Cancer is a very emotionally charged topic. Most of us have had a friend or family succumb to it. Over 60% diagnosed survive it now. When someone we love doesn't, it's natural to want someone to lash out towards. Direct that anger towards tobacco companies and others who willingly exposed us to carcinogens. Or, direct it towards cancer itself. Cancer can be extremely random and unfair. A habitual smoker and alcoholic can live a cancer free life, while the disease can take a 30 year old mother within a few years of diagnosis.
Don't direct this anger at the researchers and clinicians, who probably have had cancer touch their lives in some way, that work tirelessly and sometimes thanklessly to treat it.
There's plenty of scum out there, but it's not fair to paint everyone with a broad brush.
PeakOil is You
THE Cancer Thread (merged)
Re: cancer pandemic and fraud
by jesus_of_suburbia » Sat 06 Aug 2016, 12:12:08
- jesus_of_suburbia
- Peat
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Fri 30 Sep 2011, 01:14:00
Re: cancer pandemic and fraud
by Tanada » Sat 06 Aug 2016, 12:34:43
Cancer took my paternal Grandfather, my paternal Uncle, two Paternal Aunts and half a dozen Maternal cousins in my own generation, so I pay attention. Much more at link below the quote.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dr. Peter Attia', 'A') couple of weeks ago Tim Ferriss and I were having dinner and the topic of cancer came up. As some of you may know my background is in oncology, specifically in exploring immune-based therapies for cancer by exploiting the properties of regulator T-cells. But that was a long time ago. Like many of you, I expect, I’ve also been personally impacted by cancer having lost a friend to glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). I often describe GBM to people as one of the cancers that gives cancer a bad name. When I went to medical school I planned on becoming a pediatric oncologist, and though I ultimately chose to pursue surgical oncology, my interest in helping people with cancer never wavered.
Over dinner that night, Tim asked me if I could write – in about 1,000 words! – a post on cancer that would be interesting and digestible to a broad audience. “1,000 words?!,” I asked. “How about 30,000 words?,” I responded only half kidding. After explaining why I couldn’t possibly write such an abridged version, Tim talked me into it. And so, I plan to accept the challenge and hope to provide readers with such a post (it will be on Tim’s blog when I do so), hopefully in the next month or two.
For an introduction, however, I’d like take a step back and place this topic in a broader context. I don’t need to say much about cancer that you don’t already know. You probably know that about one in three Americans will develop cancer in their lifetime, and you probably know that about half of them will succumb to the disease. What you may not know, however, is that we have made virtually no progress in extending survival for patients with metastatic solid organ tumors since the “War on Cancer” was declared over 40 years ago. In other words, when a solid organ tumor (e.g., breast, colon, pancreatic) spreads to distant sites, the likelihood of surviving today is about what it was 40 years ago with rare exceptions. We may extend survival by a few months, but not long-term (i.e., overall) survival.
We screen better today for sure, but subtracting lead-time bias, it’s not clear this extends overall survival. We’ve had success in treating and even curing hematologic cancers (e.g., some forms of leukemia and lymphoma). Certainly testicular cancer patients (especially seminomatous) are better off today and those with GI stromal tumors (GIST), too. Surgical control of cancer is much better today and some local treatments (e.g., specific radiation), too. But for the most part, when a patient has metastatic cancer today, the likelihood of living 10 more years is virtually unchanged from 40 years ago.
About a year ago, I was asked to give a talk about metabolic disease to a group of physicians. But before I spoke, a very astute and soft-spoken oncologist, Dr. Gary Abrass, gave the following introduction as a way to frame the context of my talk. After all, I’m sure many in the audience were wondering what could a discussion of insulin resistance have to do with cancer. I have thought often of his words that night in the many months since he so eloquently and informally introduced me.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dr. Peter Attia', 'A') couple of weeks ago Tim Ferriss and I were having dinner and the topic of cancer came up. As some of you may know my background is in oncology, specifically in exploring immune-based therapies for cancer by exploiting the properties of regulator T-cells. But that was a long time ago. Like many of you, I expect, I’ve also been personally impacted by cancer having lost a friend to glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). I often describe GBM to people as one of the cancers that gives cancer a bad name. When I went to medical school I planned on becoming a pediatric oncologist, and though I ultimately chose to pursue surgical oncology, my interest in helping people with cancer never wavered.
Over dinner that night, Tim asked me if I could write – in about 1,000 words! – a post on cancer that would be interesting and digestible to a broad audience. “1,000 words?!,” I asked. “How about 30,000 words?,” I responded only half kidding. After explaining why I couldn’t possibly write such an abridged version, Tim talked me into it. And so, I plan to accept the challenge and hope to provide readers with such a post (it will be on Tim’s blog when I do so), hopefully in the next month or two.
For an introduction, however, I’d like take a step back and place this topic in a broader context. I don’t need to say much about cancer that you don’t already know. You probably know that about one in three Americans will develop cancer in their lifetime, and you probably know that about half of them will succumb to the disease. What you may not know, however, is that we have made virtually no progress in extending survival for patients with metastatic solid organ tumors since the “War on Cancer” was declared over 40 years ago. In other words, when a solid organ tumor (e.g., breast, colon, pancreatic) spreads to distant sites, the likelihood of surviving today is about what it was 40 years ago with rare exceptions. We may extend survival by a few months, but not long-term (i.e., overall) survival.
We screen better today for sure, but subtracting lead-time bias, it’s not clear this extends overall survival. We’ve had success in treating and even curing hematologic cancers (e.g., some forms of leukemia and lymphoma). Certainly testicular cancer patients (especially seminomatous) are better off today and those with GI stromal tumors (GIST), too. Surgical control of cancer is much better today and some local treatments (e.g., specific radiation), too. But for the most part, when a patient has metastatic cancer today, the likelihood of living 10 more years is virtually unchanged from 40 years ago.
About a year ago, I was asked to give a talk about metabolic disease to a group of physicians. But before I spoke, a very astute and soft-spoken oncologist, Dr. Gary Abrass, gave the following introduction as a way to frame the context of my talk. After all, I’m sure many in the audience were wondering what could a discussion of insulin resistance have to do with cancer. I have thought often of his words that night in the many months since he so eloquently and informally introduced me.
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/war-cancer
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
- Tanada
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17094
- Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Re: cancer pandemic and fraud
by dissident » Sat 06 Aug 2016, 16:16:32
Great post, Tanada. So many technotopians and their delusions about easy progress in science and medicine. The people who actually work in these fields don't have such delusions.
The obesity link is clearly a case of correlation is not causation. Something associated with obesity and the general metabological syndrome (heart disease, Type II diabetes, and even Alzheimer's which is a Type III diabetes) is linked to cancer. Instead of telling people to go on a low fat diet, the medical community should establish causal mechanisms. It will likely help to fight cancer.
http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/c ... /1/R1.full
Well, what do you know...insulin resistance is linked to cancer. Of course the medical community still does not understand the mechanisms so we will have all sorts of voodoo peddled for a while longer.
The obesity link is clearly a case of correlation is not causation. Something associated with obesity and the general metabological syndrome (heart disease, Type II diabetes, and even Alzheimer's which is a Type III diabetes) is linked to cancer. Instead of telling people to go on a low fat diet, the medical community should establish causal mechanisms. It will likely help to fight cancer.
http://erc.endocrinology-journals.org/c ... /1/R1.full
Well, what do you know...insulin resistance is linked to cancer. Of course the medical community still does not understand the mechanisms so we will have all sorts of voodoo peddled for a while longer.
- dissident
- Expert
- Posts: 6458
- Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Re: cancer pandemic and fraud
by jesus_of_suburbia » Wed 10 Aug 2016, 21:04:11
More like old news. Not that it will matter to dissident.
Pancreatic cancer cells find unique fuel sources to keep from starving
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he current study is the first to reveal that pancreatic cancer cells send signals to stellate cells (a type of cell in the pancreatic environment that can secrete substances that provide structural support), causing them to break down their own cell parts into various building blocks, including the amino acid alanine. Cancer cells then take up the alanine into their cell powerhouses, called mitochondria, and use it as a fuel source in place of glucose.
Pancreatic cancer cells find unique fuel sources to keep from starving
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he current study is the first to reveal that pancreatic cancer cells send signals to stellate cells (a type of cell in the pancreatic environment that can secrete substances that provide structural support), causing them to break down their own cell parts into various building blocks, including the amino acid alanine. Cancer cells then take up the alanine into their cell powerhouses, called mitochondria, and use it as a fuel source in place of glucose.
Scientists Breakthrough to Better Understanding of Fatal Brain Tumor Growth
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')r. Elizabeth Stoll from Newcastle University’s Institute of Neuroscience is the lead author of the study. She says patients with malignant glioma currently receive a poor prognosis, and new interventions are desperately needed to increase the survival and quality of life for patients with the condition. Their results provide new insight into the fundamental biochemistry of cancer cells, with exciting implications for patients in the future. Most cells within the adult brain require sugars to produce energy and sustain function. Interestingly, they have discovered that malignant glioma cells have a completely different metabolic strategy as they actually prefer to break down fats to make energy. These findings provide a new understanding of brain tumor biology, and a new potential drug target for fighting this type of cancer.
- jesus_of_suburbia
- Peat
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Fri 30 Sep 2011, 01:14:00
