werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (05/23/85)
I would recommend this as required reading before the next scheduled round of flaming about Cancer treatments. The Evolution of Cancer Chemotherapy by Bruce A. Chadner (National Cancer Institute) in Hospital Practice, April 15, 1985, p. 115. Excerpt: Although many common cancers are still unresponsive to drugs, about a dozen tumors that were uniformly fatal before the availability of chemotherapy are now curable with drugs in at least a significant fraction of cases. In fact many of these tumors ARE cured in the majority of cases: Uterine Choriocarcinoma, acute lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin's Disease, diffuse histiocytic lymphoma, childhood Sarcomas, and testicular carcinoma. Other tumors [list follows] are highly responsive to drugs and can be cured in 10-30% of cases. Additionally, more than a dozen other tumors that cannot now be considered curable with existing chemotherapy are now partially responsive to drugs [list follows]. -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner What do you expect? Watermelons are out of season!
tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) (05/24/85)
In article <1675@aecom.UUCP> (Craig Werner) writes: > >Excerpt: > Although many common cancers are still unresponsive to drugs, about a >dozen tumors that were uniformly fatal before the availability of chemotherapy >are now curable with drugs in at least a significant fraction of cases. In >fact many of these tumors ARE cured in the majority of cases: Uterine >Choriocarcinoma, acute lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin's Disease, diffuse >histiocytic lymphoma, childhood Sarcomas, and testicular carcinoma. Other >tumors [list follows] are highly responsive to drugs and can be cured in >10-30% of cases. Additionally, more than a dozen other tumors that cannot >now be considered curable with existing chemotherapy are now partially >responsive to drugs [list follows]. > If this excerpt is representative of the book then I don't think I care to read it. I don't have cancer, my interests are in not getting cancer. If I do get cancer then my body is sick (not just my lung, or just my lymphs, etc). The above examples are singular methods to attack a single form of cancer each, none seems to be designed to improve the bodys health such that it can fight the symptom natures way. Each of the above examples requires the body to fight the treatment. The word "cure" seems to be badly abused. The first definition of the word "cure" in my Oxford Amer. Dictionary is "1. To restore to health.". Chemotherapy is too destructive, as are drug treatments, to be thought of as a path to health. Also cancer is a symptom, the problem is a weak immune system. If you destroy all the cancerous cells, and the patient still has a weak immune system (probably even moreso after treatment), then how can you say that they are cured? To comment on Craig's previous article about placebos, if the people taking placebos stop showing signs of cancer then how can you say that the placebo didn't "cure" them. The mind is a powerful tool, and if a "miracle cure" works then why not! The above article is an example of what the medical profession has as an alternative. If 5 in 60 is a bad rate then what is the rate for people treated by the above methods (did they live long enough after treatment to make their sample equivalent?)? And did the people taking placebos alter their life style to one that promotes good health? By the way I don't consider this a flame, I haven't called anybody names yet. However I will let Craig get back to his medical books and his lab studies, and I will get back to people (natures information source). {allegra|ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjs