Stem cell treatment for Parkinson's causes cancer?

[heartsurgeon]

It has gotten beyond absurd..

a purported Pharmacy student stating

Cancer is NOT a terminal illness

for NOT being a terminal illness...it sure seems to kill a lot of people

Second leading of cause of death

 

[imported_Lothar]

Malaria kills 2.7-4 million people every year.
By your logic it would be a terminal illness.

Talk about being absurd.

Adequate treatment is available for both malaria and cancer.
None for Parkinson's. If you have parkinson's, you're entirely stuck with it for life because there's no adequate treatment.

Any disease in which there's no adequate treatment for is what I consider terminal.

*EDIT*
Cancer is such a broad and general term.
If your cell divides faster than normal, you have cancer.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeoni'm just waiting to see how i get attacked for posting this...

Your link doesn't work without a subscription, and you didn't give us any info about what treatment the article discusses such as what it is, what it involves and what the risk factors for the various alternatives are.

This isn't an attack on you, but without that info, all you've given us is a turd in the punchbowl without even letting us know what kind of punch was involved.

for NOT being a terminal illness...it sure seems to kill a lot of people

If you're really an MD, you'd know that IT is not an IT. It's a THEY. That is, what we call "cancer" is actually a large catagory of diseases with mortality rates ranging from very low to catastrophic and, when caught early enough, survival times ranging from very long (prostate cancer) to rapid, certain death (metasticized cancer of the lymph nodes).

If you're going to post an expert opinion, how about including enough info to help us civilians make some distinctions?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
It has gotten beyond absurd..

a purported Pharmacy student stating

Cancer is NOT a terminal illness

for NOT being a terminal illness...it sure seems to kill a lot of people

Second leading of cause of death

Some cancers can be "cured", thus they aren't terminal. Parkinsons ...... eh, not so much with the cure. Some surgeon.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
It has gotten beyond absurd..

a purported Pharmacy student stating

Cancer is NOT a terminal illness

for NOT being a terminal illness...it sure seems to kill a lot of people

Second leading of cause of death

Does the expression, 'healing power of cold steel,' ring a bell? For the uninitiated, the above expression is a common mantra amongst surgeons. Another derivation, 'a chance to cut is a chance to cure.'

Cancer as a diagnosis is NOT necessarily a terminal illness. Now if it's lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, or certain types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma . . . yeah your arse is almost certainly grass.

Oncology isn't my thing so I'm not an expert. But . . . odds are if you have a diagnosis of cancer at any time in your life you will probably die of something OTHER than cancer.

Neurodegenerative disorders aren't really my thing either (I don't like old people). Alzheimer (and other cortical disorders) rob people of their mental ability and then it kills. Parkinson (and other subcortical disorders) rob people of their physical ability and then it might kill them but isn't nearly as lethal as Alzheimer dz. In the grand scheme, AD is painful for your relatives. PD is torture for yourself and your relatives.

From a pharmaceutical standpoint, despite our knowledge of AD pathophysiology our treatments are of questionable benefit. In fact drugs for AD are so bad that prior to 2005 one of the most common classes of drugs prescribed for AD were antipsychotics. That practice began to decline after it became apparent that antipsychotics were dramatically increasing stroke risk. AD can kill you within a decade. A stroke can kill you in an hour. But Big Pharma LOVED the practice b/c it provided mad profits in a growing market. The last nail arrived this week when a decent sized study demonstrated that antipsychotics aren't demonstrably better than placebo.

PD drugs are even more intriguing. Arguably, the pathophysiology of PD is better understood and more circumscribed than AD. Unlike AD, the drugs for PD actually work really well . . . until they stop working. Treated PD also tends to exhibit a rather profound 'on-off' effect . . . something that idiots like Limbaugh would know nothing about. Depending on the drug, side effects range from mild to intolerable.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
for NOT being a terminal illness...it sure seems to kill a lot of people.

Since no-one else has specifically covered this yet, I'll point out an obvious issue you're entirely neglecting. While there are exceptions, a very large portion of fatal cancers today are caused because they are not detected early. The obvious reason this occurs is because we don't generally know who is likely to get cancer, nor when someone is likely to develop cancer during their life. Since patients don't have unlimited time and money, this means that screening is not always done in a way that catches cancer early.

At a minimum, even if there is a substancially increased risk of cancer from an embryonic stem cell derived treatment, doctors would know to carefully and repeatedly screen patients for cancer. They are also likely to know what parts of the body are where cancer is likely to develop due to the treatment, making very early detection extremely probable. This would dramatically reduce the likelyhood of dying from cancer as a result of this treatment. Basically while obviously further research needs to be done and ideally you would like to find a way to elminate any increased risk of cancer entirely, labelling any cancer that would develop as a result of this treatment as terminal is badly misleading.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Cancer as a diagnosis is NOT necessarily a terminal illness. Now if it's lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, or certain types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma . . . yeah your arse is almost certainly grass.

To emphesize my point about early detection increasingly the likelyhood of surviving cancer dramatically, here's what a recent study concluded about lung cancer if detected early.

In the study, people whose early lung tumors were detected by CT scans and promptly removed had an estimated 10-year survival rate of 92 percent ? much better than the roughly 70 percent who typically survive, and far better than the dismal 5 percent who make it that long after the disease has spread beyond the lungs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061026/ap_on_he_me/lung_cancer

Basically survival chances when cancer is detected early are quite good, its only when its detected later that this number goes down alot, and late detection is currently common with lung cancer. Of course if it was known that the treatment greatly increases a patient's risk of lung cancer, he would be likely to get repeated CT scans in order to ensure early detection if cancer occurs after undergoing this treatment.

 

[heartsurgeon]

yes, a few cancers can be cured by surgery. a few (very few) are cured by chemotherapy or bone marrow transplantation (more so in children than adults).

MOST cancers in adults are solid tissue tumors like lung and colon cancer and breast cancer, and for the most part,they are not diagnosed early enough to be "cured" and they will end the patient's life (for you proto-pharmacists, that means terminal)

cancer is a bad diagnosis, and is often terminal. most treatments (other than surgery in early stages, before it has spread) are NOT curative.

parkinson's is bad, but i venture a guess that if you lump everyone together who has parkinson's disease, and everyone who has cancer, that as a group, the parkinson's patient's live longer with their disease on average, than the cancer patients do. I would not wish either diagnosis on anyone.

again, for not being a terminal disease, it seems to kill about 550,000 people/year in t he U.S.

and yes, untreated infections (including malaria) can be be terminal. infections, historically, have killed more people than wars, and before the advent of antimicrobial agents, was the leading cause of death world wide. sure untreated, out of control infections can easily be terminal.

adequate treatment is available for cancer? that's just silly.
if your cells divides faster than normal, you have cancer? Who authored the textbook on cancer that came up with that definition...Borat?

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
MOST cancers in adults are solid tissue tumors like lung and colon cancer and breast cancer, and for the most part,they are not diagnosed early enough to be "cured" and they will end the patient's life (for you proto-pharmacists, that means terminal)

This is just flagrantly factually wrong as stated. For instance, Lung Cancer which is a type of cancer with a higher fatality rate than most other varieties still has a 70% survival rate. Of course in the hypothetical situation where its known an embryonic stem cell treatment increases someones' odds of cancer substancially, he will be agressively screened for cancer after treatment and the odds of early detection go up dramatically.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
yes, a few cancers can be cured by surgery. a few (very few) are cured by chemotherapy or bone marrow transplantation (more so in children than adults).

MOST cancers in adults are solid tissue tumors like lung and colon cancer and breast cancer, and for the most part,they are not diagnosed early enough to be "cured" and they will end the patient's life (for you proto-pharmacists, that means terminal)

cancer is a bad diagnosis, and is often terminal. most treatments (other than surgery in early stages, before it has spread) are NOT curative.

parkinson's is bad, but i venture a guess that if you lump everyone together who has parkinson's disease, and everyone who has cancer, that as a group, the parkinson's patient's live longer with their disease on average, than the cancer patients do. I would not wish either diagnosis on anyone.

again, for not being a terminal disease, it seems to kill about 550,000 people/year in t he U.S.

and yes, untreated infections (including malaria) can be be terminal. infections, historically, have killed more people than wars, and before the advent of antimicrobial agents, was the leading cause of death world wide. sure untreated, out of control infections can easily be terminal.

adequate treatment is available for cancer? that's just silly.
if your cells divides faster than normal, you have cancer? Who authored the textbook on cancer that came up with that definition...Borat?

In the U.S., survival rates for all cancers exceeds 50%.

edit: it's also worth pointing out that none of the rats in the study actually developed cancer, they were sacrificed before any tumors developed.

 

[conjur]

hs is back after two overly dramatic, flatulent exits?

Must really be bad times for the GOP!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

There's a little bit of truthiness going on in this thread.

1) While the general hypothesis that early identification improves outcomes is accepted as empirically true, I wouldn't necessarily cite the CT studies for lung cancer. Cancer as a condition is too diverse to lump together.

2) HS won't be criticized for starting this thread but s/he certainly deserves it for misinformation. One of the few accurate statements is that most cancers in adults are solid.

American Cancer Society statisticsIf you are lazy just look at the pictures . . .

The rate of cancer deaths was flat from 1974-1990 and has actually FALLEN since 1990.

The death rate from all cancers combined has decreased by 1.5% per year since 1993 among men and by 0.8% per year since 1992 among women. Compared to the peak rates in 1990 for men and 1991 for women, the cancer death rate for all sites combined in 2002 was 14.3% lower in men and 7.2% lower in women.

Lung cancer is currently the most common cause of cancer death in women, with the death rate more than two times what it was 25 years ago. In comparison, breast cancer death rates were virtually unchanged between 1930 and 1990, and have since decreased on average 2.3% per year. The death rates for stomach and uterine cancers have decreased steadily since 1930; colorectal cancer death rates have been decreasing for over 50 years.

Slide 19 is lifetime cancer probability for men (1 in 2) geez that sux.
Slide 20 is lifetime probability for women (1 in 3) sux less.
Slide 22 is 5yr survival rates for the usual suspects.

The survival rates for all cancers combined and for certain site-specific cancers have improved significantly since the 1970s, due, in part, to both earlier detection and advances in treatment. Survival rates markedly increased for cancers of the prostate, breast, colon, rectum, and for leukemia. With new treatment techniques and increased utilization of screening, there is hope for even greater improvements in the not-too-distant future.

As I previously noted in this thread (or the other) pancreas or lung . . . sux to be you. Otherwise, the odds are in your favor.

Breast, prostate, and melanoma look so good b/c:
1) most are diagnosed relatively early
2) aggressive types of these tumors are the LEAST common
3) when in doubt . . . whack it out . . . 'a chance to cut is a chance to cure'

The takehome is that the INCIDENCE of cancer is MUCH higher than the mortality rate. The majority of people with cancer will LIVE with their cancer and DIE of something else.

 

[NeoV]

if HS were actually a doctor, and not a nurse, he might sound a bit more like an expert on the subject, or for that matter know the difference between "too" and "to".

Is your point in this thread to say that pluripotent stem cell research should not be federally funded? Is that the overall message here, that your article is supposed to reinforce? How far along are scientists in researching/testing potential uses of these treatments?

If you want to take a moral stance on this issue, that's one thing. If you want to sound like you know more about the science involved than thousands of actual experts, save it, you don't. The fact of the matter is that it's a VERY PROMISING area of medical research, and it is in fact being privately funded, all over the world - in fact it's also being funded by governments in other parts of the world - as it should be here. We are giving tax breaks to energy companies that are making 10 BILLION dollars a quarter, and we can't fund one of, if not the most, promising area of medical research? Did you expect the work in this field to already cure everything and be available right now? It's called R&D - there is no magic dust here.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
It has gotten beyond absurd..

a purported Pharmacy student stating

Cancer is NOT a terminal illness

for NOT being a terminal illness...it sure seems to kill a lot of people

Second leading of cause of death

Some cancers can be "cured", thus they aren't terminal. Parkinsons ...... eh, not so much with the cure. Some surgeon.

Cancer is an evil bastard. Even when you think its "cured" it hides, mutates, changes...comes back.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Harvey
If you're really an MD, you'd know that IT is not an IT. It's a THEY.

I think its blindingly obvious that "heartsurgeon" is no more an MD than "profjohn" is a PhD.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
yes, a few cancers can be cured by surgery. a few (very few) are cured by chemotherapy or bone marrow transplantation (more so in children than adults).

MOST cancers in adults are solid tissue tumors like lung and colon cancer and breast cancer, and for the most part,they are not diagnosed early enough to be "cured" and they will end the patient's life (for you proto-pharmacists, that means terminal)

cancer is a bad diagnosis, and is often terminal. most treatments (other than surgery in early stages, before it has spread) are NOT curative.

parkinson's is bad, but i venture a guess that if you lump everyone together who has parkinson's disease, and everyone who has cancer, that as a group, the parkinson's patient's live longer with their disease on average, than the cancer patients do. I would not wish either diagnosis on anyone.

again, for not being a terminal disease, it seems to kill about 550,000 people/year in t he U.S.

and yes, untreated infections (including malaria) can be be terminal. infections, historically, have killed more people than wars, and before the advent of antimicrobial agents, was the leading cause of death world wide. sure untreated, out of control infections can easily be terminal.

adequate treatment is available for cancer? that's just silly.
if your cells divides faster than normal, you have cancer? Who authored the textbook on cancer that came up with that definition...Borat?

Every one of your posts make it clear that you are FAR from an MD (see BaliBabyDoc for refence). My guess is that you are barely educated.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

a treatable form of cancer is preferred over a terminal disease like Parkinson's.

Hmm...last time checked, cancer was terminal, and Parkinson's was treatable.

This bears repetition as one of the dumbest things I've ever had the supreme displeasure of reading.

:disgust:

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
It has gotten beyond absurd..

a purported Pharmacy student stating

Cancer is NOT a terminal illness

for NOT being a terminal illness...it sure seems to kill a lot of people

Second leading of cause of death

Some cancers can be "cured", thus they aren't terminal. Parkinsons ...... eh, not so much with the cure. Some surgeon.

Cancer is an evil bastard. Even when you think its "cured" it hides, mutates, changes...comes back.

Yes it is evil. However not all come back. Mine hasn't, and its been ~13 years.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
It has gotten beyond absurd..

a purported Pharmacy student stating

Cancer is NOT a terminal illness

for NOT being a terminal illness...it sure seems to kill a lot of people

Second leading of cause of death

Some cancers can be "cured", thus they aren't terminal. Parkinsons ...... eh, not so much with the cure. Some surgeon.

Cancer is an evil bastard. Even when you think its "cured" it hides, mutates, changes...comes back.

Yes it is evil. However not all come back. Mine hasn't, and its been ~13 years.

:thumbsup::beer: Nevermind . . . hold the beer . . . unless you drink moderately.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
It has gotten beyond absurd..

a purported Pharmacy student stating

Cancer is NOT a terminal illness

for NOT being a terminal illness...it sure seems to kill a lot of people

Second leading of cause of death

Some cancers can be "cured", thus they aren't terminal. Parkinsons ...... eh, not so much with the cure. Some surgeon.

Cancer is an evil bastard. Even when you think its "cured" it hides, mutates, changes...comes back.

Yes it is evil. However not all come back. Mine hasn't, and its been ~13 years.

Im very happy for you. I just lost a friend this year who had breast cancer a few years ago and they told her she was cured(as cured as you get I guess).

She died this year from bone cancer.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Harvey
If you're really an MD, you'd know that IT is not an IT. It's a THEY.

I think its blindingly obvious that "heartsurgeon" is no more an MD than "profjohn" is a PhD.

It's a shame and a travesty actually that there is no vetting.

 

[heartsurgeon]

This is just flagrantly factually wrong as stated. For instance, Lung Cancer which is a type of cancer with a higher fatality rate than most other varieties still has a 70% survival rate.

Lung cancer has 60% overall death rate 1 year following diagnosis, 80% dead within 2 years of diagnosis. Overall 5 year death rate from lung cancer is >85%.

Your clueless.

at 5 years following diagnosis, about half of all folks with cancer are dead
at 10 years following diagnosis, about half of all folks with Parkinson's are dead.

take your pick.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

This is just flagrantly factually wrong as stated. For instance, Lung Cancer which is a type of cancer with a higher fatality rate than most other varieties still has a 70% survival rate.

Lung cancer has 60% overall death rate 1 year following diagnosis, 80% dead within 2 years of diagnosis. Overall 5 year death rate from lung cancer is >85%.

Your clueless.

at 5 years following diagnosis, about half of all folks with cancer are dead
at 10 years following diagnosis, about half of all folks with Parkinson's are dead.

take your pick.

You're the one who said cancer was terminal, with no qualification. Are you retracting that now?

At 10 years following diagnosis, 100% of people with Parkinson's still have Parkinsons. That's not the case with cancer.

Look at for CLL, HCL, or Cervical carcinoma. Highly treatable (or not even very deadly) diseases.

One might also wonder about the quality of life of someone 10 years into Parkinsons.

Finally, I'll point this out again: none of the rats in the study contracted cancer, the study wasn't long enough to determine if they actually get cancer or not. It's possible they wouldn't.

 

[NeoV]

"your clueless" just isn't something a person with an advanced degree ever types.....ever

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

This is just flagrantly factually wrong as stated. For instance, Lung Cancer which is a type of cancer with a higher fatality rate than most other varieties still has a 70% survival rate.

Lung cancer has 60% overall death rate 1 year following diagnosis, 80% dead within 2 years of diagnosis. Overall 5 year death rate from lung cancer is >85%.

Your clueless.

at 5 years following diagnosis, about half of all folks with cancer are dead
at 10 years following diagnosis, about half of all folks with Parkinson's are dead.

take your pick.

Taking my pick between stop smoking to not get lung cancer or dying with parkinson in 10 years?
I'll pick the former.

Lung cancer is preventable. Parkinson's is not.
80-85% of lung cancer is attributed to smoking alone, 10% asbestos/rock miners/coal tars occupation, and the remaining due to a combination of radiation, diet, and genetics.

You don't want lung cancer? Well stop smoking.
Can you list the preventive measures of Parkinson's?

I also love how you're using lung cancer to generalize the whole group of cancers.
So much for you being a "heartsurgeon" or an MD.