Sounds like you have some experience in this area. What cheaper alternatives are you familiar with?

Well, ray, if you get sick then just refuse treatment and die.

That'll show them. No goddamned big pharma or privately held company is going to soak you! You're an inspiration to us all.

WARNING: MAY CAUSE YOUR PENIS TO FALL OFF

Other common side effects include rectal bleeding, abdominal cramps, heebee jeebees, loss of hair, loss of memory, loss of gumption, lots of vomiting, loss of appetite, extreme hunger, cotton mouth, blood shot eyes, the willies, and piss shivers

Ray you disgusting piece of worthless obvious left wing pig excrement. IF you hate "big" corporations, go move to a company where the government owns everything under a dictatorship - like Venezuela or North Korea. Scum like you just LOVES "big" government I'm so sure. And like someone else said to you: go DIE - or wait for "big" government to come to your health rescue. IDIOT.

Ray, the Truth Hurts and you maybe Right !!!...pay No Hoots and Not Listen to toots;/ people like, -god..unfortunately he's Not of the Real World..however, I Love his remarkable Vision of the way it s/b.......hehehe

Don't hold back Jhawke. Tell us how you really feel.

Cancer is easy to cure if you are willing to change your lifestyle. The conventional medical treatment is what is harmful and results in death.

Get your body PH to 7.36 or above and cancer will die.

Doctors in the holistic medicine field have known this for years.

Flame away, but if you do some research you will find out that even in the AMA it states that cancer cannot survive in an alkaline body.

Funny, doctors don't tell you this stuff....

@Ray: Man, you're @!$%#ing stupid. Got no more to say about that.

@Patrick: You're just an idiot. If it were that simple, it would be used every day.

@Myself: Why the hell do I read these idiotic comments and post?

Jhawke, is obviously a far right wing-nut! Be prepared to cry for a long long time, because change is happening right before your eyes!! I think the majority is realizing the lack of ability the GOP has to come up with solutions that don't only benefit the top 3% and all the crooked wall street trash! I hope they choose that idiot Boehner to be GOP house leader out with one bafoon and in with another! What a laughing stock!! Lot's of sound bites with no substance-Where's the Beef!!!

Hi Patrick.

How does one get their PH level so high?

Better Google this PH stuff before you try it...there is a downside and it just ain't thast simple...Wanna buy some "snake oil" from a traveling salesman?

Cancer is produced by the body to save your life. It is produced to filter (if you look at cancer, it looks like a giant filter as well) the blood to help the body get rid of toxins. It is bound together with a fungus. When you change your body PH to 7.36 or above on the PH scale, alkaline, the fungus will die and the cancer is removed.

I forget the doctor who found this out, but he got the Nobel Prize for it. I can look it up if anyone cares for his name, but if you google it, you will find this isn't BS.

Your chances of getting cured are 2-3 percent if you seek help from the medical field. You have a 27 percent chance to have it just 'go away' after starting a healthier lifestyle and if you focus, research and eat the correct foods you can eliminate it. It's done all the time in the field of medicine that isn't under big pharacuticles clutches.

If you don't believe it, it's ok. I don't really care.

If you are interested, you can email me via newsvine and I will send you some links to get you started.

@Riverdog - Most people are acidic. In this environment your body is very accessible to diseases to include cancer. Your body PH is determined by what you eat and drink.

Coffee is VERY acidic to the body as well as MILK (pasteurized) and soda. Those are the 3 big drinks that are very bad. Water is best, but in moderation you can still have the vices listed above.

To get your body into the alkaline range, you eat leafy greens, raw foods, make sure you are taking calcium supplements and also magnesium (especially for men, it reduces blood pressure and studies show that it will reduce your chance of getting prostate cancer by 65-70 percent - most men are magnesium deficient and doctors don't check for this)

Anyway, take it or leave it. Holistic doctors and 'health food nuts' have been curing cancer for years with this method. There just isn't a profit in it so big drug companies either misinform people or just ignore it.

I won't even get into a discussion about what a scam cholesterol is..... that's another post.

Here, I looked it up for you guys.... again, believe it or not... it really doesn't matter to me.

Otto Warburg was awarded the Nobel prize for his discovery that cancer is caused by weakened cell respiration due to lack of oxygen at the cellular level. According to Warburg, damaged cell respiration causes fermentation, resulting in low pH (acidity) at the cellular level.
Dr. Warburg, in his Nobel Prize winning study, illustrated the environment of the cancer cell. A normal healthy cell undergoes an adverse change when it can no longer take in oxygen to convert glucose into energy. In the absence of oxygen, the cell reverts to a primal nutritional program to nourish itself by converting glucose through the process of fermentation. The lactic acid produced by fermentation lowers the cell pH (acid/alkaline balance) and destroys the ability of DNA and RNA to control cell division. The cancer cells then begin to multiply. The lactic acid simultaneously causes severe local pain as it destroys cell enzymes. Cancer appears as a rapidly growing external cell covering, with a core of dead cells.

Dr. Otto Warburg finished one of his most famous speeches with the following statement: “…nobody today can say that one does not know what cancer and its prime cause is. On the contrary, there is no disease whose prime cause is better known, so that today ignorance is no longer an excuse that one cannot do more about prevention.”[2]

Otto Warburg won the Nobel Prize for showing that cancer thrives in anaerobic (without oxygen), or acidic, conditions. In other words, the main cause for cancer is acidity of the human body.

Except from http://www.rawbc.org/articles/greensalkaline.html

I thank you so much for taking your time to pass this information to others. I have a sister in stage 4 cancer. This is worth a try we have nothing to loose buty her. God Bless you.

As for the other idiots comments. Well, I just can't even comment as to how stupid and close minded they are. What wonderful lives they must live.

Everyone's blood is normally between a pH of 7.35 and 7.45. If it is below 7.35 or above 7.45 you are not well. Patrick needs to be better informed. If getting your pH higher were beneficial, you could just go on a strict baking soda diet, but it would not cure your cancer.

As for drug development, it's like everything else in life. Do you really think someone is going to put in all the time and effort to develop anything without being compensated? Altruism rarely exists and usually only at minor expense to the benefactor. These drug companies probably go through hundreds of drugs before they find one that works. You get what you pay for. Want cheap cancer treatment? Take 2 aspirin and call your doctor in the morning.

hey lefties and righties... most medical research in this country is funded by a combination of public (government) and private money. It's government and industry working together, which is how we get the most bang for the buck. Extremists on either side are just bloviating.

Funny, I never said blood. PH test are with saliva and urine.

You know what happens when one assumes, don't you Jack.....

But hey, what does that doctor know anyway, he just won the Nobel prize for his research, I am sure you are far more qualified to comment jack. Please list your credentials so we can see how many Nobel prizes you won.

What you referenced mentions cellular pH, which is measured by blood pH. Saliva's pH changes with how much you salivate. Urine's pH changes to regulate your blood pH. When cells die they break down and a lot of the proteins in them become acid, as in the fermentation mentioned in the reference. Where did you go to medical school? It does not take and expert to misquote a paper by a Nobel laureate and it does not take a Nobel laureate to recognize BS.

Lactic acidosis is deadly and it is measured by blood tests including blood pH and blood lactate levels. Look it up. You didn't say blood pH but the doctor did in the paper since he referred to pH at the cellular level. Saliva and urine do not directly measure cell pH, but the blood, which contains cells is about as close as you can get.

Oh, and Patrick, I refer you to D in CT's comment. Nothing needs to be assumed to make an.... , you know what happens, don't you Patty? There's nothing "funny" about your selling snake oil and there is nothing easy or funny about cures for cancer, unfortunately.

Anyone who wants to read more about Dr. Warburg should go to Wikipedia, just google Otto Warburg. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1931. He was a pioneer and did some amazing things, but a lot has been learned about cancer since then. He was a brilliant man, as were many others whose research has led to advances in the treatment of cancer but if we had stopped researching in 1931 I suspect a lot of these researchers we revere would be very disappointed.

The problem is that this, like so many other drugs currently being foisted on terminal cancer patients, is that its effect is only fleeting. It prolongs the life of terminal patients by less than six months, while transferring much of their remaining money to the for-profit medical industry.

Medicare or Medicaid will not pay for this drug because it is not a cure, it does not significantly improve quality of life over a sufficient period, and it is extremely expensive. This is not rationing, but rather common sense. If you have a limited amount of money to spend, it should be spent in the ways that actually benefit people significantly.

For-profit insurance companies are not going to pay for it for the same reasons plus this is the type of drug that they hate the worst --- not only does not not cure the cancer, and is very expensive, it actually prolongs the person's life by a little less than six months during the most expensive phase of their end-of-life. Every dime that is spent on this sort of drug comes directly out of their profits.

But these sorts of drugs and therapies are relentlessly pressed on families of terminal cancer patients by the drug companies, physicians and hospitals, all of whom profit greatly from this sort of expensive therapy. They tell families that unless they give these drugs to their loved ones, that they are not "doing everything in their power" to help the person and are, therefore, not good people.

This whole mess started around 1962 when the "war on cancer" pumped billions of dollars into research. Prior to the WOC, most researchers were non-physicians and virtually all research was showing that cancer was an organizational disease. When all this money started coming in, physicians (with no education, training or skills in research) began to dominate and completely shifted ALL research away from the organizational model to a cellular model. (Cancer has been compared to a traffic jam. The organizational approach would blame it on traffic volumes, the carrying capacity of streets, stop light timing and speeds. The cellular approach would blame it on individual cars.) While research is slowly shifting back toward the organizational approach from the cellular approach, it is a very slow process.

One thing that can be done to correct this situation is for the public to recognize that the initial development of these drugs is completely paid for by the taxpayer through the federal research grant mechanism. The taxpayer has a right to recover their tax money (so it can be reinvested in further research) before the first dime of profit is taken by the for-profit medical industry. This is something that the public should be demanding because it would have the dual effect of recovering taxpayer dollars and reinvesting those dollars in new research instead of converting those tax dollars into profits for an industry that already soaks up 1/6th of the entire economy.

Chris, Medicare does pay for palliative care, including chemotherapy. It is often not more than enough to cover the actual costs, but they do pay.

If it is not rationing who gets to pick who gets treated? Who decides at what point a person should not receive some form of treatment? If you had a chance to live 6 more months would you want to take a chance? The part about common sense, if it is your insurance policy or a government insurance plan you paid into should you have no say in whether or not you were treated? After all, it is your taxes that are being spent, but it is also the taxes of the person who is sick that are being sick. What about severely mentally compromised children born with so much brain damage that they are never able to take care of themselves? Should we all get to decide whether to let them die or euthanize them rather than continue to feed them and bathe them? Where would you draw the line? Would you draw it at a different point for your own family and friends than for strangers? Didn't Germany under the 3rd Reich try this already? (I think it failed.) I know! Let's line up all the minorities and experiment on them first- No, wait! That was tried in 1939 - 1945 too. I think it got voted down by the 101st Airborne, the Big Red One and Georgie Patton among others.

As far as the public paying for all of the research with their taxes, that's odd, I thought a lot of the research came from charities like the American Cancer Society, the Jimmy Fund in Boston, and from some of these billionaires who are giving back to society.

I have not heard of one case of a cancer patient being held down and forcibly being given treatment against his will. In fact, I don't know anyone who has taken treatment for cancer that was not given several options.

Also, I personally know of cancer patients that were told they only had six months to live. They took treatment and were apparently cured. When the reports say that there is a 50% chance of surviving 6 months, that means that 50% die before 6 months (some in less than a week) but the other 50% live LONGER than 6 months. A lot of things can be done with statistics.

Have had cancer twice, Stage III Soft Tissue Sarcoma in 1991 (Agent Orange), and Stage III Malignant Melanoma 2005 (Agent Orange), and did it the old fashioned way folks, cut and slash and Chemotherapy. All this faith and holistic stuff is fine, until the monster comes home to roost and then you do what you have to do. How many of these "Cures" were on people who actually HAD Cancer? In June of 2005 I was given 7 1/2 months to live. Surprise, Surprise.

Patsick, I refer you to all of the other comments that follow on the next 3 pages as well.

I disagree. Many drugs are cost prohibitive and if you lack insurance you're flat out of luck completely or get inferior chemo drugs. This was in fact told to me by an oncology nurse unless she lied for the thrill of it.

If promising drugs are in fact not FDA approved most insurance companies will not cover them and the expense is out of pocket.

ray4a might be like me, angry because he lost someone he loved to melanoma.

And if you don't have enough cash, you can't live the preferred healthy lifestyle. Listen, if you're poor - try to do something about it. If you can't, well @!$%#... no one said life was fair. You'd just be another poor bastard in several millennium of poor bastards.

Meanwhile, if someone has the cash or resources to beat the Big C - good on 'em. May not be me, but I never expected handouts from anyone. Eventually, like all meds, they get cheaper and their use more wide-spread.

If we insisted Pharma's give their meds away, there wouldn't be any. Who the &^%$ works for free, besides prison labor? Hell, I think they get paid, don't they?

I lost my father to lung cancer. He was 49 when he died. I also lost my step father who died of prostrate cancer in his 90s. My best friend had colon cancer when he was in his mid 20s. He managed to survive that but lost to prostrate cancer 5 years ago. He was 64. I am not angry with the government or insurance companies or private drug manufacturers. It is not their fault people get cancer. I my self have had many basel cell carcinoma removed from my body. They say that basal cell is not anything to be worried about but I have found out that if it metastasizes it can spread through the body just like melanoma or squamous cancer and eventually kill you. There is really no safe cancer. We can only hope and pray that someone soon somewhere actually finds a cure for all cancers. I read some where on the net in a news item that the government gave a private cancer research institute 1 billion dollars as a research grant. I just hope they actually find something soon because it is not fun to watch people you love die with any disease especially cancer.

But isn't this why all the Dumbocrats voted for Obummer? Won't you all be in line for your "FREE" health care?

Impressive... another Republa!zombie from Fauxlandia spouting inane political drivel in a thread on chemoptherapy. *gags*

The general press is there to make news these days, not report it. If you want the real skinny, never trust anything articles like this say. They are almost always completely wrong.

you have never had anyone in your family die from this have you. If you had you would know that any kind of hope to let someone good in this world live longer is a chance worth taking.

there is so much to learn and gain in this field that any further knowledge and clinical trials is stupendous. let's take it to the limit.

I lost a cousin to melanoma and another cousin had a melanoma removed and is doing well. He had not gone into metastasis. When I was younger, a family friend's son died of melanoma after a horrible illness. Anything that improves the odds on this disease is worth looking at. The politics of the thing, the economics of it, have to be sorted out. I'm sure it will be expensive and I'm also sure that the drug companies, to keep from a PR nightmare, will let a lot of it out at lower cost or no cost. It's good for them on other grounds, too, because they will have a wider after-market pool of patients reporting side effects and effectiveness. I just hope they can find something that prolongs the effect because the statistics on recurrence and survival are as dismal as they are for pancreatic cancer.

LindaV, how did you manage to turn even this into a rant against one political party or the other? It is simply news about a possible new treatment for a serious, and so far always fatal form of cancer.

jt in sd: Because people like her are parrots. They pick out the negative in anything, repeat what some agitator says, and thinks it's the gospel, without the benefit of doing their own research. Let her explain what any other President has done for healthcare, and see how fast she seals her cave entrance.

@VA_Lady: First, although it was a "small study" as you state, it was a dose-ranging study, and was designed to determine a safe starting dose for subsequent studies with a larger patient population, and this is how the drug development process works. Additionally, according to the report these are "advanced melanoma" patients, and not just anyone who has been diagnosed with this type of tumor. Further, it is described in the report that this particular treatment is focused for melanoma patients who have a specific genetic mutation in their tumor cells (BRAF), and it is not intended as a treatment for all types of melanoma or all types of cancer. As the report itself states, the typical suvival for an advanced melanoma patient is ~9 months, so extension of survival by 6-12 months (66%-133% increase in survival duration) is truly a significant improvement. I'm betting most patients would take the chance with this treatment. How many successful oncology therapies have you developed?

jt in sd - ALMOST always fatal, I'm still here.

At last a coherent and intelligent response.

Unfortunately, coherency will never make a difference to folks like Ray. Ignorance is their lifeblood, and they can only survive on a steady diet of leftist fecal-matter.

@D in CT - Your political addition is a nonsensical as Ray. Another Republa!zombie from Fauxland that can't form a post without introducing some inane propaganda. *gags* Think for yourself, and keep on topic.

I so agree. It has such great hopes for so many avenues of health. But the Big Health companies again don't want those cures due to the loss in money.

Even a transient period of regression of tumors means a comfortable and painfree time to spend with family and friends. Quality of life is a measurement of effectiveness, too. If a good year is gained, much is gained.

@ Karen - Thank you. You get it.

@ D in CT re: @ Karen: Seconded.

OMG, I think if one of your family members were ill with CANCER, you would want all the resources pooled together to help cure your loved one.

The costs always come down when they go off patent. People don't realize the immense cost of doing science because they are used to large scale produced things like food and cars. There is no economy of scale with scientific equipment and supplies. Heck, one animal study (usually rats) can be 10,000 at $150 each (just to purchase), and that doesn't include facilities, animal care, food, environmental controls, and disposal. Safe meds are mind-boggling expensive to find, develop, and get to market, and then the incessant suprious legals suits that awlays occur just add amazingly to the cost of every pill. Again, if you want to look for a reason for slowness, look at lawyers, not scientists.

my 45 yr old brother died in March of melanoma cancer. I must say that any breakthrough would have been a blessing to him and his family. He beat the odds and lived for two years after his diagnosis and embraced life with a smile, and died with dignity because he believed in treating all persons rich, poor, all racial backgrounds with respect. He would have given a stranger the chance to take the experimental drug before himself and would have hoped it extended their life. So for those who want to make their sick comments and judge those who are suffering with excruciating pain daily while they fight the battle of this horrible cancer then shame on you!

YES, YES, YES. I agree 100%

sheila - Sometimes we WIN.

Yes, and I would too, and our Government should be spending as much as possible on stopping Cancer.

Good point but even after it's marketed, there will be a lot of it out there for compassionate use. Okay, it's in the company's best interests but when their interests dovetail with the patient's, nobody loses.

Many pharm companies will give free drug to patients who cannot afford it. Some of the income guidelines are 70K for 2 people and up to 110 K for 2 people. Other times they reimburse the clinic for the cost. @ Ray- why don't you go to school, become a nurse, get chemo certified, come work at our clinic and see what goes on- you will have your eyes opened to what nurses and doctors do to try and treat the patient, and listen to our pharma reps bend over backward to get these people treatment drugs. Too many people spout off here and do not know what the reality is-- just my $.02

Not only do some trials cost the patient nothing but for approved treatment there are many foundations out there that will help defray the many expensive treatments. Sometimes the doctors themselves will help you to find the money and even wave their fees for these treatments.

Hate to harp on insurance companies but....Blue Cross and Blue Shield will use whatever interpretation they can to deny coverage. My husband needs back surgery. He went through everything else first--pain meds, physical therapy, steroid injections...with no relief. His surgeon finally put it to Blue Cross for surgery----he was going to remove the herniated disk and put in rods and screws to keep his back stable. Blue Cross denied the surgery because rods and screws were only approved if there is instability in the area before the surgery. I looked in our contract and the paragraph that talked about rods & srews, etc was talking about orthopedic surgery for arms, legs, etc. Not neurosurgery on the back. So insurance will take every opportunity to deny claims. And the surgery was about the same cost as all the other things that he had to do first that didn't help at all.

Creature Girl, Insurance companies can refuse to pay for certain medications. For example my wife was on Diovan for high blood pressure and her insurance company would not cover it under their prescription drug plan. The insurance company told my wife she had to use a different med or pay for the Diovan out of pocket herself.

The other drugs made my wife sick, yet the insurance company said NO. This is because they could not get the Diovan manufacturer to give them a discount.

Insurance companies are evil!

@Tonya: Seriously? You committed to major surgery and didn't get pre-approval from your insurance? You might want to put a Post-It on the fridge to remind yourselves next time.

Hope his back is back in action, cuz you both are gonna need to work your collective asses off to pay the bills.

Where does it say that D in CT? It doesn't say anywhere that they had the surgery before getting approval. It just says they refused to approve it. You missed the entire point.

The lack of reading comprehension on this board is frightening.

Tonya is right. I have seen private insurance companies deny test and treatment. This adds to the anxiety of an already sick patient and concerned family. Call the state insurance commissioner when this happens. They sometimes intervene. Also let the newspapers know. Often the insurance companies give in and pay, but treatment is often delayed and sometimes to the detriment of the patient. How would you feel if you had a mole that needed removing and the guy that used to be a doctor, but has become a hired gun for an insurance company, refused to approve the surgery (while never looking you in the eye or personally examining you).

Just how does PRIVATE vs. PUBLIC have anything to do with the research or the scientists doing the research? Are you insinuating scientists that work for a government sponsored organization are somehow defective or deficient? Hmmm now that supposition is certainly scientific isn't it!

I would like to relate a story about a business man whose wife beat breast cancer and what he did because of it. His name is Jim Stowers. He is the CEO of American Century Investments in Kansas City Missouri. He put together a small group of people and founded the Stowers Institute for medical research. This man took an active part in overseeing the building of said research center. If there were no work related injuries in any calendar month he would have a bar b que lunch for all of the construction workers. He would also talk to the men on the job to see if anyone had any ideas to make the job safer and faster. He cared and listened to everyone who had an idea. I worked on that project for almost a year. I can not relate how impressed the workers were with him and his wife. American Century Investments is a very large company and dedicates much of its profit into this medical research facility. Not all private research is done by greedy business men some of them actually care about what they do. You can do a little research on the web to check out the Stowers Institute for Medical Research and American Century Investments. I admire this man very much for his role in trying to find a cure for any and all cancers. He had the money to help his wife beat cancer and now he is giving back to everyone what he can.

Sorry, I was replying to the first post, ray4

We figured that, Sam.

I worked in a medical research setting (psychiatry, not oncology) so I know some of the issues around drug testing. There were conventions after WWII and the horrors of the concentration camps that came up with the modern standards for testing drugs and for obtaining informed consent. They are VERY rigorous.

SAM, I'm in total agreement with you except for the fact that insurance companies will find a way, legal or otherwise, to deny any claim in which they can profit more by denying the claim and paying the consequences than paying the claim. They are by definition sociopathic and profit is their only conviction. I've seen it first hand hundreds of times. They will gladly except your premiums and at the first sign of a problem they will drop you like a hot potato. So let's all just grow up and admit the truth about it and stop living in fantasy land. Insurance companies started as noble endeavors and have turned into the evil twin.

Well that just about covers it all now doesn't. Well put. Kudo's to you.

Good luck, my friend.

I wish you the best. Looks like you have faired well so far. May you continue to get well.

Be like the Tom PETTY song..............you can stand me up at the gates of hell, but I WON'T back down. Terry Martin - I hope to be seeing you on these vines 10 years from now. Peace.

My mom was tested as BRAf positive by a leading lab. She was accepted into a study for the drug to be finally disapproved by Roche. We were devastated and confused. When 75% of melanoma patients have this mutation, I hope that they will have sustainable results. God bless all of them and there fights or transitions.

No one ever said that grandpa was going to live forever...

Why do people think that if only the government and big business gave them everything they ever wanted, the world will be a better place? Peace, love, harmony, and immortality?

Sheesh. Even Christ said you'd only live forever in the kingdom of God. Didn't say nothing about hanging around forever on Earth. (disclaimer: I'm not a theologian. I may not have got that right)

"took his money for 4 years"

He was lucky to die then. If this new drug was around, the doctors would just have taken his money for maybe 5 or 10 more years. And then he would still have died.

Insurance companies actually pay people to blog! I have been offered the opportunity several times now to post bs about socialized medicine. Some companies just don't get it when you refuse to twist the truth for their profit because it's not moral to do so.