There's no incentive to cure something that is this profitable. Besides, the planet is too crowded anyway. "We need to get the population down to a more manageable number, say around 500 million."

Shut up and drink your CoolAid.

look up LDN(Low Dose Naltrexeon)

Ben is simply stating the mindset of medical companies. And, he's right. They're constantly complaining that costs are too high - not for the people, but for them - which means that they're not making the money to sustain themselves. They're a business and have investors like any other company.

His "500 million" people statement is from the Guidestones, which state that the global population should be 500 million in accordance with the balance of nature. Rather than ask Ben to kill himself, which is an immature idea, why not deport the 12 million some odd illegal immigrants that drain more than just our healthcare. I mean, if we're going to be @!$%#s, let's at least be practical ones.

Agreed fully. Get those free loading illegal immigrants out of this country. We don't have the resources to support them with.

Arizona has taken a stand, when are the rest of the States going to do the same? These non-citizens are a total burden on our society, including our hospitals.

Cat

Ben did not say that the COUNTRY'S population is too high, he said the PLANET"S population is too high! And....he's right....over population of the planet is becoming a serious problem. We either need to find another planet to expand upon or limit and reduce the population here. There are a finite amount of resources available for us to use. So...the more of us there are, the LESS that's available for each of us. One thing you need to remember.....we all live on the SAME PLANET, TOGETHER.....we either survive by working TOGETHER or we don't survive as a species. It's not just the "illegal aliens" that you conveniently blame, it is EVERYONE ON THE PLANET.

For those who do not seem to understand, you must treat cancer in order to cure it at this time. But many cancers now have a very high cure ratio that not too many years ago were a virtual death sentence. My wife has been cured of breast cancer which was very fast growing and fast spreading. This was done through surgery, radiation, and chemo but she has been cancer free for about 7 years. I believe in the early 80's the survival ratio was 10%. It is now 90%. I consider this fantastic.

I am now fighting with pancreatic cancer. (adenocarcinoma), which is the worst of the different tumors but make up 85% of pancreatic tumors. A couple of years ago the survival raio was less than 5% for late diagnosis. It is now figured at 20-40% survival ratio. That's quite an improvement. I was early diagnosis, but it did spread to my liver, 2 very small spots, 1 about 3mm, the other a litlle less than 1 cm. With surgery, radiation, and a barrage of different chemos they removed the main tumor on the pancreas and killed any cancer that was attached to the blood vessels which pass through the pancreas, and have kept the 2 liver spots from growing any further while they administer 3 different chemos to make sure no cancerous cells are floating in my blood. In a few weeks they will be attacking the liver tumors with radiation. There are several different radiations that hopefully will kill the spots. If not, then they will take part or all of that lobe of my liver. It sounds bad , but the outlook is very promising.

The technology has come a long way for the majority of different cancers and people need to understand this and be more thankful for the technology as it has advanced tremendously in a short period of time when you think about it. While everyone seems to see the bottom line dollars spent they don't realise this is not profit. Some of the research is paid for out of that number and all of the hospital equipment is extremely expensive to buy and maintain. I believe the actual profit percentage average in the medical field is only about 1 1/2 to 2%. That is also about the same for medical insurance companies.

Ironically, there is a huge breakthrough developing right now to detect cancer in the blood. Several different but similar blood tests are being worked on right now but the best and probably cheapest one is called the HB Test or Herringbone Test. It's accuracy is going to be about 90% which is great. It's cost will be probably less than $200.00 each. Test results are under 24 hours. This will allow doctors to know quickly whether a chemo change is working or not rather than wasting time and money running a full line of chemo and then having to do other more expensive tests like CT's and PET scans Just to find out what treatment works. This inexpensive blood test will save a fortune to everyone.

Cancer treatment and cure has come a long way in a very short period of time and my wife and I are very thankful for the medical industry. Also our medical insurance has done great for both of us. Without both my wife and I would both have died at a relatively young age. My wife was diagnosed at 40 and myself at 51. Thanks for the good work and compassion.

Maybe someday some cancers will be vaccinated against or just take a pill to kill them. But for now be thankful for where we are at in this fight. There's a lot of survivors out there and it keeps getting better. I hope to be one of them.

Actually, I was quoting others whom I strongly disagree with. There are others who believe the planet is overcrowded, and they believe "we need to decrease the population to around 500 million." You're right about the "Guidestones". But my point is, there is room for what we have today. There are a finite amount of resources, we just need to use them more efficiently. But who am I talking about, and how do they intend to trim the population (without the population getting wind of it), and milk the population in the meantime?

Well, cancer is one small way. Slowly sterilizing the masses is another way. The way they're not going to do it is through economic prosperity for all. Populations tend to stabilize and even decrease (like in developed western countries) when there is economic stability. The populations in undeveloped, uneducated countries like those in Africa tend to reproduce at alarmining rates, while also making a general mess of the planet. What doesn't work here is if you truly spread wealth (not welfare), you make people independent and uncontrolable. This is bad if you like power, but great if you like peace and prosperity.

I'm not placing blame on poor people. What I'm saying is there are those who are ultra wealthy, like power, don't share well with others, and also do not want any company here, unless it's in a subservient role. Unfortunately, diseases like cancer will never be cured if these people continue to fund the research. If a cure is discovered, it will be locked up quicker than a cold fusion reactor.

Thanks for sharing, EZHUNTER.

People don't realize how complicated that the biology of cancer is. You target one protein, and a few months later, the tumor mutates and over produces another protein. Metastatic melanoma is a hot area for this now. There is a new drug that shows so much promise...yet after about 6 months the cancer finds a new way to grow and continue its spread. Blame cancer not pharma.

Once a cancer has spread from the primary site, the prognosis goes downhill in many cases. The bulk of the research and development goes towards treating cancers that are completely out of control and are no longer at the primary site. Cancer IS easy to cure...if you catch it and remove it before it spreads. The biology of metastatic cancer however is very different. Once it latches onto your liver, brain, kidneys, etc, it becomes difficult to treat and tends to start cropping up elsewhere even when the initial mets are eliminated.

It is not a grand government conspiracy to kill us all off. Metastatic cancer has different properties for different primary tumor types, which means that you need different drugs. Mets from the same person may even exhibit different features that mean you need multiple drugs. Then the tumor develops resistance to chemo.

Heather, do a websearch on the HB test and tell me what you think. I first heard about it from an MSNBC article a week or so ago and was really amazed. The potentials for what this test can help with is really something. Imagine only having to do a few days of chemo and being able to tell if it is working or not within 24 hours after taking the blood test. The way it works now I have to run several months with a given regimen before finding out whether or not it's working. And if it's not working you've lost ground in the fight. So far I've been lucky. But it would also cut a lot of costs as well. Too bad it won't be on the market in time for me.

EZHunter, I saw that article! So exciting, a blood test to detect cancer cells in the blood!

Hang in there, praying for a happy outcome for you!!!

EZHUNTER wrote "My wife has been cured of breast cancer which was very fast growing and fast spreading. This was done through surgery, radiation, and chemo but she has been cancer free for about 7 years. I believe in the early 80's the survival ratio was 10%. It is now 90%. I consider this fantastic."

The death rate of breast cancer (# cases/population) is about the same today as it was thirty years ago. There is more "detection" and "treatment" of breast cancer than thirty years ago. These conclusions have been received with much controversy as they indicate that the early detection and excessive screening are a waste of time. The main problem is that the majority of Americans, despite a high school or college education, rely on anecdotes from friends that were treated for breast cancer as they are unable to understand the words of medical researchers telling them otherwise.

#1.12 Simply not true. Cite references. There is plenty of documentation to the contrary through the American Cancer Society, NIH and American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The thing people aren't getting here is that this article is chock-full of proof surrogate and weaseling statments - "could reach 207 billion by 2020," okay... based on what? inflation, population growth, uncontrolled market prices, rabid armadillos?

The other imbalance in the piece is that it attempts to justify rising costs by implying certain groups are to blame - like smokers and conservatives.

And that dang Obama wants to limit insurance companies to only 20% of that? Unamerican!

Not a doubt in my mind that you're 100% right 1916!

...or people can just stop eating cheeseburgers and not get fat, in which case they wouldnt get diabetes that needs to be controlled with medication. and it wouldn't cost anyone a dime. most (not all!) medical problems are completely preventable. is it wrong that companies profit because people can't be bothered to take care of themselves? if someone doesn't enough to eat healthy and exercise, why expect a stranger to care that they're broke and cant afford expensive medications?

You are right...!

But try not to have a car crash because of driving to fast...

Technically a healthy lawn is weed free... but a healthy lawn weeds itself. The problem with having a healthy lawn is people think you need to drown it in water - this is incorrect. As a result they promote weed growth and thus feel the need to chemically enhance the lawn. Natural solutions are MUCH cheaper - like limited and controlled watering. That said, a lawn full of weeds produces less clean oxygen and filters less water. 50 sq ft of healthy grass produces enough oxygen for a family of four per day. It also filters countless pollutants in its root system.

Gee my ecology prof called a monoculture (lawn grass) an ecological disaster.

Look up LDN on your webbrowser!

Tom, I am in the same boat as you right now. However, it is different for me as we have already fought and beat my wife's breast cancer 7 years ago by fighting together as a team and shrugging off the cost as long as we can remain together. We have now been married 31 years and I have been fighting pancreatic cancer for a year now. My chances look good but financially we'll keep a roof over our heads but that's about it. Everything else is being lost.

The way we look at it is that what is most important is that we fight for each other and be proud of the marriage that we have made last this long. We raised 2 children that have turned out well also. My parents have both passed on. Incidently, my father died of the same cancer that I am trying to beat. We do still have my mother-in-law and she has been a wonderful help with me. To me she is no different than my real mother and I am extremely proud of her.

What you need to try to do is forget and shrug off all the material things and concentrate on family, memories, and all the good things that have come in your life. The material things are just not that important. Your family, if you ask them, feels that your life is much more important to them than material things.

If you would like to speak more on this subject you can click on my screen name and contact me privately through Newsvine and I would be glad to talk further. I find that talking about what is going on with my cancer is much better than keeping things bottled up inside me. Good luck.

HEY, There's no health care crisis in this country....just ask the RICH corporate PUKES that are running the show!

smokers arent the only people with cancer moron - how about cut benefits to fat people, people who don't eat three helping of vegetables, and people who get sunburns. Then we'll get travel agencies, fast food joints, and lazy people to pick up the other 50% of the tab.

Why always pick on us smokers? As Shawn pointed out, there are plenty of other causes.

And lets not leave out genetics. That's an important factor, too.

Cat

Let's be a little more realistic in this country about what's really killing us. I suggest we start by putting a dozen chain smokers in a small confined area and make them chain smoke for an hour while at the same time we put someone who blames cigarette smoke for all our ills in an equally confined area with a small car running at an idle. The lesson will be that at the end of that hour, the chain smokers will still be healthy enough to help carry the DEAD person out of the car exhaust filled area as long as they too don't breath the POISONOUS engine exhaust. Now let's do a little math: how many smokers are lighting up at any given moment to how many diesel and gasoline engines are running at that same moment in the entire country? Can you smell the logic here?

If you avoid all other causes of death long enough the cumulative effects of environmental exposure/cell division errors will result in cancer. That is why more old people means more cancer.

I'm for government health insurance with taxes on cigarettes, fast food, etc. to cover the increased risk of bad personal choices.

It's hard to keep healthy in american society because of all the promotions that the fast food industry puts out there and people continue to buy there product. No one wants to sit down to a healthy homecook meal. People need to take some responsibilty on their lifestyle. Watch Morgan Spurlock's documentry "Supersize"

And yet we live longer than ever before. Oh, and one thing they forgot to mention is how much we're saving in Social Security because these people are dying sooner. More than one study has shown it to be either a wash or a net benefit.

Fair enough - yet a solution for ANY cancer isn't presented and factually speaking many facilities get good sums of money for research. If that facility found a cure a.) could anyone afford it b.) would they get research money anymore? Probably and probably in that order, but if you're going to tell me that health care isn't a business then I'm going to have to pimp smack you.

Shawn--there is no conspiracy to poor a cure down the drain. Also cancer researchers don't get paid near what somebody researching female Viagra or toe nail fungus get paid, most go in to that field having been affected by personal loss.

The complexity of finding a way to get cancer cells to turn back on its self destruct mechanisms or stop it from replicating with out affecting normal cells is tremendous.

You and everybody on this thread can help actually speed up research on all types of cancer, AIDS/HIV, MS and soon to be other projects.

The world community grid helped the Chiba institute in Japan to complete over 100 years of research in just 2 years. They went from very little data to having compounds ready for evaluation in just 2 years---this is staggering what we can do as a collective

Not only that but by doing volunteer computing we free up the much needed funds for the actual lab work,staff and equipment that would other wise have to be spent on very expensive super computer run time.

If we can do the sequencing faster, the lab research will go much faster, the lives lost will go down, the cost will go down -The life you save may be your own.

Here are the links, please join us and pass it on. Tell others. YOU can make a difference.

also check out Youtube video for world community grid

world community grid web site http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/

You can go to the research tab and find the Chiba website that will verify the 2 year time table.http://www.m.chiba-u.ac.jp/class/bioinfor/wcg/e/hfcc_e/news.html

Just so you know I am also a member http://allprojectstats.com/showuser.php?id=177029

jla70 and cameronhigh, thank you both for your input on this subject.

Read my post #4.2 to see where I stand in this subject and why.

youaretheblues, I'm very sorry for the loss of your sister. I have asthma, which has led to plural fluid buildup in my right lung, which led to pneumonia. Thank God, I lived. But since then, I've had a shot, and despite that, I got pneumonia a second time, and was in the hospital for a week. My continued smoking habit doesn't help matters at all, but it's hard to stop.

Your sister certainly should have received a pneumonia vaccine, it would have prolonged her life and given her a shot at defeating the cancer.

I fully understand your feelings, a little common sense may have saved her life. Unfortunately, the obvious is often overlooked.

May the Lord bless you during these times. The loss of a loved one is tough to swallow.

Cat

I read some of the Dr's research on LDN, the results were mixed, but that's expected with cancer. However, it appears that some of the patients were doomed to hospice, a few lived many years, and are still alive (at the time of the report, 2004).

Interesting. A possible prevention method in high risk patients?

Cat

I fully agree that palliative care can actually lead to a longer, more quality life, without needlessly wasting resources, and patient suffering as the result of being too aggressive, when it's clearly too late.

BTW, what's the name of this hospital? If the cancer center portion doesn't participate in palliative care, surely there are other parts of the hospital that doesn't either.

Shame on them for looking out for the almighty dollar, rather than comfort care for the appropriate patients.

Cat

You mean...."DEATH PANELS"? Oh wait a minute.....we already have those....they're called "HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES!"

It's not all driven by doctors. Many patients want to be treated aggressively, and don't want to give up hope for a cure. In order to get palliative or hospice care, patients have to give up active treatment, which most will not do. Should it be left up to the doctor to decide that treatment is hopeless, or should patients be allowed to ask for and receive all known treatments until they die, regardless of projected efficacy or cost?

Thank you Susie, for your insight. I'm a "baby boomer" also, and I already pay tremendously for asthma and pain meds for my failed four level lumbar fusion, which has left me disabled. The cash price for these meds would exceed $14,000 per year, if I didn't have a medicare drug plan.

I've already made my mind up, should I become diagnosed with terminal cancer, I'll opt to pain management and die in the comfort of my home, and have the strength to say goodbye and make amends. Not lay helplessly in a hospital and drugs (poison) pumped into my body, and live a shorter life for the profit of a hospital and it's "shareholders".

The drug companies are greedy as hell. It needs to stop.

Cat

I really used to "pooh pooh" the conspiracy theories. I still kinda do but I think I have a much greater understanding of the problem now after first hand witnessing it.

Everyone is just doing their job. They are focused on what they were hired to do, which is maximize revenue for the company. Figuring out how to make a case to their shareholders and their board that they should fund any research into a stage IV trial drug that can't be protected or patented could be the "right thing" for saving lives...but it doesn't meet the goals of any company. The FDA would literally have to step in and regulate/federally fund the industry to throw out the studies that have 8/10 flawed results come back. The FDA would have to be bold and "do the right thing" by allowing, maybe even MANDATING that alternative care be covered as well.

We don't provide incentives to these initiatives that allow custom care per individual. We treat cancer patients as statistics and put them in studies with statistics; when, very often cancer is based upon that persons genetics.

Europe and other countries are more successful at saving lives, not because they do more radiation and chemo, but because they are open to alternative medicine.

Our insurance options need to be regulated to cover more options for cancer care. I've watched chemo cause far more harm than good and watched people with no chemo fare better. I've personally witnessed this, not just read about it. Warning, yes there are things out there that don't work for some people...but in the whole scheme of things...neither does the chemo regimen they may have done! Let's figure out how to incentive-ize saving lives at -any- cost...not just chemo and radiation investments.

Cancer is a horrible disease with horrible politics and $$ dictating course of care decision making 5 steps removed from the face that is the patient. Anyone that has been directly touched by Cancer, should step up and tell the FDA and Congress to do the right thing by allowing stage IV Cancer patients to pursue and be reimbursed, whatever care they can. The cancer community finds things that work far better than chemo. Chemo is just nuclear warfare within the body.

...and again..is anyone looking at the food, water, pollution in our society? Let's fix things upstream! How many people do you think work in agriculture that think nothing of the pollution they are dumping in the ground on the back 120 of some giant farm? I'm sure a lot. Everyone is just focused on what they are doing that day to get by. Getting a pay check, doing their job, counting on congress to handle the bigger picture if there is something to worry about.

I understand what you mean about desperate patients and families spending good money on quack therapies. I listened horrified last year to a friend whose son was dying of a rare brain cancer which had progressed in spite of several rounds of operations and chemotherapy. They ended up getting robbed by some naturopath who claimed his medicine could save him. They ended up spending $10,000 to $20,000 a month for about 6 months until the patient died. It was a delicate situation and all I could tell my friend was that I doubted the cancer healers credibility and motives.

Where I don't agree with you is that there is a real problem with research. Just look at the following case I've been following for several years it is a disgrace:

http://www.sciencecodex.com/cancer_cure_in_mice_to_be_tested_in_humans

or

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/4273366

Years ago you could find information about his potential cure in all kinds of sources ranging from MIT's technology review to more medical/scholarly journals.

Zheng Cui has had his cancer research funding cut for political reasons. I believe to this day that his work (like Craig Ventor's work on genomics caused the thousands of mainstream genomics researchers to try and stop his work) would crush cancer. Please take the time to find out about Zheng Cui's brilliant work and research. His research shows how the bodies immune system using granulocytes from individuals tested to have very high anti-cancer properties could cure cancer at advanced stages.

So you believe that research is fine, but the managers and organizations (including NCI and FDA) have the wrong motivations which cut the funding?

I'd believe that. I definitely wouldn't argue against that. My point about research funding is the projects directly funded and within the big pharma companies themselves. I have a lot of contacts in the industry and they feel like cogs within the bureaucracy that kills projects for reasons that are all about a balance sheet and 'project competitive speculation' within that is more interested in what they can snow the FDA with, than if the overall outlook and goal is feasible given enough investment. There are projects that are moth'd purely based upon how long it will take to develop, rather than if it is expected to be a superior outcome for a patient. Meaning, looking for short term monetization becomes the driver.

Watch the movie "Extreme Measures" sometime. Interesting example of the politics and barriers, although I would say that movie probably puts a nice face on it relative to many cancer based projects.

Just in the last 3 weeks I've run across articles about breast milk being a cure for cancer enough that it gets 250k in research funding...only to be never heard from a decade later. Then there is the article talking about a study involving peach and plum extracts melting breast cancer cells....and that research falls into a black hole never to be heard from since. What is up with that? Why aren't we all hearing about it daily as if it is a football game? Why does it all go quiet and stuffed into a corner? We should at least here why it doesn't work as portrayed right? Or we should be hearing constant updates. If these things do or don't work...they should be the most exciting news on the internet!! It's not like the cancer community quits being interested.

I also find it funny if it did get delayed for human trials for 10 years. I mean really, plum and peach extracts? I'd inject that in my arm just for fun. It wouldn't kill me for sure...so what is the hold up on trying it all over the place right now yesterday?

It just smells suspicious that these studies blip up as "WOW LOOK AT THIS LETS CHECK IT OUT" and then poof. All quiet forever. Not even a report that explains how it worked briefly in a study and what was flawed about it.

This is all the rage now.. the Vitamin D shortage/cancer link theory.. I have done the research and it seems like there's lots of conflicting information and that the verdict is still out. In one study, there actually seemed to be an increase in a certain type of cancer and Too much Vitamin D. Plus Vitamin D from natural sources is one thing, supplements are a different story. Who knows what chemicals, fillers are in your supplements.. I'm not advocating for conventioanl cancer care or Big Pharma either.. having lost my Mother and BIL to cancer in the last 2 yrs, and visiting a cancer survivors online board, I see the failure of these Expensive "cheatments" every day...

Well unfortunately my wife is 38 and not predicted to make it more than a year. So, in that regard, yeah I'd like the FDA not regulate that her cancer treatment be specific chemo regimens. I'd like our insurance to cover doing experimental alternative therapies. Are there quack techniques out there? Absolutely. Are we intelligent enough to understand biology and sort through what seems like a logical thing to try and not? Absolutely. Cancer is financially devastating and we have politics and $$ suppporting a system and structure which forces treatment decisions. Treatment decisions which are no more effective than the quote, "quackery" that supposedly the FDA and insurance is trying to protect us from. Put another way, the FDA and big pharma need to realize that cancer is pretty unique per individual and you can attack root causes or modify the bodies environment in a way to disable the cancer without completely wiping the immune system at the same time (which paves the way for it all to slide downhill). I'm not being naive at the same time and saying that chemo applied at the right stage doesn't buy time. It certainly can but...more often than not you are then also trying to figure out how to boost the immune system to come back and help.

There are all sorts of unique approaches out there which are all out of pocket due to the limitations put in place by the FDA and NCI. Under the mask of protecting against quackery, there is a captive audience for big pharma studies. One step to improve that would be to make sure, at all times, there is funding for studies that are in alternative treatments. However, that requires there to be a profit incentive for the companies that fund those studies. Therefore, before you go contributing to any cancer organization...look at who they fund studies with. Direct the funds to treatments other than the patentable. I've seen case after case where the patentable is the more synthetic and more toxic for the body.

We clearly don't know how to get at root causes for cancer. We know how to throw a whole lot of toxin into the body to tell cells to kill themselves....mostly indiscriminately or with lots of kidney and liver damage.

Fund research into epigenetics. Lets figure out how to target root causes. Lets open up cancer treatment funding into ways that aren't necessarily patentable. Lets help save lives and allow freedom of choice in how/what your insurance reimburses.

I'm a little appalled at the palliative care bleakness. Where there is life, there is hope. We should all try to help. Miracles happen all the time...but if you don't try it is a self fulfilling prophecy. And sometimes that end story is beyond your imagination terrible if you just allowed cancer to take its course. I'm speaking as someone that has watched it 3 times in the last 15 years.