Comments on: Cure Cancer? Not Without a Course Correction http://scienceprogress.org/2009/05/cancer/ Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:59:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Elaine http://scienceprogress.org/2009/05/cancer/comment-page-1/#comment-6962 Elaine Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:53:07 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=3045#comment-6962 Why hasn't the NCIS attempted the research on prevention of cancer and the value of Nutrition as a course in treatment for curing cancer? Why has vitamin therapy using high doses of Vitamin C been researched further and clinical trials set up for patients who opt out of the traditional chemo and Radiation therapies? Why are patients right to choose their own method of treatment become illegal in the USA? Why hasn’t the NCIS attempted the research on prevention of cancer and the value of Nutrition as a course in treatment for curing cancer? Why has vitamin therapy using high doses of Vitamin C been researched further and clinical trials set up for patients who opt out of the traditional chemo and Radiation therapies? Why are patients right to choose their own method of treatment become illegal in the USA?

]]> By: mark http://scienceprogress.org/2009/05/cancer/comment-page-1/#comment-6509 mark Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:10:30 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=3045#comment-6509 Nice Post man, atleast i knew something about it now. earler i was nil Nice Post man, atleast i knew something about it now. earler i was nil

]]> By: Gregory D. Pawelski http://scienceprogress.org/2009/05/cancer/comment-page-1/#comment-5452 Gregory D. Pawelski Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:52:53 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=3045#comment-5452 The era of personalized cancer medicine based on validated biomarkers is at hand. As the increasing numbers and types of cancer drugs are developed, oncologists become more and more likely to misuse them in their practice. Developing a good and clinically practical drug selection system is no less important than the discovery of new drugs or how to put them into the body. The needed change in the 'war on cancer' will not be on the types of drugs being developed, but on the understanding of the drugs we have. The system is overloaded with drugs and underloaded with the wisdom and expertise for using them. The single most neglected area of cancer research has been the development of methods and technologies to be matchmakers between individual cancer with individual cancer treatment. The single most neglected area of cancer treatment has been the unwillingness to utilize the matchmaker technologies which have already been developed and which are already available. Two years ago, three federal agencies, NCI, FDA, and CMS, announced their program to try to identify biological indicators, or biomarkers, which may indicate whether a cancer patient is likely to benefit from a given anti-cancer therapy, or even whether they will suffer from certain side effects. Biomarkers were already a part of drug development, but health officials wanted to routinely incorporate those measurements into clinical trials. We have the biomarkers for who will respond so we don't give these powerful and expensive medicines to those who won't. Just look at the Iressa/Tarceva story. A total failure of huge clinical trials because the proper patients were not selected. We should be able to detect cancer pathways with biomarkers and choose patients for a trial based on who responds very quickly to a drug. The ordinary trial system will not suffice if we are to encourage new drugs for restricted numbers of patients. The methods of cancer medicine during the last thirty some years are coming to haunt the "one-size-fits-all" establishment. Technologies, developed over the last twenty years by private researchers, hold the key to solving some of the problems confronting a healthcare system that is seeking ways to best allocate available resources while accomplishing the critical task of matching individual patients with the treatments most likely to benefit them. The era of personalized cancer medicine based on validated biomarkers is at hand. As the increasing numbers and types of cancer drugs are developed, oncologists become more and more likely to misuse them in their practice. Developing a good and clinically practical drug selection system is no less important than the discovery of new drugs or how to put them into the body.

The needed change in the ‘war on cancer’ will not be on the types of drugs being developed, but on the understanding of the drugs we have. The system is overloaded with drugs and underloaded with the wisdom and expertise for using them.

The single most neglected area of cancer research has been the development of methods and technologies to be matchmakers between individual cancer with individual cancer treatment. The single most neglected area of cancer treatment has been the unwillingness to utilize the matchmaker technologies which have already been developed and which are already available.

Two years ago, three federal agencies, NCI, FDA, and CMS, announced their program to try to identify biological indicators, or biomarkers, which may indicate whether a cancer patient is likely to benefit from a given anti-cancer therapy, or even whether they will suffer from certain side effects. Biomarkers were already a part of drug development, but health officials wanted to routinely incorporate those measurements into clinical trials.

We have the biomarkers for who will respond so we don’t give these powerful and expensive medicines to those who won’t. Just look at the Iressa/Tarceva story. A total failure of huge clinical trials because the proper patients were not selected. We should be able to detect cancer pathways with biomarkers and choose patients for a trial based on who responds very quickly to a drug. The ordinary trial system will not suffice if we are to encourage new drugs for restricted numbers of patients.

The methods of cancer medicine during the last thirty some years are coming to haunt the “one-size-fits-all” establishment. Technologies, developed over the last twenty years by private researchers, hold the key to solving some of the problems confronting a healthcare system that is seeking ways to best allocate available resources while accomplishing the critical task of matching individual patients with the treatments most likely to benefit them.

]]> By: Therese Battaglia http://scienceprogress.org/2009/05/cancer/comment-page-1/#comment-5365 Therese Battaglia Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:49:24 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=3045#comment-5365 Doubling the money for cancer research will not solve the problem. The problem is that anytime a doctor, or researcher has developed a cure for cancer, it has been suppressed or not been allowed on the market, because there are people who do not want the cures known, being that cancer is a big business. Over thirty years ago the Krebiozen brothers developed a cure, and I had a friend, who was a nurse at the hospital, where it was allowed to be used(shots)only by a doctor, and she said that she saw people cured of cancer. Then there was a Dr. Harold Manner, who devised a method to cure "some types of breast cancer", and he was persecuted. I had the honor of seeing him in person, and I do have his book about his research and methods. Then there have been other natural treatments. We do not have to have more of our taxpayers money go down the drain. Much of the research has all ready been done. Doubling the money for cancer research will not solve the problem.
The problem is that anytime a doctor, or researcher has developed a cure for cancer, it has been suppressed or not been allowed on the market, because there are people who do not want the cures known, being that cancer is a big business.
Over thirty years ago the Krebiozen brothers developed a cure, and I had a friend, who was a nurse at the hospital, where it was allowed to be used(shots)only by a doctor, and she said that she saw people cured of cancer.
Then there was a Dr. Harold Manner, who devised a method to cure “some types of breast cancer”, and he was persecuted. I had the honor of seeing him in person, and I do have his book about his research and methods.
Then there have been other natural treatments.
We do not have to have more of our taxpayers money go down the drain.
Much of the research has all ready been done.

]]> By: Ivo P. Janecka, MD, MBA, PhD http://scienceprogress.org/2009/05/cancer/comment-page-1/#comment-5304 Ivo P. Janecka, MD, MBA, PhD Sat, 23 May 2009 21:25:20 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/?p=3045#comment-5304 This article is full of important perspectives on cancer care, the many hopes that were not fulfilled over the years, and the many suspected reasons behind this outcome. The author suggests that the current cancer treatment system should be turned into a research and learning system. The problem is that our societal health care is not a true system as it reflects a system-in-failing when viewed through the framework of systems science (see reference below). Unless health care does become a true system, cancer care will continue to struggle. Janecka IP: Is the U.S. Health Care an Appropriate System? A strategic perspective from systems science. Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7:1 (Highly Accessed) http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/1 This article is full of important perspectives on cancer care, the many hopes that were not fulfilled over the years, and the many suspected reasons behind this outcome. The author suggests that the current cancer treatment system should be turned into a research and learning system.
The problem is that our societal health care is not a true system as it reflects a system-in-failing when viewed through the framework of systems science (see reference below). Unless health care does become a true system, cancer care will continue to struggle.
Janecka IP: Is the U.S. Health Care an Appropriate System? A strategic perspective from systems science. Health Research Policy and Systems 2009, 7:1
(Highly Accessed) http://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/1/1

]]>