# The costly war on cancer



## 22575 (May 23, 2011)

"Cancer plays a huge role in raising costs. America’s National Institutes of Health predict that spending on all cancer treatment will rise from $125 billion last year to at least $158 billion in 2020. If drugs become pricier, as seems likely, that bill could rise to $207 billion."

Drug companies in America: The costly war on cancer | The Economist

thoughts?


----------



## Mei (Feb 5, 2011)

Q: Who are making these drugs?
Q: Who is pocketing the profits?
Q: Is there a high margin that is being held for a particular reason ?
Q: Is the profit from cancer drugs propping up the economy of that country? 
Q: Is the ratio of cancers increasing due to overwork, bad food, anxiety and lower standard of living ?

That are my thoughts...


----------



## progBOT (May 4, 2011)

Cure for cancer prevent cancer with Amygdalin laetrile vitamin b17 apricot seeds and more

Run From The Cure: How Cannabis Cures Cancer And Why No One Knows | Cannabis Culture Magazine

(sorry for these semi-shitty links...I found those in a hurry and I didn't have time to find the exact ones I wanted to post)

Basically these are two things that have been proven to not only treat cancer (with a higher success rate than chemotherapy: Chemo has ~2% success rate, THC has ~4% success rate, and B17 has ~8% success rate) but THC and B17 have an insanely high chance of preventing cancer.

We've known about these for the last 30+ years and there is a very good reason why it has been covered up. People don't want to cure illnesses or eradicate disease, they want to profit off of it. The "fight for cancer" is a fight to make more money and nothing else.

I've said this for years and will continue to: There is a natural cure for everything.


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

> People don't want to cure illnesses or eradicate disease, they want to profit off of it. The "fight for cancer" is a fight to make more money and nothing else.
> 
> I've said this for years and will continue to until: There is a natural cure for everything.


I've said that for years too. Not only for profit but if a cure was found I wouldn't doubt it would be kept confidential for leverage in future wars. I would not be surprised if one day the government busts out with a definite cure.


----------



## progBOT (May 4, 2011)

Aila8 said:


> I would not be surprised if one day the government busts out with a definite cure.


I agree, just as long as they have some other profitable disease to roll back on (or something of that nature).


----------



## 22575 (May 23, 2011)

progBOT said:


> (sorry for these semi-shitty links...I found those in a hurry and I didn't have time to find the exact ones I wanted to post)


I'm glad that you mentioned that the links are shitty; a lot of people don't do that, and when it comes to these topics there needs to be a sense of higher integrity.
Do you know if there are any reputable journal articles on this? What were the links that you wanted to post?



Aila8 said:


> I've said that for years too. Not only for profit but if a cure was found I wouldn't doubt it would be kept confidential for leverage in future wars. I would not be surprised if one day the government busts out with a definite cure.


This is utterly paranoid, sure money can be an incentive to not release information on a cure, but one must examine the cons as well. For example, many, if not most, people know someone close to them who has cancer, this includes the people working in the field. By withholding a cure they would be effectively killing them. Likewise, there is the distinct possibility that they may develop cancer themselves and so that would hurt them as well. Additionally, there is a benefit to being the first one to come out with a cure for cancer, you get an edge on the competition.

There are also numerous scientists working on a cure at research institutions which are held to a higher standard of integrity and have no incentive to withhold information on a cure. The reason so many "cures" are being rejected is because they haven't undergone rigorous testing. Above you cited 8% success rate for B17, what was the sample size? How were they picked? Were they on any other treatment regimen? Have these tests been repeated by any other labs? There is great hesitation in coming out and claiming "I have the cure" because if you don't actually have the cure then you are causing a lot of damage in the long run. Not only are people wasting money on these false cures but they are going through a lot of emotional trauma when they find out that it didn't work. It is better to take the time and check the facts thoroughly before coming out with a cure.


(As an aside, I noticed that one of the links mentioned how there wasn't cancer 100 years ago, that is pure bullshit. 
Cancer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, it's a wikipedia link, but if you follow the citations it leads to reputable sites like the American Cancer Society and various journal articles)


----------



## Khar (May 21, 2011)

There is no "cure" for cancer, at least no currently. If an article is calling it a "cure" you should immediately question it. You don't cure cancer, you put it into remission. Someone who has had cancer always has cancer, the cancer is just dormant. Typically, if there was an all natural, available cure for cancer, someone would have figured out years ago to give the sick guy with the giant lump who can't walk because he is too tired a good dose of something with B17 in it, or a drag from a joint. Cancer has been known for a long time, and people have been trying to fight it long before modern methods involving chemotherapy. We use it because it's the best chance you have. We wouldn't be having this discussion otherwise. In a recent thread, a blog mentioned a cure had been found, as @_Mei_ knows (since her second response to it was accurate). The reality of the situation was it is not a cure-all for cancer, is still just beginning clinical trials and the results have not been as encouraging outside of the lab. Much of what the blog claimed did not mesh with what the researchers stated. 

With cannabinoids, the reason you don't see it used is because theraputic doses produce undesirable psychological side effects, let alone ramping up the amount needed to actually inhibit cancer cells (other side effects are present as well). While it works well in the dish in a lab, it does not work well in patients. We are not talking about having them light one up, we are talking about using the active incredient to actually do something useful. Outside of assisting in increasing caloric intake and improving standard of living, it's been incredibly difficult for use in a fashion to fight cancer in patients. It is not only an ongoing area of research, however, but a lively one -- I know of a dozen articles published in an attempt to find a viable way to use cannabinoids in cancer research in 2011 alone, and it's not my area of specialty. A quick search on sites like_ Scopus_ demonstrate how rapid the rate of research is on the topic, and how many people are rushing to find a viable treatment from this direction. 

Indeed, clinical trials are proposed for a few types of cancer highly resistant elsewhere (glioma, for example, as a study suggested in the past few months) which have shown to respond favourably to combinations of things like TMZ and cannabinoids. It's entirely possible in the next decade we will see wide spread use of cannabinoid-*derived* treatments for extending life or even potentially putting it into remission in some types of cancer. You won't see anyone with joints in a hospital, though -- joints don't improve the situation, nor does oil or any other mass produced cannibis product. However, we will only see this if we can find ways around the toxicities and negative repercussions typically seen from medical use of these active ingredients. We are dealing with the use of a substance far in excess of how it was normally used and in differing concentrations with other agents -- even water kills if you use enough of it, and to fight cancer, the amount you need may be dangerous (I've been reading of attempts to find ways to modulate it to effective use for years). Likewise studies have suggested the same for "preventative claims," which I also challenge. If there is a statistically significant impact prevantatively, I doubt it's worth the merit of having to use it. 

I'm afraid the same thing can be said for the other article, which has a more bleak future. Amygdalin is *not* the same as Laetrile, even though it is insinuated as such in that article's title. Unfortunately, the reason this "alternative" treatment is not used is because no clinical trials have been conducted, most literature is simply case studies or best case series, etc. There is no sound clinical evidence suggesting either Laetrile or Amygdalin have statistically significant, or straight or significant, impacts on cancer. Meta-analyses are available, I can provide my sources for these claims by request. I hope this does fulfill @_unsung truth_ 's request for evidence if he so desires the articles, and it does tend to fall in line with his position on this topic. 

Keep in mind that just because a journal says something, does not mean the person telling you the information is being entirely honest. Having read many papers and then seeing them translated into newspaper articles, I am sometimes surprised at how significantly they change the story to make it sound more groundbreaking, while saving the fact that it is merely the beginnings of research by saying "more research is needed..." somewhere in the article. 

Finally, there is a difference between "not searching for a cure" and "making money on a treatment." There are tens of thousands of people working at universities for a cure or a treatment. My mother, who has been in _Science_, _Nature_ and_ Cell_, is one of these people, and worked in cancer research for 24 or so years before moving on to work in lung disease research following the death of her father to it. As a researcher, she was never well paid. Most of this money for cancer treatments goes towards companies with patents or towards health care operations. Nor is it necessarily bad to have monetary incentives like this. However, a treatment for cancer cannot, and would not simply be suppressed. A lot of research is not funded by drug companies. These drugs do help, and researchers outside the companies test privately produced drugs for efficacy typically mediated by government guidelines or organizations. You'll notice, for example, that the FDA often becomes involved in these cases. 

Do not confuse those searching for a treatment for those selling a treatment. If you ever wanted to hear people rant about gene patents and the like... go to a biomedical research lab and bring it up. You'll be dead of dehydration before they are done voicing their displeasure. In Canada, often our government steps in when providers of a largely inelastic good have a monopoly or monopsony on those goods. If a cheap, available treatment was found, I have no doubt governments would step in the force the generic of that compound onto the market. There is no shortage of case studies questioning a company's involvement in medical situations, even if monetary incentives are overall positive phenomenon, and I doubt government's would risk it.


----------



## progBOT (May 4, 2011)

unsung truth said:


> I'm glad that you mentioned that the links are shitty; a lot of people don't do that, and when it comes to these topics there needs to be a sense of higher integrity.
> Do you know if there are any reputable journal articles on this? What were the links that you wanted to post?


Amygdalin (includes B17):
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bpb/29/8/1597/_pdf

This is an article of the complete study (includes most of the formulas as well). If you want to cut right to the chase, the second to last paragraph has a summary of the hypothesis.

THC:
Marijuana Chemical May Fight Brain Cancer
Journal of Clinical Investigation -- Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells

The first link is basically a summary and the second is the full article on the studies.


----------



## Khar (May 21, 2011)

progBOT said:


> Amygdalin (includes B17):
> http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bpb/29/8/1597/_pdf
> 
> This is an article of the complete study (includes most of the formulas as well). If you want to cut right to the chase, the second to last paragraph has a summary of the hypothesis.
> ...


Laetrile for cancer: A systematic review of the clinical evidence
Results and lessons from clinical trials using dietary supplements for cancer: direct and indirect investigations
Unproven methods of cancer treatment. Laetrile.
The current status of Laetrile
Severe cyanide toxicity from 'vitamin supplements'
Life threatening interaction between complementary medicines: cyanide toxicity following ingestion of amygdalin and vitamin C

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses demonstrate that all "positive" effects described have been through direct cancer-cell interaction with Amygdalin or Laetrile or in animal studies failing to provide statistical significance required for definitive results to be extrapolated. One meta-analyses states that the only evidence suggesting that it is a true anti-cancer fighting agent is that some animals lived longer during testing -- this cannot be attributed to Laetrile or Amygdalin use, as it has not been replicated. 

Indeed, this paper is based on the concept of improving apoptosis in cancer cells through a biochemical interaction improving the expression of genes related to the production of the Bax protein, a result which has been questioned in following research as demonstrated, including experimental results. This protein is based on chemoresponsiveness, and hence improvement of these levels is meant to improve chemotherapy success. It is not meant to be a stand alone procedure (ie this paper basically states it is a minor augmentation to chemotherapy, not in any way a replacement), it is meant to be used in combination with chemotherapy. In addition, there has not been a significant enough amount of evidence to have clinical trials to improve levels of the Bax protein, if such methods exist. Most research was done, once again, with direct cancer cell interactions in a lab. 

Essentially, what that paper states is that potentially they have found a way to improve Bax levels, which is potentially a future treatment but does not have evidence significant enough to introduce it into clinical trials. It is not a direct interaction, and even the paper states that. The paragraph mentioned demonstrates the severe level of ambiguity the paper was in, since a great deal of these hyoptheses at the time (16 years ago) had not been tested. It is also mentioned by the following literature in the decade and a half that followed that overall evidence within these papers do not support assertions that Laetrile is good to go as an anti-cancer agent. Evidence suggests that it actually has significant side effects at levels used in studies, and uncontrolled use of Laetrile has result in severe toxic side effects sometimes resulting in fatal consequences. Clinics and independent groups prescribing such treatments have been shut down, and Laetrile has been removed entirely as a cancer-fighting agent as a result. 

Note in the case of the paper provided that available materials for human analogues were extremely limited in what could be suggested by the results, and the overall amount of tests would not have provided levels of statistical significance required. A lack of statistical significance calculations in the paper may reflect knowledge that they did not have sufficient sampling to have come up with the analyses they did. Their sample size, for the record, was 96. Results found could easily fall within levels of error at that level.

EDIT: I contacted a friend in the cancer research community who worked on prostate and breat cancer in the late 90s. She recognized the Bax protein but stated that the only demonstrated way to improve levels was through straight-out genetic manipulation, as she recollected, and that was a stream of thought not be followed through. I'm afraid that her stance on Laetrile reflects my own. I'm afraid I am somewhat reserved in providing her identity for two reasons. One, I did not ask if I could use her name before I hung up, and two, her identity could provide information of who I am off the net, and I'd prefer that be between me and the registration screen. So, I would expect all to take this with a bucket of salt -- I would, and I hold absolutely no grudge against it.


----------



## progBOT (May 4, 2011)

@Khar
Thanks for sharing your seemingly extensive knowledge on the subject. I was not expecting to come across someone with this much experience and am pleasantly surprised.


----------



## 22575 (May 23, 2011)

While we are discussing cancer here are two interesting TED talks about it:
TED Blog | Understanding cancer through proteomics: Danny Hillis on TED.com
William Li: Can we eat to starve cancer? | Video on TED.com

The first discusses about how we are approaching cancer the wrong way (even by how we name it after parts of the body). And talks about the analysis of proteins as a new method for fighting cancer. The second talks about anti-angiogenesis to effectively pull back veins to stop "feeding" tumors.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

unsung truth said:


> William Li: Can we eat to starve cancer?


 I was going to post this up myself before I saw you had! Further, I have heard that moderate to fast growing cancers can only use glucose for fuel, not ketones. I've seen several sources that suggest that a high fat, moderate protein, low carb diet can halt/reverse cancer by shifting the body into ketosis and starving the cancer of glucose. If this is true, I believe everyone should know it. It seems like we should already, eh? To me, it's indicative of the information not being profitable. 

Off topic, I've also heard that our most deadly ailments are caused by insulin/insulin resistance, including heart disease, cholesterol, and cancer. Something to research and consider for your own life, I'd think!


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Dichloroacetic Acid (DCA) can induce apoptosis in cancer cells in the right doses.


----------



## Exemplar (Jul 23, 2011)

A big cost in America is that to currently our best way to treat cancer (assuming it can't just be surgically removed) is with a form of radiation therapy. Two things that are going to cause a severe cost raise due to this:

1. As the technology developes, and more machines such as the Proton Radiation Therapy device are installed in hospitals, both the high initial cost of the machine and the still shockingly high cost of running the machine will cause a price rise in cancer treatment.

2. Due to the intense fear that Americans have over anything that is even slightly related to Nuclear Technology, over-regulation and an over-abundance of false malpractice suits will also drive up prices of new Nuclear Medical technologies.

It's a sad field that I'm going into, but hey, irradiating people!


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

The US government actually holds some patents in medical marijuana. Ironic isn't it?


----------



## absentminded (Dec 3, 2010)




----------

