 90% rate. And AI-driven drug discoveries are making it more manageable... even curable than ever before.
Any OT oncologists here? Or others who are more knowledgeable on the subject, give me more reasons to be positive. How far are we away from making cancer less of a big deal?
There is certainly reason to be optimistic- cancer therapies have improved significantly over the last 25 years.
As noted in several posts, cancer is really a multitude of diseases- even the subset of lymphoma comprises approximately 80 types- depending on how you wish to subset.
Essentially all new therapies being developed and approved are therapies targeted to some enzyme or gene. Really no new what are considered traditional chemotherapies are being developed. These new agents still have side effects of course but are generally more tolerable and more effective.
Advances are also being made in blood detection as you noted which will hopefully lead to earlier detection and even further increased cure rates with less therapy. Issue currently really is not cost of the testing- it is accuracy.
An example of cancers which are"less of a big deal" are two chronic leukemias- CLL and CML. Current models suggest survival in these cancers are nearly the same as age matched controls. People still die of these diseases of course- but many have lifelong control and die of other causes. Chemotherapy is now typically not used in either of these diseases- targeted oral therapy mostly. The average 5 year survival of CML before targeted therapy was developed was less than 5 years, with most people dying due to conversion to Acute Leukemia.
I looked at the articles mentioned.
I have done this many times over the years. The reason physicians could be perceived as dismissive is because the data presented is not up to scientific standards or misleading- as these are. One could spend many, many hours looking at the hundreds of articles/writings regarding alternative therapies.
I saw a point in the peer reviewed article that was linked that I thought was interesting as they stated a Phase 2 study had shown no significant side effects of mebendazole. I went to that study to look at how long patients were on therapy and what type of responses were seen.
Conclusions copied from the linked study:
All 10 patients who started continuous treatment with Mbz were withdrawn from study treatment between 14 and 91 days after the first dose due to rapidly PD and/or clinical deterioration. In light also of the difficulties to reach the target serum-Mbz concentration despite intensive TDM based dose adjustments allowing high daily Mbz doses, the study was stopped prematurely. Importantly, however, no safety issues were observed to influence this decision. Rather, it is concluded that Mbz is safe and tolerable at doses up to 4 g/day in patients with heavily pre-treated gastrointestinal cancer.
So no mention in the peer reviewed article that 10/10 progressed rapidly- just that in the short time they were on the agent they didnt have side effects that were attributed to the drug. But these authors have no bias?
As a scientist you would want to proceed with a trial that had 10/10 rapid progressions? The only reason would be because it didnt make people sick and was cheap? Indeed 30 patients were planned for the study but since everyone did poorly the trial was stopped ( stopping a trial for ineffectiveness is common practice even for drugs being developed that will be extremely expensive).
And again this is a study cited in an article advocating these medications.
It has been my experience over the years that this will be the case looking at the citations provided. Misleading/missing data is given about the links, the studies linked often do not even say what they were said to have concluded, or they simply are not strong science for treating patients.
For example killing cancer in mice is not enough evidence to begin giving to people. All drugs developed have to show effectiveness in tissue/mice, etc to proceed forward to being dosed in trials for people. The vast majority of drugs tested actually fail in human trials that have passed this hurdle. Only a small fraction of drugs developed are approved.
I have done this many times over the years. The reason physicians could be perceived as dismissive is because the data presented is not up to scientific standards or misleading- as these are. One could spend many, many hours looking at the hundreds of articles/writings regarding alternative therapies.
I saw a point in the peer reviewed article that was linked that I thought was interesting as they stated a Phase 2 study had shown no significant side effects of mebendazole. I went to that study to look at how long patients were on therapy and what type of responses were seen.
Conclusions copied from the linked study:
All 10 patients who started continuous treatment with Mbz were withdrawn from study treatment between 14 and 91 days after the first dose due to rapidly PD and/or clinical deterioration. In light also of the difficulties to reach the target serum-Mbz concentration despite intensive TDM based dose adjustments allowing high daily Mbz doses, the study was stopped prematurely. Importantly, however, no safety issues were observed to influence this decision. Rather, it is concluded that Mbz is safe and tolerable at doses up to 4 g/day in patients with heavily pre-treated gastrointestinal cancer.
So no mention in the peer reviewed article that 10/10 progressed rapidly- just that in the short time they were on the agent they didnt have side effects that were attributed to the drug. But these authors have no bias?
As a scientist you would want to proceed with a trial that had 10/10 rapid progressions? The only reason would be because it didnt make people sick and was cheap? Indeed 30 patients were planned for the study but since everyone did poorly the trial was stopped ( stopping a trial for ineffectiveness is common practice even for drugs being developed that will be extremely expensive).
And again this is a study cited in an article advocating these medications.
It has been my experience over the years that this will be the case looking at the citations provided. Misleading/missing data is given about the links, the studies linked often do not even say what they were said to have concluded, or they simply are not strong science for treating patients.
For example killing cancer in mice is not enough evidence to begin giving to people. All drugs developed have to show effectiveness in tissue/mice, etc to proceed forward to being dosed in trials for people. The vast majority of drugs tested actually fail in human trials that have passed this hurdle. Only a small fraction of drugs developed are approved.
Popular
12
