CTCOA is also a for-profit enterprise. 'Nuff said.
The usual pancreatic cancer moves swiftly and ends badly. My grandfather was gone in a few months after diagnosis. Jobs had a form of pancreatic cancer that can respond well to treatment.
IANAD, and I don’t have any official medical training but I worked for an oncology management systems company (software development) for 20 years. I worked with doctors and nurses and CTRs (tumor registrars).
It’s probably better to let webmd explain about what Jobs had:
I understand where OP is coming from. We are in year 2016 and it feels like if you had cancer in the 90’s and gone for treatment or have cancer now in year 2016 and gone for treatment not much have changed.
Be it chemo or radiation or both chemo and radiation.
We have very little new chemo drugs out there now than what we have from 90’s .
So it feels very little has changed from 90’s to now.
We have MANY new chemo drugs compared with the 1990s, and also plenty of drugs to aid in the management of side effects. The new ones are more likely to be targeted therapy, mostly for types of cancer previously considered hopeless (from what I’ve seen, mostly melanoma and some types of usually adult-onset leukemia) or formulations of old drugs that also reduce side effects (and, unfortunately, give the drug companies an excuse to boost the price by assorted factors :mad: ).
You started a half dozen threads with this premise and were told in each one that this is incorrect on every level. Please don’t bring it up again as if those threads never happened.
I don’t know about this. I had chemo in the early 70s, and my sister about five years ago. When she told me what it was like for her, it was as if you couldn’t even compare the experiences.
Now I know the 70s were a little longer ago than the 90s were, but there have been changes. You just don’t realize it.
You NEVER going to stop optimistic vs pessimistic people when comes to medicine or controversial topics like cancer.
There will always be sub sets of general public that holds views on cancer to all forms have cancer are almost treatable.
No one here is denying Testis, Malignat, breast, prostate, Hodgkin Lyphoma and Uterus are almost curable today. Well Pancreae, lung, Brain, stomach and oesophagus nothing can be done.
There are views public holds and views that doctors and scientist hold.The public things you spend x billion on cancer research and in 20 years it almost curable. If that not how it plays out than it is doctors and scientist and people like you that have to educate the media and education system to communicated to the misinform public.
If there are 200 or 300 types of different types of cancer sorta like different diseases and treatments than may be we should stop calling it cancer:eek::eek: and call it by different names, so we have better communication with public and scientists?
If XX(brain) and XY(lung) is major concern than US presidents moonshot program should be on XX(brain) and XY(lung) not US presidents moonshot program on cancer aka all 200 or 300 types talked as one.
If you are tired of pessimistic people and controversial cancer topics than lobby congress now to change the media and education system so we can communicate and have better views on how to deal with these 200 or 300 types than just calling it cancer and where is my magic pill now I want my magic pill.
If the US president moonshot program calling it cancer also President Richard Nixon war on cancer is false and really is 200 or 300 different wars than you really need 200 or 300 different wars aka moonshot programs and in 20 years look at the 200 or 300 different ones and see where you need more moonshot programs.
Because if the media and government takes 200 or 300 different types and call it one and put some billion money at it :eek::eek:you going get more pessimistic people and controversial cancer topics in the futue.
I’m just telling you the general public thinks most cancer the so called most 200 or 300 different types should be curable today or almost curable.
May be we need to look at cancer different and communicated different:eek::eek:
stop lumping the 200 or 300 different types into one. And when comes to President Richard Nixon war or US presidents moonshot program need separate 200 or 300 programs.
You mad about the pessimistic people and controversial cancer topics. Well just like the public is mad that most cancer is not curable.
Well Testis, Malignat, breast, prostate, Hodgkin Lyphoma and Uterus are almost curable today well many other cancers are not.
Than that stop calling it cancer :eek::eek: and out of the 200 or 300 types what wars we need not war but separate wars.
May be some types of cancer gets very little money from government well other types get lot of money.
I think you should ask you self every year how many new chemo drugs come out…:eek::eek::eek:
And out xx that come out every year what drugs really work well other drugs get recalled.
May be I don’t know much about this as media is not talking about this because some how drones and going to moon and mars sounds more cool in public eye than talking about this. All the media wants talk about is drones, robots, AI and going to moon and mars and I’m getting sick of all those stories.
I’m sorta of pessimistic person like OP when it comes to medicine and doctors. I’m trying read stuff every day to change my views a bit but hard when being flooded with topic like drones, robots, AI and going to moon and mars every day.
Bullshit.
What the heck kind of cancer is malignat? I’ll assume that’s a typo of malignant, which is more of a cancer behavior, rather than a kind.
And esophageal cancer is treatable, if the continued existence 15 years after diagnosis of a friend of ours is any example.
As for news, I’ve been reading up on DLBCL and Burkitt’s lymphoma and new treatments for it with no interference from drones or Mars.
What web sites or source would be good to read about medicine and topics like this? Different stuff they are working on and research and development?
Where Popular Machines and Popular Science is flooded with cars, space, mars trip,robots, AI, drones and light science every day.Than really getting into medicine and things like that.
Sorry should said general public believe in little green man.
I suggest you try reading the news section of Science (Science | AAAS) and Nature (Latest science news, discoveries and analysis). In my opinion, they’ve got some of the best science journalism out there. There’s no gee-whiz futurism or fantasy.
For instance, here’s a very good article from Nature on the current state of the art in cancer treatment research, specifically the combination of immunotherapy (giving drugs that encourage your own immune system to attack a cancer) and targeted therapy (treatments that block mutations or abnormalities in very specific cancer types).
Bullshit. Complete, utter, bullshit.
OK, this is a general misconception, but it is something I see doctors and others try to dispel. There is no one “cancer”. If something, I would like for people to see the concept of “cancer” as the term “infectious diseases”. Within that umbrella, you have infections of the skin (ranging from a scratch to Staph-resistant) or infections of the lungs, or infections from the brain. Similar, you have cancer of all the different organs of your body, and just like with infections, the causes of them and the final prognosis (good or bad) vary.
The main things that bring all types of cancer together is that they are formed by cells that are space occupying and unregulated.
Also, there are different fundraisers and different research programs targeted at different types of cancers.
Yes, this does happen. As with infectious diseases, some are considered top priority for funding and others are not. It is bad for the people who suffer from them, but it is considered (public health-wise) to be the best use of the limited funds available.
Ah, you left off half of the name - it’s malignant melanoma, a variety of skin cancer.
Agreed. Neoplastic illnesses might be a good umbrella term, since there is such a wild range of survivability for all of the different conditions called “cancer” ranging from essentially 100% after nipping out a basal cell carcinoma (early stage of skin cancer) on up to triple-hit non-Hodgkin adult lymphoma and pancreatic cancers that have dismal outlooks and are at the level of “You’ve got about six months.”
Here is the cancer survival rates.
Has you can see prostate, thyroid, testis, Malanomas, Breast, Hodgkinas,corpus uteri,uterus and urinary bladder have good survival rates.
Well pancrease, liver, bile duct, Esophagues, lung, bronchus, stomach, multiple myeloma, and brain have really bad survival rates. Mostly nothing can be done with these cancer and if you get these cancer it is death. Nothing can be done.
Well Cervix, uteri, larynx, rectum, kidney, renal pelvix, colon, non-hodghind, oral cavity, pharynx, ovary and leukemia are more in the middle and closer to a 50-50 chance you may live.
I don’t know what the cancer survival rates where like in the 90’s ? So it is hard to compare.
Normally they release stats every 5 years. And I have not seen any stats release from 2010 to 2015. Or any of the new stats.
Only stats I seen last was 2006 stats.
I hear Malanomas, testis, leukemia and Breast they made lots of progress.
Thanks mozchron and Bullitt. Good info.
I wasn’t combing medical databases in the nineties and I’m not combing them now, so I wouldn’t trust my feelings about changes in cancer treatments. I wouldn’t trust even the feeling from reading Science and Nature. If I hadn’t done serious research into the medical literature (and I haven’t) I wouldn’t presume to have much of an opinion.
Did you know that a change in early detection rates can give a false impression that survival rates have increased? The numbers, they are complicated.