Re: Prostate Cancer Treatment Poses Bone Risk -Study
From: Vernon (openbox_at_verizon.net)
Date: 01/15/05
- Next message: ron: "Re: Prostate Cancer Treatment Poses Bone Risk -Study"
- Previous message: Bill X: "Re: GBM and hypothermia"
- In reply to: Steph: "Re: Prostate Cancer Treatment Poses Bone Risk -Study"
- Next in thread: ron: "Re: Prostate Cancer Treatment Poses Bone Risk -Study"
- Reply: ron: "Re: Prostate Cancer Treatment Poses Bone Risk -Study"
- Reply: madiba: "Re: Prostate Cancer Treatment Poses Bone Risk -Study"
- Reply: J: "Re: Prostate Cancer Treatment Poses Bone Risk -Study"
- Reply: Steph: "Re: Prostate Cancer Treatment Poses Bone Risk -Study"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:10:21 GMT
Hi Steph
Surgery will remove the localized cancerous tissue, but does nothing for
metastases. The guys have been very successful in showing that even the
normal prostate shed cells into the bloodstream, at a rate, and in enough
quantity, that these cells are being looked at in a bid to establish a new
method for diagnosing PCa. So surgery provides no more than a temporary
relief of concern (palliative?), often with devastating "side effects".
The same can be said for "shotgun" style radiation therapy (kill the entire
prostate organ and surrounding tissues to eliminate a smaller body of
cells), and even for cryotherapy and the other invasive surgical techniques.
Hormone therapy, of course, as we all know by now, just buys some people
some time, again, often at a high cost, but even with a worse prognosis,
since HT "hardens" the refactory cancer cells towards further treatment.
Chemo, on the other hand, really offers the possibility of that "magic
bullet". Traditionally, chemo is used for people at death's door. It is
then not surprising that the mortality rate among that group is high. But
how about chemo being used as the first method of treatment upon the early
diagnosis of cancer, along with one of the more drastic methods for
"neutralizing" the focus of the cancer? That seems to work quite well.
What we need is for the medical professionals to move forward with new
approaches and new ideas. If they keep pushing the view that we should
stick to the old ways, they might continue to be financially successful, but
things will never get better for cancer survivors. We need to have the
cancer survivors, and care-givers, asking for new treatments and not being
refused, or stalled, because of ignorance, or ulterior motives.
In the end, someone has to make some money, and we can select our scenario
carefully enough to justify any viewpoint we wish, but sometimes we prolong
the agony of many by sticking to the primitiveness of the past
The continuing development of chemotherapy will take the financial wind out
of the sails of lots of highly paid surgical and radiological professionals,
but will do more good than the old ways. On the other hand, given the
influence of the high priests of American Capitalism, it might also cost
Americans a lot, especially the older ones, and we end up replacing one rip
by another.
Just as in the case of the unpuncturable car tyre, you won't see many
"manufacturers" selling them, or the idea, to the public (the cash cows),
but they will to groups like the deep-pocketed military.
Vernon
"Steph" <steph@vancouver.island> wrote in message
news:Hg3Gd.83078$Xk.15563@pd7tw3no...
>
> "Vernon" <openbox@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:tL0Gd.3611$1l2.3107@trndny05...
> > Hi Steph
> >
> > I guess the guys said the same things about testicular cancer before
they
> > were forced to reckon with the cisplatin and its progeny.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Vernon
> >
>
> But when Einhorn showed that testicular cancer is curable with chemo, he
did
> the clinical trial to prove it. There are some relatively rare advanced
> metastatic cancers which can be cured by chemo - testicular germ cell
> cancer, high and medium grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, some childhood
> cancers, but that's it. Chemotherapy is vastly overblown. It is a valuable
> adjuvant treatment after surgery for some common cancers, but none of the
> common epithelial cancers (breast, stomach, colon, rectum, lung, prostate,
> etc, ) can be cured by chemotherapy. And there is nothing on the horizon
to
> suggest that that is going to change anytime soon.
>
> For every 100 cancers cured, surgery cures about 50, radiotherapy about 40
> and chemotherapy at best 10. That's just the way it is.....
>
>
- Next message: ron: "Re: Prostate Cancer Treatment Poses Bone Risk -Study"
- Previous message: Bill X: "Re: GBM and hypothermia"
- In reply to: Steph: "Re: Prostate Cancer Treatment Poses Bone Risk -Study"
- Next in thread: ron: "Re: Prostate Cancer Treatment Poses Bone Risk -Study"
- Reply: ron: "Re: Prostate Cancer Treatment Poses Bone Risk -Study"
- Reply: madiba: "Re: Prostate Cancer Treatment Poses Bone Risk -Study"
- Reply: J: "Re: Prostate Cancer Treatment Poses Bone Risk -Study"
- Reply: Steph: "Re: Prostate Cancer Treatment Poses Bone Risk -Study"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|