1. I think they need to focus more research on why certain people respond to certain treatments and why others don't.

Posted at 6:09PM on Aug 5th 2007 by Carver

2. PS to my first comment. I probably should have spelled out that I have stage III melanoma (deep primary, one positive lymph node). I chose not to do the only FDA approved adjuvant treatment, interferon. So far I haven't had a recurrence. I've know people with a better prognosis at diagnosis than I have, who have had a recurrence and fast progression. I think it would be good to have more studies into why some recur and others don't. For example, after I chose not to do interferon, it would be interesting to see if some of my autoimmune symptoms (chronic pain, neuropathy, etc.) have played a part in my remaining disease free thus far. I would have been happy to have been in a study like that.
http://carverblog.blogspot.com/

Posted at 6:20PM on Aug 5th 2007 by Carver

3. The Individuality And Uniqueness Of Each Cancer Patient

Being that this site and numerous other sites talk about chemotherapy being the where-with-all of cancer treatment, I'll address chemotherapy. The needed change in the "war on cancer" will not be on the types of expensive drugs being developed, but on the understanding of all the drugs we already have. The system is "overloaded" with drugs (hundreds of them) and "underloaded" with the wisdom and expertise for using them.

As the increasing numbers and types of anti-cancer drugs are developed, oncologists become more and more likely to misuse them in their practices. There is seldom a "standard" therapy which has been proven to be superior to any other therapy. When all studies are compared by meta-analysis, there is no difference. What may work for one, may not work for another. Few drugs work the way we think and few physicians/scientists take the time to think through what it is they are using them for.

The new "targeted" therapeutics have been providing mostly smaller benefits to patients than the conventional cytotoxic agents. Chemotherapy is recommended according to guidelines generated by statistical data. According to the FDA, the response rate of a patient that follows these guidelines is approximately 20%. According to NCI, those who benefit substantially from "targeted" drugs is approximately 10-20%.

These "smart" drugs do not work for everyone, and a system to determine the efficacy of these drugs in a patient is the first crucial step in "personalizing" treatment to the individual. It is highly desirable to know what drugs are effective against "your" particular cancer cells before these toxic agents are systemically administered into your body. Having a good tumor-drug match not only would improve survival rates, it would be cost-effective.

With today's "cookie-cutter" approach to chemotherapy, we have no idea which cancer patients will benefit from a course of treatment, you don't know in advance who is going to respond. As Carver states "why certain people respond to certain treatments and why others don't. It is time to explore other avenues of research for cancer treatment.

BTW Carver, BEAUTIFUL pictures on your website!

Posted at 9:56PM on Aug 5th 2007 by Gregory D. Pawelski

4. I am tired of all the talk about the "war on cancer". Once cancer is encrusted in the flesh the battle is indeed ugly and difficult, but anyone of us can prevent cancer with little effort and at no cost.

About two thirds of all cancers can be avoided by simple lifestyle changes like stopping smoking, losing weight, exercising, eating more veggies, avoiding the sun, etc.

Dr Liboff writes: "medicine still does not have a firm understanding of the underlying basis for cancer." Wrong. We understand clearly what causes most cancer. In the end, however, very few care, fewer listen.

They are too busy looking for "the cure for cancer".

Posted at 2:41PM on Aug 7th 2007 by Emmanuel M

5. Please read this article and many others on this site. It is an eye opener. http://www.newstarget.com/021967.html

Posted at 7:08PM on Aug 9th 2007 by Bright1red

6. Emmanuel, if only it were that easy. If in fact two thirds of cancers can be prevented by lifestyle changes--which is endlessly debatable--that still leaves a third. And that's a whole lot of people, dude.
Regards,
Richard Day Gore

Posted at 6:42PM on Aug 9th 2007 by richard day gore

7. Bright1red:

"Please read this article and many others on this site. It is an eye opener. http://www.newstarget.com/021967.html"

Mike Adams is a quack, a major quack.


Why?
http://doctorrw.blogspot.com/2007/07/is-conventional-medicine-cult.html
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/07/alternative_medicine_quacks_de.php

Posted at 9:57PM on Aug 9th 2007 by hchcec

8. Who do quackwatchers have as their spokesperson?

http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html

Posted at 3:42PM on Aug 12th 2007 by Gregory D. Pawelski

9. Since it was my letter to the NYT that precipitated these comments, perhaps I can expand on what I claim, namely that there is something wrong with the way that cancer is being studied.

A good example of what troubles me is found in this blog, where the commentator says:

"...cancer is just that complicated. While we must continue to work on understanding the basics of the cell, at the same time, we also need to continue coming at cancer from all angles."

First, modern medicine always falls back on the cop-out that if we don't understand this or that malady, it must be because it's too complex. In physics the approach is just the opposite. When things appear complex, it is an invitation to find a simpler description. Medicine holds on to its useless paradigms like comfort blankies.

Second, it simply is not true that cancer is being looked at "from all angles". The angles zre rigidly prescribed by the medical school curriculum, the NIH, the FDA, and the entire colossus that comprises 21st century medicine. My specialty for the past few years has been in electromagnetic medicine. There simply is no way of my breaking into funded cancer research, although there are numerous experiments published in peer reviewed journals that indicate striking effects with likely applications to cancer.

Posted at 7:42PM on Aug 15th 2007 by a r liboff

10. I wonder--what will happen if they find a cure? Half of the emdical community will be out of a job. Does this knowledge color some researchers' efforts?
Regards,
Richard Day Gore

Posted at 9:09AM on Aug 16th 2007 by richard day gore