Cancer-We really need to solve this
- Thread starter GK4Herd
- Start date
researchers are doing good work and seem to be
on the right track. i am glad to see that v.p. biden/dems
are forming a type of centralized clearing house to
focus efforts and resources. it would help greatly if
republicans would stop cutting funding for research.
on the right track. i am glad to see that v.p. biden/dems
are forming a type of centralized clearing house to
focus efforts and resources. it would help greatly if
republicans would stop cutting funding for research.
Enough with the political shit. There was absolutely NO NEED to interject politics.
I agree gk I truly believe there will be significant breakthroughs in the next 5-10 years
The advances they have made on cancer in my lifetime are unbelievable. We aren't that far away. The survival rates for most cancers has skyrocketed over the last 25 years. Of course none of that helps when someone you know gets one of the tough forms. Sorry for the news GK.
WHAT I SAID IS TRUE NOT POLITICS.
EVERY TIME SOMEONE INTERJECTS A FACT THAT DOES NOT
FIT A CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT THEY YELL POLITICS.
AND STICK THEIR HEAD IN THE SAND BECAUSE THEY REFUSE
TO ADMIT THEIR NARROW MINDED SHORT SIGHTED IGNORANCE
OF FACTS.
FROM THE WASHINGTON POST - (I COULD GIVE YOU A THOUSAND
REFERENCES TO A THOUSAND DIFFERENT INSTANCES)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-to-cut-research-on-evidence-based-medicine/
The good news is that the federal government is now making a significant investment in health services and patient-centered outcomes research to identify waste and improve the safety, effectiveness and quality of care. The bad news is that House Republicans are trying to abolish one of the main agencies carrying out this research, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and cut the funding of another, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The puzzle is why.
NEWS FLASH - WHEN YOU SUPPORT PEOPLE WHO THINK GOVT SHOULD
NOT DO ANYTHING - THEN GOVT DOES NOT DO ANYTHING INCLUDING
CANCER RESEARCH.
Last edited:
Here's something that needs to change:
- In 20 years the FDA has initially approved only two drugs for any childhood cancer – 1/2 of all chemotherapies used for children’s cancers are over 25 years old
- Research and development for new drugs from pharmaceutical companies comprises 60% of funding for adult cancer drugs and close to zero for childhood cancers.
- However, the NCI spends 96% of its budget on adult cancers and only 4% of its budget on children’s cancers.
- In dollar terms, NCI’s funding for pediatric clinical trials is $26.4 million while funding for AIDS research is $254 million, and breast cancer is $584 million.
- Pharmaceutical companies don’t commit resources to childhood cancer research because the adult cancer drug business is viewed as more profitable and less risky to them.
- Accordingly, there is an estimated $30 million a year gap in childhood cancer research funding.
cancer has a higher prevalence in adults. Thus the reason for an adult focus. Because of this, "profit" is a relative term. It's naturally "more profitable" when you are providing more services.
Either way, there is enormous resources going into cancer research. The advancement has been amazing.
It's a shame the delivery of this type of advancement will be delivered more selectively in the coming years.
Either way, there is enormous resources going into cancer research. The advancement has been amazing.
It's a shame the delivery of this type of advancement will be delivered more selectively in the coming years.
STFU. GK post about cancer and a family member and you chime in with political banter. Time and place for everything. This isn't it.
GK, it is terrible. Hopefully, we can cure this evil one day.
- Cancer is the number one cause of death by disease among children. (4)
- About thirty five percent of children diagnosed with cancer will die within 30 years of diagnosis. (8)
- On average, about 17% of children die within 5 years of diagnosis. Among those children that survive to five years from diagnosis, 18% will die within 30 years of diagnosis. (8)
- Those that survive the five years have an eight times greater mortality rate due to the increased risk of liver and heart disease and increased risk for reoccurrence of the original cancer or of a secondary cancer. (8)
- There are 70 potential life years lost on average when a child dies of cancer compared to 15 potential life years lost for adults. (7B)
you stfu - i am more concerned about gk's family member than you are - yours too for that matter, because i attempt to put people into office who will put money into cures as
opposed to people like you who throw out your sorry's then advocate for people who
cut research funding.
if you'd work to elect people who fight for funding you could avoid a lot of your
sorry's.
Thanks guys. My wife's mother has been battling pancreatic cancer for the last four months. She's been doing chemo and holding her own but obviously not a good prognosis.
But about 2 1/2 weeks ago my family had dinner with my wife's sister and family and her mom and dad. Her sister was healthy/thin and took care of herself. She didn't smoke or drink. A day later she develops a pain in her abdomen and goes to the hospital. Everyone thinks it's an intestinal infection. Nope. They detect cancer markers in blood test and order scans. She had cancer in her pancreas and liver. Two weeks after suffering her first symptom she dies. She doesn't even outlive her mother.
She leaves behind two daughters and a husband who just weren't ready for her to go. Watching these kids lose their mom, her mother and father lose their daughter, her husband lose his wife, and my wife lose her sister is just gut wrenching.
I don't know...just terrible stuff.
But about 2 1/2 weeks ago my family had dinner with my wife's sister and family and her mom and dad. Her sister was healthy/thin and took care of herself. She didn't smoke or drink. A day later she develops a pain in her abdomen and goes to the hospital. Everyone thinks it's an intestinal infection. Nope. They detect cancer markers in blood test and order scans. She had cancer in her pancreas and liver. Two weeks after suffering her first symptom she dies. She doesn't even outlive her mother.
She leaves behind two daughters and a husband who just weren't ready for her to go. Watching these kids lose their mom, her mother and father lose their daughter, her husband lose his wife, and my wife lose her sister is just gut wrenching.
I don't know...just terrible stuff.
my grandpa died of pancreatic cancer a few years ago.
my dad and his sister both had Hodgkin's lymphoma. Both cancer free for almost 20 years now.
I'm not trying to be heartless here but, these statistics dont change what has been stated earlier.
Again these statistics are all about understanding the context of the data. It should be no surprise that severe illness, like forms of cancer, to be the number 1 killer, especially in children. Outside of cancer, most children's illnesses/accidents are less impactful on their overall mortality.
It makes sense that their mortality rates increase post cancer. Cancer therapies can be highly toxic to other "healthy" organ systems(liver & heart). The fact is, many cancer treatments adults must endure would actually kill the child before cancer, if administered. This ultimately results in the risks associated with children's treatments for cancer to be very high.
These treatment/disease risks further impact research in various ways. The "study" requirements (successful/poor outcomes, adverse events, etc) of new treatments and medications for child cancer patients make it a highly risky endeavor. Experimental therapies and therapies in various developmental stages are stringently governed by the FDA. If the (potential) risks to the patients in therapeutic studies outweighs survivability chances...the study is terminated and therapy eliminated (a huge financial burden that must be made up).
Finally, the use of "adults" in these references may also be subjective. Again, it should be no surprise that "potential life years lost" would be higher in children. They have potentially longer to live, than a 65 year old who comes down with some form of cancer.
How does that even work Walden? Are you implying that there is a God that says, "Damn...they got that one figured out. Ok, let's see what kind of miserable death I can come up with next." That would be a little weird considering this God has the power of producing global floods.
Or are you attributing this to some kind of unknown science. I'm not sure that there is a cognizant disease whose mission is to assure the "necessity of life" that's sitting back waiting for a cure in order to pounce on humanity. If another disease is going to rear its head,I doubt it cares much about the timing of a cancer cure.
The discussion of child vs adult cancer has good points on both sides. I read where childhood cancer represents 1% of all new cancer cases each year so I can see why more money goes toward adult onset cancer.
Maybe a breakthrough in any area of cancer whether it's adult vs child cancer or in any of the types of cancer, that it will have benefits across the board.
I'd love for Carl to weigh in on this discussion. He has more knowledge than any of us. But he's probably out working his tail off fighting this stuff.
Maybe a breakthrough in any area of cancer whether it's adult vs child cancer or in any of the types of cancer, that it will have benefits across the board.
I'd love for Carl to weigh in on this discussion. He has more knowledge than any of us. But he's probably out working his tail off fighting this stuff.
The sad reality is that if we eradicated all forms of deadly disease, we would probably be extinct within 75 years. Either that, or the global wars over resources would kill as many, or more, people than the diseases previously did.
Figures I found show 36 million deaths per year from diseases. When you factor in future reproduction from those that die, that has to take at least 50 million per year out of global population. If we had no murder or disease, the U.S. Population would most likely already be 450-500 million. It's a cold way to look at it, and doesn't change how someone feels when they are personally impacted, but if every single human lived to be at least 80 we would be screwed.
Figures I found show 36 million deaths per year from diseases. When you factor in future reproduction from those that die, that has to take at least 50 million per year out of global population. If we had no murder or disease, the U.S. Population would most likely already be 450-500 million. It's a cold way to look at it, and doesn't change how someone feels when they are personally impacted, but if every single human lived to be at least 80 we would be screwed.
Everyone just can't live forever, that's all. Gotta go sometime, somehow. That's just how it is. The better focus would be on reducing the suffering of cancer. Instead, the doctors want to subject a person to every round of everything they can think of to rack up a big bill to bilk insurance.
