Curing breast cancer will probably involve

[cthulu2016]

Curing breast cancer will probably involve also curing colon cancer, lung cancer, prostate, stomach, pancreatic... and visa versa.

That is finding a cure. (Like we have a "cure" for pink-eye. You get it. The doctor says take this. You no longer have it.) There are many variable particulars of treatments that are type specific, but a reliable cure will be accomplished by defeating cancer's relative invisibility to the patient's own immune system. (And will probably be proximate to an HIV cure also.)

That's why I have never understood the "cure" angle. Each type of cancer has it's own specific modes of prevention, detection and treatment and there is much good to be said about raising awareness of, and improving, these things. It is odd to have different organizations competing to be heard in telling you to get a mamogram, pap smear, prostate exam and colonoscopy, and to eat right and not smoke, but that's the reality and even mixed or scattershot awareness is better than no awareness.

But a cure? No entity will deserve all the credit in any scenario, but the entity most responsible for a cure (if it is possible) will probably be that ole' devil US federal government.

If I recall correctly, the US government funds big research in only three diseases: cancer, hiv/aids and influenza. I understand the politics of AIDS and it would just confuse people if they understood how much we spend on flu (and why) but have never understood why more is not spent on cancer through NIH because you would think cancer would be the least controversial part of the budget... something that would always be boosted and boosted as good politics for relatively small money.

[HopeHoops]

1. I just found out that my grandmother had breast cancer - like about 10 minutes ago.

I was talking with my father about medical issues and he mentioned it. I didn't know that before. That's not what did her in, but it is good to know about - I have three daughters.

[cthulu2016]

3. That's an interesting point.

We often don't know our family medical history beyond cause of death, and that is made more confusing because back in the day cancer was considered shameful somehow and a lot of older death certificates say "pneumonia" or 'heart failure" (which is literally true, but not useful) and leave it at that.

[HopeHoops]

4. Family history is one of the most important things you have when talking to your GP.

[tridim]

2. Removing Cannabis from Schedule I so it can be seriously studied would be a good start.

[HopeHoops]

5. It should be Schedule V.

[tridim]

10. It should be on the same schedule as broccoli and kale.

It's a safe, non-toxic flower that makes you feel good (horrors!), and has the (unfortunate for big pharma) side-effect of shrinking tumors.

Schedule the pure THC extracts and chemically altered cannabis based medicines, deschedule the plant.

[angel823]

12. indeed

So much dis-information about the bud....

Angel in Texas

[HopeHoops]

14. Okay. I need to clean my monitor now.

!!!!!

I've never tried smoking broccoli or kale, or baking them in brownies, but I do agree with you.

[Capitalocracy]

15. I agree, but I also think we should remove the barriers to studying illegal drugs

For example, psilocybin and LSD have very promising potential uses in psychiatric care, but the fact that they're illegal makes it very difficult to obtain funding and jump over the legal hurdles to seriously study it.

Now, marijuana should just be legal, and in my opinion so should shrooms and LSD (and probably all the other illegal drugs too, considering the fact that use actually appears to go down instead of up if it's legal), but even if they never are, I don't understand why it's so difficult to do scientific studies involving these substances.

Actually, I do understand why... it's because the more we know about them, the more ridiculous it is that they remain illegal.

[Lint Head]

6. My mother died of cancer. It started as breast cancer but spread to other organs.

She was too frail to have radiation or chemo. I carry major guilt around with me even though I know there was nothing that could have been done. It was in the 1980's and treatment was totally different than it is today and the internet research I could have done was non existent.

[Lint Head]

8. The politicization of cancer and other diseases highly pisses me off.

There should NEVER be a profit motive for curing cancer or any other type of disease. This meme that private profit is what drives cures is total bull shit. Disease research can be funded the same way military research is funded. We have computers and the internet because of government funded military and security research. As far as I am concerned universal health care and research are the ONLY answers.
I know there are some who would disagree.

[backscatter712]

9. The private market doesn't want cures - there's no money in cures.

The money is in treatments.

Take a woman with breast cancer, with a year to live. With chemo, radiation, surgeries, various pharmaceuticals, her lifespan could be extended five years, and in the meantime, the medical-industrial complex is making six to seven figures in revenue from those treatments.

A cure doesn't rake in nearly that much money.

[behold a pale horse]

16. Actually, the "cure" IS what kills people!

Didn't know that, did you? You actually think something as toxic and destructive as chemo is good for the body?! It kills everything in sight. Yeah, sometimes if the body's strong enough to take the abuse, it will summon up the strength to fight the poisionous deluge and we all that a "cure" but then it "comes back" (read: the person did not change lifestyle or the poison was too much for the system). Sometimes it will show up as the same dis-ease. Or not. Some people get one type of cancer and then are diagnosed (and subsequently die) with another type.

There is one dis-ease: toxins in the body. A cold, flu, cataracts and cancer are all manifestations of the same dis-ease, just to different degrees.

[cthulu2016]

13. Best is to have a mix

For instance, concentrating cancer reaserch coordinated through NIH (or other responsible agency) is a good thing, but say NIH decides that idea X is so unlikely to yield results that it isn't worth the funding. If somebody else tackles it because of the long-shot potential to make some money, that's fine by me.

There is a place for the incentives of the marketplace. There is a place for big centralized planning. And there is a place for the unconventional which will, occassionally, pay off.

The problem is gouging, not mere profit. I might offer drug makers longer patent lives in exchange for lower profits -- like things under patent costing no more than twice what the generic will cost, but for a longer time.

Best stat about pharma reserach - no pharma company spends more on reserch than on marketing.

[dmr]

7. This reminds me of Jon Stewart's guest last night

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-2-2012/david-agus

David Agus, the author of "The End of Illness"

http://www.amazon.com/The-End-of-Illness-ebook/dp/B004T4KQYS
- snip -

When Dr. Agus decided to pursue a career in oncology, many of his mentors questioned his choice. Why, they asked, would a promising young doctor want to enter a field known for its inescapably grim outcomes? But it was precisely the lack of progress that inspired Dr. Agus to join the war on cancer. He moved away from the modern methods of the medical establishment, which aim to reduce our afflictions to a single point. Instead, as he does in this book, Dr. Agus argues for the adoption of a systemic view—a way of honoring our bodies as complex, whole systems. This outlook informs how we can avoid all illnesses—not just cancer. Dr. Agus empowers us to take charge of our individual health in personal, customized ways we could not have imagined before.

- snip -
Dr. Agus also offers insights and access to breathtaking and powerful new technologies that promise to transform medicine in our generation. In the course of offering recommendations, he emphasizes his belief that there is no “right” answer, no master guide that is “one size fits all.” Each one of us must get to know our bodies in uniquely personal ways, and he shows us exactly how to do that so that we can individually create a plan for wellness.

The End of Illness is a bold call for all of us to become our own personal health advocates, and a dramatic departure from orthodox thinking. This is a seminal work that promises to revolutionize how we live.

- more at link -

[tawadi]

11. Hopefully some day there will be a cure

Maybe I am the last optimist on du. But I think in the future, once they truly understand cancer, they will be able to cure it or rather eradicate it after the diagnosis. Or maybe its all wishful thinking.

[behold a pale horse]

18. The first step is looking outside yourself when it comes to health!

Health begins with YOU! That is not blaming the victim; it's empowering the patient! Meds and cuttings and radiation are not the answers to healing.

The "cure" is a plant-based, whole-foods, high-LIVING (raw fruits and veggies) eating style, along with Right View (understanding who you really are as Spirit-Soul and not the material identity), pure air exercise (NOT gyms with MRSA oozing from vinyl seats and stuffy rooms).

[tawadi]

20. Very healthy advice

Too bad more don't take your advice.

[laundry_queen]

17. If they find the cure for cancer

they will also find the cure for aging. This is what I remember reading in some science article when I was a teen (20 something yrs ago). Because of the way cells can only reproduce so many times before they die, and cancer cells lack that specific property in their cells that cause them to die naturally (which makes them reproduce like crazy, never die and take over the body) that if researchers could find WHY cancer cells don't ever die, they would find how to make regular cells keep living. It was a very fascinating article. Of course, the same article predicted that the cure would have been found by now, but then, they couldn't have known how big pharma would become more profitable off of treatment rather than cures and thus only investigate expensive treatments instead of all out cures. THAT is why research should be government funded, not profit driven. Imagine if all the researchers that came out with viagra, cialis and all those eyelash growing drugs spend the same amount of time on CANCER research instead of shallow shit that'll make money. Sick system.

[behold a pale horse]

19. Read "Fit for Life II" by Harvey Diamond

He explains EVERYTHING about cancer and other dis-eases. What drives the cancer cells "crazy" (as he puts it) is that if we are too toxic (in diet, thoughts and lifestyle), our bodies attempt to correct it by various means. Tumors simply cordon-off the toxins so the body can continue operating properly. In our infinite wisdom, we get biopsies, which may take this material and re-introduce it into the system and CAUSE the cancer to spread!