Do you think they're keeping a cure for cancer from us?

[VivaRevolution]

Those were very small trials and the highlights were around one or two miracle cases, with most cases unresponsive. The research is ongoing but they haven't had any kind of meaningful readout in the interim. That's sort of standard though, these studies take a very long time to set up, and you need to follow patients for long enough to get a line on various survival metrics (overall survival, invasive disease free surivival, progression free survival being common items on the Kaplan Meier). The fact that a single center study didn't readout in two years means little.

Meanwhile, you're seeing car-t therapies gaining traction with regulators, and everybody's trying to bring a checkpoint inhibitor to market. These are essentially tests of the same mechanism of action, without using live virus treatment.

VICE reported extremely high success rates. Do you have something more current that raises questions there?

Edit: I think I'm remembering you providing this to me before.

 

[drstrangelov]

VICE reported extremely high success rates. Do you have something more current that raises questions there?

I recall that Vice didn't report extremely high success rates, they reported a few cases of complete response, I could be remembering that incorrectly. Generally though, I'm not questioning whether this idea is sound, as I said there are multiple different approaches to better targeting this approach in development all over. The huge variation in disease response even in extremely tightly controlled populations reinforces how far away from a cure we still are, though.

Edit: forgot that the Vice documentary cover CAR-T therapy, I covered that in my last post. FDA panel recommended approval for Novartis's CAR-T treatment last week, there are a ton of others like it in various stages of development.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I recall that Vice didn't report extremely high success rates, they reported a few cases of complete response, I could be remembering that incorrectly. Generally though, I'm not questioning whether this idea is sound, as I said there are multiple different approaches to better targeting this approach in development all over. The huge variation in disease response even in extremely tightly controlled populations reinforces how far away from a cure we still are, though.

I think my biggest question comes from continuing the use of chemo and radiation, when we have other viable treatments that could be used now.

They may not be a 100% cure as they are now, but we 100% know for a fact that chemo and radiation therapy causes cancer.

 

[trident]

It's not the cure that's kept from us, it's the cause

 

[drstrangelov]

I think my biggest question comes from continuing the use of chemo and radiation, when we have other viable treatments that could be used now.

They may not be a 100% cure as they are now, but we 100% know for a fact that chemo and radiation therapy causes cancer.

This is a pretty common thought among oncologists too. Not so much stopping chemo/radiation (since these things are effective and are the only available treatments in some cases) but in identifying where the amount of treatment can be reduced as new treatments are identified. Typically you see combination therapies as new treatment mechanisms are added to existing therapy. This can be incredibly devastating to the patient, with uncertain added value over a more clearly thought out treatment plan. That was the centerpiece argument at the St Gallen breast oncology conference earlier this year.

I don't think anyone is ever going to suggest not using a potentially life saving therapy to fight the immediate disease out of fear of recurrence or new cancer 15 years in the future though. Those extra 15 years are valuable.

 

[VivaRevolution]

This is a pretty common thought among oncologists too. Not so much stopping chemo/radiation (since these things are effective and are the only available treatments in some cases) but in identifying where the amount of treatment can be reduced as new treatments are identified. Typically you see combination therapies as new treatment mechanisms are added to existing therapy. This can be incredibly devastating to the patient, with uncertain added value over a more clearly thought out treatment plan. That was the centerpiece argument at the St Gallen breast oncology conference earlier this year.

I don't think anyone is ever going to suggest not using a potentially life saving therapy to fight the immediate disease out of fear of recurrence or new cancer 15 years in the future though. Those extra 15 years are valuable.

Good post, I think I take issue with the last part though, as all arguments for a conservative approach to new cancer treatment seem to lose legitimacy in the face of a current treatment that is a known cancer causing treatment.

 

[RockstarChris]

It's the number 2 cause of death by far and cancer rates are rising as quick as ever.

i guess if they say so. like I said, I have only ever known 1 person that has ever had cancer

 

[mrbaapt]

I keep seeing people post about how there's too much money to be made from cancer that they are keeping the cure from going public. Do you believe this? There's been so much money and time poured into cancer research already.

And yet here's no promising cures for cancer anywhere in the near future. We've all been affected by it. Everyone has had someone go through cancer.

Cancer isn't a singular disease. It's a collection of diseases that are classified under one ambiguous umbrella. Finding a cure for all of them isn't possible.

 

[chardog]

nope..... there already is a way to get rid of cancer, and it's to cut it loose, so the medical world isnt all about profiting from a treatment.

If someone comes up with a cure, they'll present it, it's still a shitload of money even if treatments cost more.

 

[Sir Galahad]

I keep seeing people post about how there's too much money to be made from cancer that they are keeping the cure from going public. Do you believe this? There's been so much money and time poured into cancer research already.

And yet here's no promising cures for cancer anywhere in the near future. We've all been affected by it. Everyone has had someone go through cancer.

There's so much corruption in the pharmaceutical industries.

 

[Tamriel Terror]

People should be more concerned with preventing things like cancer/other diseases instead of just popping some more pills and looking for cures.

first of all, there is no "cancer."

each type of cancer is different in significant ways from most others. "they" who are working on cancer research, are at risk of getting cancer themselves, as are their loved ones. not likely that many people could keep such a secret, either. and who the F thinks that a cure for cancer wouldnt make F'ing bank for big pharma?

the real conspiracy imo, is why are we so culture obsessed with pills as cures rather than greens and kiwis as preventatives?

This.

Diet can play a major role in determining how healthy you are. I would love to see the disease rates and health issues if everyone in the country cut out majority of processed foods/drinks and had a diet primarily consisting of vegetables.

 

[xcvbn]

i guess if they say so. like I said, I have only ever known 1 person that has ever had cancer

I've known 4.

But the two of us is such an insignificant sample size that it doesn't mean shit. Look at the facts

 

[ineverpost]

There's no cure because there is no single cause. Cancer is caused by genetic and environmental factors, and factors we have no idea of. You're basing insinuating that every published scientific study is fake if you're saying it's a conspiracy.

 

[BearGrounds]