Let’s think about this for a minute. If you listen to the medical establishment or big pharma, they would have you believe that drugs, radiation or surgery are the only viable alternatives for cancer treatment. But does this make sense?
From my experience and research, I have found that it is a well-known fact that the most complex molecules found in nature come from plants, not from synthetic chemicals manufactured by man. continue reading…
We always hear about the benefits and wonderful reasons why chemotherapy is alleged to be among the best treatments for cancer. Even if we assume that this is true, what price do patients have to pay for a cure for cancer? I think that this is a legitimate question.
Patients have been claiming that they have experienced reduced mental functioning after chemotherapy. Not, it appears that scientists have finally determined conclusively that chemotherapy can cause brain damage, even though they don’t call it this in the articles. But if you look at the symptoms, it can’t be anything besides brain damage. continue reading…
I don’t mean to sound crass, but after all of the hype about conventional cancer treatment therapies, why are people still dying of cancer? Granted, the “5 year survival rate” for pancreatic cancer is probably the lowest of all cancers, but why is that? I just don’t see any progress being made there. But the most perplexing thing is that they continue to use the same old, tired treatment methods: surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.
What is the problem? From what I can see, trying anything else would probably be an improvement. He was only 57 years old. That is not very old. I thought that medicine was all about curing the patient. But then again, that obviously isn’t the case. These treatment methods have been virtually the same for over 50 YEARS! Does it really make any sense to stay with the same strategies that haven’t worked for all this time? continue reading…
I found an article that describes a medical student who is suffering from brain cancer. It is a sad article, but it caught my attention. This medical student is 24 years old, and is searching for a cure for his cancer. He is being treated with conventional medical techniques. He is receiving radiation, chemotherapy and surgery to treat his brain cancer.
The laboratory in which he works is located at Northwestern University. His lead researcher, Dr. Markus Bredel’, stated that brain cancer is a genetic disease. This statement did not make sense to me. In a normal gene, the DNA is designed to produce the RNA that is used to produce the enzymes and proteins that are necessary for normal bodily function. How is brain cancer a part of a normal human genome? Or does he mean that DNA damage is responsible for brain cancer? There are a multitude of chemicals that are released by modern industry that can cause damage to DNA, so this may be possible. In short, I didn’t see any evidence that supported the idea that brain cancer is genetic other than the credential of this researcher who made the statement. I’m just not so sure about the truth of that. continue reading…
I found an article that referenced a study that claims to have found that “watchful waiting” may be appropriate for some men who have been diagnosed with prostate cancer. It was found that men who choose not to have treatment for prostate cancer have an average delay of treatment of 7.7 years with no increased level of mortality when compared to men who choose immediate treatment.
The routine treatment for prostate cancer is radiation and/or surgery. We discussed the dire side-effects of prostate cancer treatments previously, which include erectile dysfunction and incontinence. There is really no definitive proof that early treatment prolongs life. This makes it tough to justify early treatments. It should be an individual choice, as circumstances for each patient vary. But it seems to be a serious choice to make, considering that a man’s life and/or sex life may be at risk. The alternatives should be closely evaluated, and an informed choice can then be made. But it is crucial that all elements of the treatment options be considered along with the probable side-effects.
There appears to be a lot of controversy surrounding the issue of PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) testing and screening for men. Some experts think that it is a beneficial. Others claim that it is causing the treatment of too many men, some of which would not really benefit from it. This issue is very emotionally charged because of the side-effects that can be very detrimental to a man’s self-esteem and sex life.
Everyone recognizes that an earlier diagnosis of a malignant, aggressive cancer is good. The problem is that many prostate cancers are slow-growing or are not life-threatening. It is reported that as men age, many of them show evidence of growths in the prostate gland. continue reading…
It has been recently reported that survivors of childhood cancers may be at risk for higher levels of diabetes later in life. This is unfortunate.
A number of studies has suggested that radiation therapy used for cancer treatments can put patients at increased probability of experiencing diabetes and/or obesity subsequent to treatment. It was found that patients who were treated with total body irradiation, cranial irradiation or abdominal irradiation had up to a 90% greater probability of contracting diabetes. continue reading…
There are arguments on both sides of the issue. On the one hand, doctors recommend that early detection of tumors gives a better chance at survival. But others say that the mammogram is dosing the patient with radiation. It would appear that the scientific studies are inconclusive. In the final analysis, it is a personal, individual decision that each person has to make. But it should be an informed decision where the person has both sides of the story.
From the conventional perspective, it makes sense to get as early a diagnosis of breast cancer as possible. This gives the medical professionals more time to fight the cancer. It gives the patient advanced information that can enable her to take action against the cancer. continue reading…
This is an important question that deserves some consideration. As a concerned scientist, I thought that the Scientific Method would give scientists an unbiased attitude with respect to methods that should be tested and employed to treat cancer. Since cancer is such a devastating disease, the logical thing to do would be to test any and every method of treatment and any substance that would show any sort of promise in effecting a cure. This is what makes sense to me, and I’m sure that most people would agree with me. We should be desperately searching for anything that would be effective. continue reading…
The Cancer Treatment business is a very large business–one of the largest in the world. There are literally many hundreds of billions of dollars spent on cancer drug research. In fact, a lot of Big Pharma companies are beginning to devote more research efforts into cancer research. It is a very lucrative market. Cancer drugs are extremely expensive. The average cancer patient spends approximately $100,000 on cancer treatments. What is amazing to me is that the expenditure is very high, but the probability of success (i.e., a cure or long life with a high quality-of-life) is small, despite industry statistics.
Big Pharma is starting to show more interest in cancer drugs because the other markets are beginning to wane. Although there have been big successes with drugs in other market niches, the cancer niche is ripe for more profits. continue reading…