We Fought Cancer…And Cancer Won.

Please see www.curetocancer.com ASAP

This is what POWs say about McCain. In their own words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KjsEs46C70

This is what POWs say about McCain. In their own words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KjsEs46C70

Too many make too much for change to happen

Simple changes to diet, exercise and things like
hair color or applying deodorant right after shaving,
could make huge differences in the rate of cancer.

I actually think that some doctors may say someone
with good insurance has cancer when they really
don't. I've become extremely cynical in my old age....

Hi all , I am a cancer survivor , in 2002 had colon-resection surgery to remove a tennis ball size tumor that was attached to my abdominal wall-----6 months of chemo followed-----Suprise at the age of 40 ! Suprise to be alive at 47 ! Lucky one....this article make me want to go visit some cancer patients and encourage them. For the first year or 2 after my strategy was to get mad and stay mad to handel the treatments and after-effects. Now i use APPRECIATION in spirit and send messages to my cells through prayer. from this article we can see its all about the cells in our bodies. GREAT ARTICLE !!!

In Canada, they radiate first and only then do they cut.
They have much better outcomes!
Point two: cancer researchers waste money with statistical lifestyle surveys that confuse correlation with causation, and merely blame the victim. The cancer industry gets the money but we the public get no help. It's a self-serving institutional game.

The authors don't seem to realize that cancer is very different from most other diseases- true they mention the multiple 'backups' that cancer cells have and that they evade treatment, but then criticize research for not being as proliferative as say cardiovascular disease, which is INFINATELY more simple. Also, the authors mention the breakthroughs not initially funded by the NCI, such as Her2. What they don't mention is how many of these fishing trips (and they were fishing trips, albeit successful ones) don't find anything. They were brilliant ideas that happened to work- cancer isn't logical, and the most reasoned and brilliant of ideas don't work- if the NCI funded everything totally innovative and out of the mainstream that came it's way we would not have any money left to spend on the plod along approach, or 'single hits' that science has found. Also, science is not pharma. Pharma will only spend money to take discoveries further if they decide it will be lucrative. The 'small' discoveries aren't being picked up by the companies that could use them for drugs because they aren't sure to make enough money- yet. Scientific discoveries can only translate to helping patients if physicians and researchers understand enough about the others' field to make that happen. Unfortunately, researchers and physicians hardly ever can understand enough about the others field to make that happen. The NIH has tried to rememdy this by training people who are both "Physician-Scientists", but the difficulty of funding and the pull of higher salary from patient care alone hamper these individuals.
Perhaps the authors are right, that we are losing the war on cancer- however while they attack the approach taken by people who work their entire lives to help find new treatments for this horrible diseases (or diseases), they offer no viable alternative- we already know eating right, not smoking, and other behaviors reduces cancers, but if they had ever tried to convice a patient to modify their behavior to prevent a disease they might get 30 years down the road, they would know the futility of this statement.

I'm not a cancer researcher, but this article seems biased against science, and seems to omit some recent findings which may change the way cancer research is done. For example, although cancer scientists have struggled to narrow the causes of a wide variety of cancer types, findings published in the most recent issue of the journal "Nature" suggest that a relatively small number of pathways are responsible for a large number of types of cancer. Perhaps the authors will argue that these are just another one of the long list of findings that might not help patients, but I think it is easy to be skeptical before the benefits of a discovery have been explored.
What worries me most is that the authors either did not do their research (since some of the statements in the text are now incorrect as a result of the new findings), or chose to ignore the new findings. The article is a frightening example of authors writing an article against science in a respectable publication without having the latest information, or else deliberately omitting information that would weaken their gloomy message. Furthermore, compared to the military budget, we spend a very small amount per year to try to help a large number of people with a devastating disease. If the authors think the spending isn't worth it, perhaps they would be willing to forego being treated if they come down with cancer. I think war on cancer is better justified than some of the other wars we're fighting.

I'm not a cancer researcher, but this article seems biased against science, and seems to omit some recent findings which may change the way cancer research is done. For example, although cancer scientists have struggled to narrow the causes of a wide variety of cancer types, findings published in the most recent issue of the journal "Nature" suggest that a relatively small number of pathways are responsible for a large number of types of cancer. Perhaps the authors will argue that these are just another one of the long list of findings that might not help patients, but I think it is easy to be skeptical before the benefits of a discovery have been explored.
What worries me most is that the authors either did not do their research (since some of the statements in the text are now incorrect as a result of the new findings), or chose to ignore the new findings. The article is a frightening example of authors writing an article against science in a respectable publication without having the latest information, or else deliberately omitting information that would weaken their gloomy message. Furthermore, compared to the military budget, we spend a very small amount per year to try to help a large number of people with a devastating disease. If the authors think the spending isn't worth it, perhaps they would be willing to forego being treated if they come down with cancer. I think war on cancer is better justified than some of the other wars we're fighting.

Excellent article, with one very large omission....Behavior. Our reductionist approach to science finds behavior change less elegant, less sexy, and less reputable. Yet, many cancers are directly related to an individual's behavior. Less smoking, less drinking, better exercise and diet habits would significantly decrease the incidence of cancer. Yes, we should keep doing genetics and molecular biology, but NIH currently spends a tiny fraction of it's budget on behavioral studies compared to genetic and molecular biology studies. Behavior change is very hard for Americans, but it would have a far greater impact on cancer (and other high prevalence disorders) than molecular biology.

I believe Cancer is such extremely complex syndrome with roots in the mind, emotions coupled with the abuse we inflict on our bodies, ie: eating processed foods, red meat & chicken ???hormonized & medicated for commercialization??? .... Like Whataboutus, I also believe there is no cure only ways to prolong the life either with quality of life or not, depending on the treatment taken or not. I do not presently have cancer... my father died of it... and my heart tells me that his cancer came from being an extremely stressed, over achiever, type A personality with a personality disorder for which he used rage to solve everything..... I hated to see what conventional medicine did to him in his last months of life: radiation & chemo to "delay" the progress of the cancer???.. I would have preferred him to receive pain mitigation therapy which was scantly available to him.......he died any way destroyed further & additionally by the therapies that reduced his quality of life... his last few weeks or days.... Should I encounter cancer.... I hope to have the courage to refuse therapies, enjoy my last years/months/days, complete all unfinished business... and let go and let God. I have to take responsibility for my actions through life which I am living responsibly and with no regrets??? this will be my Responsibility exit. ????????????. To all cancer patients out there: May God lessen your pain and suffering ??? live with quality all moments possible ?????? fill your heart with LOVE ???. And stay in touch with God???. I love you and honor you.

This article should probably be titled "Elitist cell biologists want money to do elegant experiments, but don't give a rat's patootie if real people die."

As a practicing cell biologist, I find the author's statements like "Biologists who never met a signaling pathway they didn't love tend to dismiss the success in pediatric oncology. It involved no discoveries of elegant cell biology, just plodding work," to be either naive or stupid. Biologists have always known that cancer is a hard problem, and there is little to be gained from randomly chasing down the myriad anecdotal claims that pop up ("Smoking weed can and will cure cancer." ) The so-called "plodding" work is done by cell biologists on a daily basis, and elegance is a standard that we aim at because it is imperative to do the simplest and most insightful experiments possible in order to (1) acquire a solid understanding, and (2) avoid being fooled by the trivial.

The author should read more of the research literature before trivializing the interest of biologists in "signaling pathways." Targeting pathways is now seen to be a potentially better option than the one target at a time strategy that has been pursued to date.

Everything the author tries to promote as a missed opportunity was widely discusses and pursued by the scientific community. The "ignored" ideas have received lots of attention, and even more grant money.

And we do make progress--I know people (including a family member) that would be alive today if in 1991 we had the same anti-retroviral drugs that we have today. It was not uncommon to hear the same kind of criticisms aimed at AIDS research in the 90s, but look where we are today. No cure, but lots of people are alive that would not have been without the progress made in the basic cell and molecular biology of HIV.

Dearwhataboutus, You are blessed to not have healthcare. You will live about 13 yrs longer if you do not get the treatments that kill your immune system that fights cancer. If you can boost your immune system now while healthy. If you are ill boost your immune system. Eat only fresh meat, veges and fruit. Avoid chemicals do not eat,drink , breathe or wear them. Do not have closed drycleaned chemicals are toxic. Do not use chemicals to clean your house. Do not eat meats dunked in chemicals which prepackaged meats are. The FDA has failed us and allowed many items in the store that cause cancer. Shop the perimeter of the store for fresh items. Better yet go to your local farmers market. I know the conventional treatments kill very quickly and that without it you survive much longer until your white cells in your blood cannot overcome the many cancer cells. Do what you can to boost your white blood cells prior to illness and you live much longer. The conventional therapy kills immunity and you die quickly from pneumonia or anemia or heart attack not from the cancer but from the treatments.

Dear whataboutus sure if you have undiagnosed untreated cancer you will die but it will be much slower. Your immune system will fight until it cannot any more. Build your immunity up know to prevent it from getting weak. The standard treatment is to kill your immune system which results in quick death. Without treatment you can expect your immune system to fight for you for about thirteen yrs. Then when the cancer has spread too far for your white blood cells to overcome it then you die. Usually from pneumonia or heart failure not cancer. So if you get sick do what you can to boost your immune system, better yet boost it now before you get ill. Eat fresh foods. Avoid chemicals like used to clean the house or hairspray. Avoid eating,drinking or breathing chemicals. Do not eat meats with chemicals such as hot dogs dunked into chemicals or other packaged meats. Fresh meats, fruits and vegetables are the best. Avoid drycleaned clothing the chemicals are toxic. You are blessed to be without insurance i think you will live longer.

There will never be a cure for cancer....only drugs to prolong your life...think about it!

What about the people who have no insurance... who can't afford the test???? Do, we just die?

John_Charles_Webb wrote "All that needs to be done is for a reputable institution to examine the effects (if any) of the top 500 chemicals that are in our products, foodchain, and environment generally, and to conduct experiments on these substances, individually and in tandem, affect human DNA." ---- But that's 2^500, or approximately 1 followed by 160 zeros many combinations of chemicals to test!!!!

John_Charles_Webb wrote "All that needs to be done is for a reputable institution to examine the effects (if any) of the top 500 chemicals that are in our products, foodchain, and environment generally, and to conduct experiments on these substances, individually and in tandem, affect human DNA." ---- But that's 2^500, or approximately 1 followed by 160 zeros many combinations of chemicals to test!!!!

Th

John_Charles_Webb wrote "All that needs to be done is for a reputable institution to examine the effects (if any) of the top 500 chemicals that are in our products, foodchain, and environment generally, and to conduct experiments on these substances, individually and in tandem, affect human DNA." ---- But that's 2^500, or approximately 1 followed by 160 zeros many combinations of chemicals to test!!!!

Th