Will we ever beat cancer?

[whynot]

Just for context, I have lost a brother to cancer at a young age (45). Two of my work colleagues who sat beside me in tech college have also died from cancer. My GP has terminal cancer ... and the list goes on.

I have two mechanical heart valves due to a congenital defect. I should be dead by now, but thanks to the wonders of modern technology, I am alive and kicking. If I had lived 40 years earlier and being unable to access mechanical heart valves, my cause of death would have been marked down as heart failure.

Five years ago, I had polyps removed during a routine colonoscopy. Polyps are a lead indicator to bowl cancer. A month ago, I had more polyps removed. Doctor said come back in five years.

If we play the "what if" game, and I didn't have the polyps removed, there is a reasonable chance these would now be early stages of cancer. Still playing the what if game and assuming I did nothing, it is reasonable to expect I would die of bowl cancer in my 70's, and be written down in the statistics as such.

Because of the progress of medical technology, I hope to avoid that fate.

But, death comes to us all at some point. As we progress medical technology and increase life expectancy, something else pops up. Be that another form of cancer, strokes, dementia, and so forth.

There is some really interesting reading and data in the GRIM books. For example, the rise (from the 1950's) and fall (starting in the 1980's) of deaths due to lung cancer. Or dramatic decline in death due to strokes. It really highlights the improvements in medical technology.

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/life...ity-grim-books

I don't think we will ever beat cancer. In just the same way that we will never beat death. But, it is impressive how technology is able to delay cancer. Sometimes for months, sometime for years, and sometimes for decades.

[FTE217]

Yes - I'm very much in the prevention is better than cure type.
Check up check ups check ups.
Once your nearing 50 get onto it - for some even earlier depending family histories.
Good ol Bowl Cancer took my grandfather back int he '60's, he never had a hope now that I understand it better as maturing, I was a young fella when he passed.

The ol man pushed us regards colonoscopies and have had 4 odd since and all a ok, my brother the first check had alot of polyps and was advised, your a lucky man.
I keep having blood tests due to the ol man suffering hi cholesterol - I'm keeping it under control thankfully for he's on lipitor.
I admit I won't be ahead of everything but have some peace of mind at this stage.
The other thing is keeping active/busy/stretching the body.
Keep positive and healthy all if possible, the big C is a monster or sleeping giant for some.

[mick taylor]

No way, everyone has cancer in fact and the body's immune system keeps it under control.
You get old you die, it's the same thing the body is running down from the age of 36yo regardless.
It's like saying can I ever stop rust in a car or the interior just like new.

One could do things to prevent such as cancer.
Prevention is better than the cure.
But a mate of mine whole family died young of Cancer him at 29yo and one sister at 19yo

[Citroënbender]

Bit of levity here, a friend’s mother has just been under the knife for urgent attention to bowel cancer. Apparently she is slowly mending, and the balance of her insides are working as hoped. In his words “I never thought we’d celebrate a turd as a family, but last night we did”.

[Citroënbender]

Had a good chat with my mate this morning, we’ll catch up in person next week.

Chemo is finished for now, and he’s been told the early indications are, his tumours are in remission. At this point, no radiotherapy but remaining on hormonal treatments to suppress prostate activity. More tests next week, then subject to outcome - three monthly monitoring.

It was good to hear him actively talking about the future - not long term, but feasible stuff for the next twelve months. All the issues around his father dying overseas last week from CV, he’s put in an “I’ll deal with that later” mental box. So we’ll probably work through some of that in due course. Looking forward also, to bartering work on some of the home and DIY projects we both have been nursing - while his immunity was smashed there was no sense in risking it.

[Syndrome]

COVID-19 has cured cancer. You have cancer and also COVID-19? Reason for your death will be COVID-19.

/end sarc

[mondeomatureguy]

My late mum who was also a nurse said "she hoped when we grew up as there are six of us in the family that they would have found a cure for Cancer by then".

She died of cancer in 1999 and My sister in law who was only 33 at the time died in 1984. After my sister in law found out she had cancer six weeks later she was dead.

I think lifestyle plays a part in it I was born 3 month premature and because of that my lungs were very weak and I spent 89 days in a specialist hospital for premature baby's till I was well enough to go home.

I never started smoking and I didn't drink much anyway and keep fit by taking the dog for a walk every morning about 2ks.
I have had the checks and the blood tests and all is good. I remember years ago there was an ad on TV and a young boy with his mum is in the Doctors office and the Doctor says "his got cancer its ok I well give him some tablets and he will be fine in a few weeks Now back to the real world" that's when the ad finished.
"If it was only that simple"

[black13]

Back in 2012 i lost a kidney due to renal cancer. After that had all the usual bi annual scans / blood tests, everything great............until now. 2 months ago i started to get pain in my left hip, started having to lift my leg to use the clutch in the work truck. The pain progressivly got worse. seen my local gp, had xrays & ultrasound, the diagnosis was bursitis.Pain meds prescribed but did nothing so sent to physio .At that point it snowballed. 5 weeks ago i had my left femur replaced due to a tumor in the joint, it fractured my femur, now having radiation therapy to get any rogue cells they couldn't see. Today i seen an oncologist & was told i have to have treatment for other crap in my body. I thuoght i had the big C beat after 8 years, now i have a big battle. Life can be hard, i have a 5 year old boy, i just hope that whatever treatment is done gives me a few more years . i remain positive & focus on quality time with my family. Life can be hard & i feel for anyone who suffers from this disease.....cheers

[Syndrome]

It has been one year since my father was diagnosed with bladder cancer. So far so good. He is still with us and no chemotherapy required.

[mondeomatureguy]

My oldest brother has Bladder Cancer got it 12 years ago and his still on this earth.
So tell your "dad what ever his doing keep doing it and there's always hope!

cheers

[Syndrome]

Originally Posted by mondeomatureguy

My oldest brother has Bladder Cancer got it 12 years ago and his still on this earth.
So tell your "dad what ever his doing keep doing it and there's always hope!

cheers

Was he a smoker?

[mondeomatureguy]

yes mate he was a smoker!

[.:4:.]

My ex brother in law has had a rough trot in life, never overweight, but before he was 10 years old got really sick, nearly died. Yep, the diabetes you arent born with (cant remember which type that is). So he is in his 40s, never drank, never smoked, never been overweight and in general been quite healthy. He wasnt feeling well, seen docs over and over. Turns out it was agressive bowel cancer. He has since had half his bowel removed. Its always going to have to be monitored, cancer isnt a here today gone tomorrow thing. Yes lifestyle choices can elevate risk greatly, but it can still get to some of those deemed low risk.

[Syndrome]

Originally Posted by mondeomatureguy

yes mate he was a smoker!

So was my father. One year since he last smoked.

Cancer is rotten but even if we manage to find a universal cure for all types of cancer, something else will crop up next.

Docs and scientists acknowledge genetic predisposition towards certain cancers and health problems, and modern medicine has resulted in the ability for us to survive a lot of those conditions, keeping us alive to pass those genes along to the next generation for further proliferation.

IMPO it's going to forever be a game of cat and mouse. New health problems will crop up... scientists will eventually find cures or treatments... and new health problems will crop up.

It's not a nice topic I know, but shouldn't we as a species have a responsibility to not perpetuate genetic conditions that result in suffering? I'm not saying people shouldn't be treated... but why have kids and pass the genes on?

[jstanovic]

Originally Posted by leesa

Cancer is rotten but even if we manage to find a universal cure for all types of cancer, something else will crop up next.

Docs and scientists acknowledge genetic predisposition towards certain cancers and health problems, and modern medicine has resulted in the ability for us to survive a lot of those conditions, keeping us alive to pass those genes along to the next generation for further proliferation.

IMPO it's going to forever be a game of cat and mouse. New health problems will crop up... scientists will eventually find cures or treatments... and new health problems will crop up.

It's not a nice topic I know, but shouldn't we as a species have a responsibility to not perpetuate genetic conditions that result in suffering? I'm not saying people shouldn't be treated... but why have kids and pass the genes on?

In theory with zero empathy/compassion that logic would work. But as humans with families it will never happen like that.

Originally Posted by jstanovic

In theory with zero empathy/compassion that logic would work. But as humans with families it will never happen like that.

If we're to survive as a species it's something we're going to have to talk about though.

Do you think our numbers and growth are sustainable? Some groups have already made estimates on the total population the earth can handle in terms of resources and at what point the population growth will 'stabilise'. That's partly by deaths. Our numbers are expected to stabilise because fertility is expected to drop and premature deaths are expected to rise.

Isn't it more empathetic to prevent births instead of large numbers of people having to experience premature deaths? Is that what you think is compassionate?
That's more cancers.. environmental and genetic, more antibiotic resistance, more novel viruses, more malnutrition, disease and other genetic conditions like huntingtons or cystic fibrosis.

It's a shame. There are other ways to lead a fulfilling life than just having kids. If we still had a sense of community then a lot of people would probably find enjoyment in being involved in other people's kids' lives but instead we're told that having your own family is the main goal in life.

That's probably heading into off-topic territory. And before anyone compares me to hitler, no i am not into eugenics, superior/inferior people and improving the line.

[Syndrome]

I see a couple of previous posters have broached a sensitive topic which has crossed my mind on more than one occasion. We all want to live. We all deserve to live. So whether people should be saved is not even a question. However, by saving people are we weakening the gene pool by allowing 'weaker' members of our species to reproduce and thus spread 'weaker' genes?

A dangerous topic.

[jstanovic]

No mention of kids, how many of us here have a mum/brother/auntie with cancer? A lot of people get cancer later in life (post kids etc) so not sure “saving” them or not will affect the next generation.

The issue is just because you have genes that are associated with cancer doesn’t mean you will get it. Then consider all the derro thieving pieces of **** out there that are 100% healthy with perfect genes, don’t really want them reproducing!!!

Originally Posted by jstanovic

No mention of kids, how many of us here have a mum/brother/auntie with cancer? A lot of people get cancer later in life (post kids etc) so not sure “saving” them or not will affect the next generation.

I read something somewhere.. can't for the life of me remember where.. but it said that we would have already overcome a lot of cancers in our evolution because historically people unfortunately died from it before they reached adulthood and started their own family. Kids who were born with genetic mutations more susceptible did not survive long enough to grow up and have kids of their own, so the mutation died along with them.

So the theory was that as a species we will probably not evolve any 'immunity' from the cancers we have today that develop mostly later in life, because we stay alive long enough to have kids. As it doesn't develop until later in life, it's not influenced by our evolution at all so unless we intervene either through finding a cure or other, we will probably never see reductions in incidents of cancer.

That's paraphrasing as I can't remember exactly what it said but it was a pretty depressing read.

The issue is just because you have genes that are associated with cancer doesn’t mean you will get it. Then consider all the derro thieving pieces of **** out there that are 100% healthy with perfect genes, don’t really want them reproducing!!!

Would they still be derro thieving pieces of **** if they had access to resources like everyone else? If they had the opportunity for an education? A job to develop skills and make money of their own? Are derro thieves born or made? I think they're made.. and if everyone had access to the basic necessities in life perhaps they wouldn't be much of an issue.

[jstanovic]

Originally Posted by leesa

So the theory was that as a species we will probably not evolve any 'immunity' from the cancers we have today that develop mostly later in life, because we stay alive long enough to have kids. As it doesn't develop until later in life, it's not influenced by our evolution at all so unless we intervene either through finding a cure or other, we will probably never see reductions in incidents of cancer.

I agree, we are an extremely long way away from determining which genes are cancer causing enough to allow/disallow reproduction.

Would they still be derro thieving pieces of **** if they had access to resources like everyone else? If they had the opportunity for an education? A job to develop skills and make money of their own? Are derro thieves born or made? I think they're made.. and if everyone had access to the basic necessities in life perhaps they wouldn't be much of an issue.

There is merit in that if there are genes that create geniuses, there are genes that create derros. Just like people that cheat on their partners, sometimes it's just in their nature, outside influence can only help so far.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by leesa

Cancer is rotten but even if we manage to find a universal cure for all types of cancer, something else will crop up next.

Docs and scientists acknowledge genetic predisposition towards certain cancers and health problems, and modern medicine has resulted in the ability for us to survive a lot of those conditions, keeping us alive to pass those genes along to the next generation for further proliferation.

IMPO it's going to forever be a game of cat and mouse. New health problems will crop up... scientists will eventually find cures or treatments... and new health problems will crop up.

It's not a nice topic I know, but shouldn't we as a species have a responsibility to not perpetuate genetic conditions that result in suffering? I'm not saying people shouldn't be treated... but why have kids and pass the genes on?

Not sure where you're coming from here as only about 5-10 percent are inherited genes.

None of my parents or Grandparents ever had cancer. My Dad died of a Heart attack in his early 60's and Mum died when she was 92.

Originally Posted by GasoLane

Not sure where you're coming from here as only about 5-10 percent are inherited genes.

That's today. Now that we're curing/treating conditions that were previously fatal, where are we going to be in 200-300 years when those cured people go off and start families? We're going to be in a place where genetic factors account for more than 5-10% of cases.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by leesa

That's today. Now that we're curing/treating conditions that were previously fatal, where are we going to be in 200-300 years when those cured people go off and start families? We're going to be in a place where genetic factors account for more than 5-10% of cases.

............................Speechless

Originally Posted by GasoLane

............................Speechless

Yes I know.. it's not nice... where's the compassion... how dare anyone suggest anything about someone's god-given right to have babies... etc etc.
Try and move past the outrage. What other species on earth is left completely unchecked in terms of reproduction and no natural predators?

Overpopulation is a problem and if we don't keep our own numbers in check then mother nature is eventually going to intervene and do it for us.
Here's something you may find interesting:

Avastin was this anti-angiogenesis drug, meant to starve a tumor by cutting off its blood supply. That drug has failed miserably. These cells simply evolved the ability to survive on less blood. They actually ended up more dangerous than if they hadn’t given any drug at all. So, by starving them, we actually created an absolute monster.

https://scicom.ucsc.edu/publications...13/austin.html

Cancer is going to evolve around anything we can throw at it. We'll find a cure, and then we'll end up with a different kind of cancer, and then we'll aim to find a cure.. lather rinse repeat.
Given that we're also experiencing overpopulation... as per the 11'000 scientists who signed that climate change document and suggested we reduce our numbers, all I am saying is why not start with genetic conditions that lead to premature death?

Of course people should be treated, noone should have to die... but tbh their children shouldn't have to die either.
Isn't it a kindness to not have a baby when you know the odds of it having a serious health issue is high?

Population

Still increasing by roughly 80 million people per year, or more than 200,000 per day (figure 1a–b), the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity. There are proven and effective policies that strengthen human rights while lowering fertility rates and lessening the impacts of population growth on GHG emissions and biodiversity loss. These policies make family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women (Bongaarts and O’Neill 2018)

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/...70/1/8/5610806

[Citroënbender]

I agree that our "take" on First World life overall, is a bit inconsistent, and wrought with liabilities.

However, returning to the core topic, surely the best we can do at the present is try to make hay from the manner cases are handled starting with diagnosis/prevention through treatments and palliative care? My mate who has been through the wringer recently, has nil close family history of serious cancer, and has lived a healthy life for the last 25-odd years. So you'd hope a subject like he, would offer research more insight, once the data is crunched and filtered.

Maybe another medium term goal would be in-utero genetic tweaking for minimising known risks in any given case? I say that with quite some reservation, because I think the more we "medicalise" pregnancy, the more we stray from savouring one of the greatest manifestations of the human condition - creating life.

[Crazy Dazz]

The Medical Profession, The Government, and Big Pharma, all need to be pushed to change the way we treat Cancer, and develop said treatments.

There's a fundamental problem with the whole Oncology Industry, and it really is quite unique.
Even if you are a garbo, you collect the garbage and take it to the tip. You do your job, you succeed.
But Oncology is built on failure. Your patients mostly die, and often suffer horribly along the way. So being an ******** who doesn't care about his patients, is not just an advantage, it's almost mandatory. It also builds an institutional attitude of "meh, lets just follow protocol, when we can, because it doesn't really matter, you're going to die anyway."

I lost both my parents to Cancer. Because my dad was a Vet they received better than average care, and it was still terrible. Literally treated like cattle on the way to the abattoir.

My Dad had one of those "Cast-Iron" constitutions, very rarely got sick, and had great heart and lungs until the Chemo got him.

When he was first diagnosed, they sent him for surgery and chopped out part of his guts and liver. When he asked if they had gotten all the tumour, the doc said "no, but they knew they wouldn't before they started." So he asked what was the point, and was told "now they could have a really good look at it." (Better than the biopsies??)

He was placed on Chemo, and went through the full course. He was much weakened by the chemo, but it did nothing to the cancer. "Oh yes said the doctor, that stuff only works about half the time" (even on dad specific type of cancer)

So they started him on a second type of treatment. After about two treatments he collapsed with a heart-attack and was rushed to hospital. "Oh yes said the doc, that one causes irreparable heart-damage in most patients, we'll try something else"

So he started on his 3rd lot of Chemo. This mostly worked, and shrunk the tumours substantially, back to almost nothing.
After a year or two the tumours were growing back, so they gave him another course of the same stuff. It did nothing.
"Oh yes says the doc, that usually happens, anything that grows back is resistant"

That's when they finally revealed that because of the specific type of "cancer" Dad had, there is actually a "wonder drug" available that kicks the **** of only those type of cells and leaves the rest of the body alone. It cost $20k a pop, but the govt was paying. The problem was that by this point Dad was knackered. His heart was stuffed, his lungs had turned to soup, he could nolonger eat solid food, and his bones had dissolved leaving him crippled and in agony. Because this new treatment also damaged his immune system, they had to be extremely careful.

Even so, the doctor now told Dad that he could keep him alive indefinitely. Which he would have done, except he was knackered and his heart gave out.

Mum had cancer lodge and grow in a lymph node. They removed it, examined it, and proclaimed that she had breast cancer and needed a double mastectomy. However xrays, mammograms, nd an MRI failed to find any cancer in her breasts.

Later, after some discomfort, hey discovered she had bowel cancer. So surgeons removed basically her entire lower GI tract. She spent her last few weeks on earth in agony, unable to consume food, and with diarrhoea constantly pouring out beyond her control.

[falcon_bandit]

Terrible stuff crazy dazz.

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

The Medical Profession, The Government, and Big Pharma, all need to be pushed to change the way we treat Cancer, and develop said treatments.

There's a fundamental problem with the whole Oncology Industry, and it really is quite unique.
Even if you are a garbo, you collect the garbage and take it to the tip. You do your job, you succeed.
But Oncology is built on failure. Your patients mostly die, and often suffer horribly along the way. So being an ******** who doesn't care about his patients, is not just an advantage, it's almost mandatory. It also builds an institutional attitude of "meh, lets just follow protocol, when we can, because it doesn't really matter, you're going to die anyway."

I lost both my parents to Cancer. Because my dad was a Vet they received better than average care, and it was still terrible. Literally treated like cattle on the way to the abattoir.

My Dad had one of those "Cast-Iron" constitutions, very rarely got sick, and had great heart and lungs until the Chemo got him.

When he was first diagnosed, they sent him for surgery and chopped out part of his guts and liver. When he asked if they had gotten all the tumour, the doc said "no, but they knew they wouldn't before they started." So he asked what was the point, and was told "now they could have a really good look at it." (Better than the biopsies??)

He was placed on Chemo, and went through the full course. He was much weakened by the chemo, but it did nothing to the cancer. "Oh yes said the doctor, that stuff only works about half the time" (even on dad specific type of cancer)

So they started him on a second type of treatment. After about two treatments he collapsed with a heart-attack and was rushed to hospital. "Oh yes said the doc, that one causes irreparable heart-damage in most patients, we'll try something else"

So he started on his 3rd lot of Chemo. This mostly worked, and shrunk the tumours substantially, back to almost nothing.
After a year or two the tumours were growing back, so they gave him another course of the same stuff. It did nothing.
"Oh yes says the doc, that usually happens, anything that grows back is resistant"

That's when they finally revealed that because of the specific type of "cancer" Dad had, there is actually a "wonder drug" available that kicks the **** of only those type of cells and leaves the rest of the body alone. It cost $20k a pop, but the govt was paying. The problem was that by this point Dad was knackered. His heart was stuffed, his lungs had turned to soup, he could nolonger eat solid food, and his bones had dissolved leaving him crippled and in agony. Because this new treatment also damaged his immune system, they had to be extremely careful.

Even so, the doctor now told Dad that he could keep him alive indefinitely. Which he would have done, except he was knackered and his heart gave out.

Mum had cancer lodge and grow in a lymph node. They removed it, examined it, and proclaimed that she had breast cancer and needed a double mastectomy. However xrays, mammograms, nd an MRI failed to find any cancer in her breasts.

Later, after some discomfort, hey discovered she had bowel cancer. So surgeons removed basically her entire lower GI tract. She spent her last few weeks on earth in agony, unable to consume food, and with diarrhoea constantly pouring out beyond her control.

So sorry your parents had to go through this horrible experience Dazz. No body on earth should ever go through this terrible way of treatment. Unfortunately, people's sicknesses are a form of income. They will always squeeze every cent out of you or the government who is paying your medical bills for procedures even if there is little to no hope or long term survival. Its the pharmaceutical status quo. My dad went through it and so did a family friend. Ultimately believing what ever the doctors tell them is the right thing to do, only to still end up dying weeks/months later. And the living have to cope with the loss of a loved one.

Don't get me wrong, I think Surgeons in a life saving situation are amazing. Helping with massive blood loss due to injury for example. But for on going disease, sorry, by my skepticism radar is off the charts in that regard. I know this first hand with my personal disease issues. They weren't interested in looking at alternative treatments, alternative above board medicines or anything that wasn't a practice for decades. They are taught to prescribe one type of medicine in different names but only that type. Anything else is laughed at, labeled as not worth looking into, or your conversation gets cut short because you are questioning what they put in your body.

Hospitals are businesses after all and if it means you are booked into another procedure, appointment or surgery, you better do it now without question because the doctor said so, what they say is fact, they conduct themselves so professionally and there is no one higher to question otherwise. /end sarcasm

[Syndrome]

Originally Posted by Syndrome

I hope so. My father told me last Wednesday he has cancer.........................

Yesterday was one year since my father had the TURBT procedure. One tumour on the inside of the bladder and deemed not aggressive. Still here with us and so far no re-occurence. Not everybody is that lucky.