For various reasons I’ve been giving some thought to the problem of cancer recently. I seem to hear about it more and more these days.

In particular I think we are going about fighting cancer in the wrong way. Billions of Pounds are spent on cancer research. I believe that this money is being wasted. Instead of looking for a cure we should fight cancer by surgery.

Cancer is insidious, it can lie dormant for years within you, and then all of a sudden it attacks you. Even when you think you’ve got rid of all of it will spread and reappear in a totally different and unexpected place. For every one cancerous cell you destroy two will be created.

Let’s forget about chemotherapy and radiotherapy, the only way to get rid of the cancer is to cut it out. Cut it out wherever we find it. And if you get metastases. Cut it out there too. And if normal cells are destroyed by the surgery that’s just tough. These things happen in the war on cancer.

Why do we need to know the root causes of cancer? I for one don’t give a shit about why it happens! I don’t want my tax money being spent on education about cancer prevention or on research into treatment. Cancer kills millions – that’s all I need to know. I just want to get rid of it because there is too much of it about for my liking.

I’m just a Black and White kind of guy. There is no grey, there is only one way – and it’s my way or the highway!

[ 12-02-2002, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

Well put. You have a knack for presenting a well thought out arguement.

I disagree vehemently, but hey, that's life.

Subtitles and only the hint of a fishing rod. Are you mellowing?

Nice post Donut ;)

No fishing rod. I'm just depressed about recent news. It can't be won.

Well surgery is a standard practise sometimes when dealing with cancers Donut. BUT surgery alone DO NOT cure cancer! Picture yourself a scalpell, the blade is fully visible to a human eye (thickness in mm) but a cell is about 7-20 micrometers! It is not possible to fully remove a cancerous growth with suregery. That´s why chemotherapy and radiotherapy is a more efficient treatment. Even burning with laser is too imprecise. If all cancer patients were treated with surgery alone a mere minimum of the patients would be cured since cancerous cells would remain in the body. That´s why research still is needed. If we can understand how, almost there, and why cancers appear we might find a safer and better way to treat it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

LOL,*tongue firmly in cheek* Donut, I can tell you that there are a lot of surgeons that disagree with you. For example, chemotherapy and radiation are often necessary to precede successful surgery, sometimes they can take its place or be an alternative method(s). Sometimes, however, surgery is the only way to deal with a problem, and honest oncologists and radiologists will be the first to tell you that their methodologies are helpless in the presence of severe, life threatening malignancies. We call these "9-11" malignancies, dunno why. ;)

Thank you Willow. So what you are saying is that as well as treating different types of cancers differently we will not win the war on cancer unless we eventually address the root causes. Even though this may be unpalatable to some?

Not sure if I should really reply in here. Yes, the topic caught my eye because of a family member having brain cancer, but I won't argue about treatments.

So, Doctor Donut, what is your prognosis on someone who has Grade IV Anaplastic Glioblastoma, has had two different surgeries, 9 months of radiation treatment, and 3 months of Chemotherapy?

mmmm Attalus. I can see we're on the same wavelength here. I agree that sometimes radical surgery is the only way but what would your radical surgeons do if secondaries were appearing thoughout the patient's system? Surely the only possible treatment would be by developing a 'silver bullet' which would cure the cancer?

These silver bullets are not often found lying about. They need to be developed by understanding the causes of cancer. Even if a cure can be found for the patient it may be necessary for him to alter his lifestyle even though this may be anathema to him.

And I seem to be arguing against my original post!

Yes, at least IMO. We do not know enough of cancer yet. For instance two patients arrive with colon cancer (colon cancer is fairly stable in its mutations so it makes a good example here). Both patients are males and receive the same treatment. Only one survives. Why? We don´t know. If we had the knowledge of how and why cancers appear we might be able to cure all patients. I´ll continue with colon cancer. The 1st mutation is üsually in a gene called APC. Now why does that gene mutate? If we knew that maybe we would be able to prevent it. Thus we would be able to cure colon cancers before the cancer appears. I agree that we´re spending the money unwisely. It´s not us doctors that decide what to research nor is it cancer experts. Unfortunately this leads to fractioned research although there are some very interesting research being done. Hopefully treatment will improve and fatalities decrease. But we´ll have to wait for the cure. The most efficient treatment today is as Attalus said a mixture of suregery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy to get rid of all mutated cells [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 12-02-2002, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

<font color="#ff00cc">Am I too cynical? Are we talking about Cancer the diseas that kills humans through hijacking cells? or are we using metaphor for terrorism? Either way its an interesting post.

On the chance you are actually talking about cancer the disease and not the war on terrorism, I do recall a year or two ago, two researchers in the DC area had some "Miracle cure" for cancer...a cure for everyone....the medical world was agog, and much as I predicted those two guys have disappeared and nary a word from them or about their cure that was splashed on every newspapers page 1. What happened to them and their cure? did it get covered up by big drug companies who make millions on treatments and stand to loose money if a "cure" is found? Or were they frauds? or was the "cure" just an over hyped new treatment?

'tis the season to be cynical fa la la la la, la la la la :D </font>

[ 12-02-2002, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font color="#ff00cc">I disagree, if you eradicate each and every cell prone to the malignancy there is no need to understand anything. Radical sterilization will work just fine. </font>

If it´s the research I´m thinking about it turned out that the placebo was more efficient than their drug. ;) So it never made the 2nd phase of clinical trials. From what I know there are at the moment three different cures that´s being evaluated at the moment. But with todays technology and knowledge it is impossible to cure cancer with a "miracle cure" ;) [img]smile.gif[/img] War on terrorism?!? http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon23.gif Nevermind, I don´t want to know ;) :D

Not so I'm afraid. All normal cells are prone to malignancy. It can be triggered by many things. If a patient is cured of smoking related cancer he will need to stop smoking or he may get the disease again. If we understand how carcinogens trigger malignancy we can begin to eradicate the disease.

Of course he has the choice to stop smoking or not. My point (or one of them) is that in the long run these choices will have to be made - even though we detest the idea of doing it.

<font color="#ff00cc">Hmmm this may or may not be. It appears upon cursory examination that the more serious malignancies are pretty much endemic to one particular cell group. While other cells may have deficiencies and may cause health problems, the current groups of cells that are being addressed, if removed from the patient all together would probably leave more than enough free resources to deal in a more humane and gentle fashion with the less severe malignant types.

I see the problem divided into two major groups. Group A being the cells that explode destroying not only themselves but as many other cells that are different from themselves as is possible doing widespread damge to the organism as a whole.

Whereas, Group B do tend to act up but usually in a more defined and directed sort of way. Group B can probably be soothed with ointments and creams without destroying the fabric of the host. </font>

LOL, at least you admit it! *Sticks tongue into other cheek.* Well, the most successful surgeons of this ilk often remove the primary, regardless of the spread of metastases. In many of these cases, we have seen disappearance of the metastases, or at least shrinkage to the point where they are less trouble to the body politic. ;) Of course, lifestyle changes often prevent the recurrence of this and other tumors, though the patient may object and even not comply.

*Aside to Willow: he's pulling your leg, dear.*

<font color="#ff00cc">Errr I was not pulling Willow's Leg....I can if she wants but that would require a request from her :D </font>

LOL, I was not referring to you, <font color="#ff00cc">MagiK</font>, but to our distinguished British friend, Sir Donut, K.C.B. However, if you and Willow want to get into leg-pulling, it's all right with me. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Cancer is nasty, plain and simple. Cell DNA are damaged (more common) or mutate randomly (less common). These damaged cells are now mis-programmed to do nothing of value except multiply rapidly. Your body does not see these cells as enemies because they are not chemically seen as intruders. They are left to run rampant. They hog resources, interfere with vital body processes, and crowd out healthy cells. They may break free and migrate to other areas of the body. Especially if located in the circulatory or lymphatic system. The only defense against these rogue cells is the fact that they are almost always inherently weaker than healthy cells. They succumb to the stresses of the Radio/Chemotherapy while healthy cells are generally just weakened. A horrible way to treat a disease, but the only one known. As far as a cure goes, if our own body can't distinguish between healthy and cancerous cells, it's unlikely we will be able to either with our current technology. Only once our complicated immune system is fully understood will we be able to make great advances in this area of medicine.

<font color="#ff00cc">Well, I knew that :D but I wanted to weasel my way into pullin onna Willows leg :D </font>

*sigh* How come you aalwaays have to spam a subject Attalus? [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D ROTFL! OK MagiK you can pull my leg, the left one at least. Men! :rolleyes: LLAO! :D BTW Attalus, sent you a PM. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color="#ff00cc">To be honest Willow, I think by the time Atty spammed, this thread was mostly a dead horse [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

[ 12-02-2002, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Very, very, good post Donut. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

For those with closed minds it was probably never a live horse.

I wonder how people took my post. Some will have taken it at face value, that it was about cancer as a disease, others will have thought that it was complete nonsense and that I had lost my mind.

Obviously some people have recognised it for what it was really about. We can't defeat the cancer of terrorism by utilising only one of the weapons at our disposal.

Living and working in a city that will be near the top of the list for the next massive terrorist outrage is concentrating my mind. It's just a matter of time.

I shouldn't worry, they aren't likely to bomb Enfield any time soon my friend... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

But seriously, I whole-heartedly agree. It seems completely bizzare that we think stopping one group of terrorists will make the others think twice about it. They are already willing to die for their cause... wha can you do to scare them?

And do people really think we can hunt down all the terrorists in the world? This is going to be one major witch hunt for absolutely no gain.

But hey! People already knew my views on this I suppose...

<font color="#ff00cc">I thought your origianl and subsequent posts were a fun and informative use of metaphor [img]smile.gif[/img] or similee or whatever. I recognized what you were getting at from the outset. I also realized that you had some good points, but we see things in a very different fundamental way. So we disagree on the course to take, but I think we both know that any answer is not going to be simple.

People living in London, Paris, NY and DC all have good reason to be concerned.

I am still trying to figure out why, banning all arab peoples from the western world untill they can curb their more radical factions is such a horrible idea.</font>

[ 12-03-2002, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font color=yellow> Isolation and segregation - are you suggesting we repeat apartheid and the Berlin Wall? You might argue from some perspectives they were successes, but on the whole, history doesn't seem to think so. </font>

I shouldn't worry, they aren't likely to bomb Enfield any time soon my friend... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

But seriously, I whole-heartedly agree. It seems completely bizzare that we think stopping one group of terrorists will make the others think twice about it. They are already willing to die for their cause... wha can you do to scare them?

And do people really think we can hunt down all the terrorists in the world? This is going to be one major witch hunt for absolutely no gain.

But hey! People already knew my views on this I suppose...</font>[/QUOTE]But my family live in Islington and I work in Islington and use the tube sometimes. And I dare say poison gas can find it's way to Enfield.

Sorry, it was just my little joke. One in poor taste admittedly...

Point taken, Donut, and I sympathise, but the only thing I can add is that you seem to want to exclude "surgery", or military action, from the armamentarium entirely. It is shown that successful military action curbs the "Arab Street" and frightens some of the less committed members. And, Davros, apartheid was about keeping the native majority from a full share in National life, whereas the Berlin Wall was to keep the East Germans in, not out. A better metaphor would be the Japanese Empire during the Shogunate, with its fanatical exclusion of foreigners. That was, I believe, the first time the human race has ever abandoned a war-making technology. (gunpowder)

.</font>[/QB][/QUOTE]

<font color="#ff00cc">I thought your origianl and subsequent posts were a fun and informative use of metaphor [img]smile.gif[/img] or similee or whatever. I recognized what you were getting at from the outset. I also realized that you had some good points, but we see things in a very different fundamental way. So we disagree on the course to take, but I think we both know that any answer is not going to be simple.

People living in London, Paris, NY and DC all have good reason to be concerned.

I am still trying to figure out why, banning all arab peoples from the western world untill they can curb their more radical factions is such a horrible idea.</font></font>[/QUOTE]Ban all Arabs? why ? how many arabs live in Kenya or Bali ? In London they have arrested Algierians, the shoe bomber Richard Reed, was From Brixton, London ..Should we ban all people from brixton from the western world,I consider myself a man of average intellegence,don't go in much for politics etc but even I can see, the only way to stop more outrages is to find the root of this Disease,not bombing the life out of countries that can't defend
themselves, as Donut said killing one cell of cancer will only create more,if we are part of the root then maybe we should start with ourselves.

No, I never said it should be excluded. There are times when it has to be done. But the whole thing hinges on the word ''successful'. A full blown war can be successful in terms of a military victory but we will [i]never[/] win the war on terrorism by military action alone. Just as the British had to speak to the IRA we will have to address the concerns of the muslims. As unpalatable as that is to us at the moment.

Can anyone give me an example of a war on terrorists that was won militarily.

I can think of several examples of terrorism against Britain:

Mau Mau in Kenya
Jews in Palestine
IRA in Ireland
Communists in Malaysia
EOKA in Cyprus
Revolutionaries in the New World

The might of the British Army could not end these conflicts.

Then there's the basque seperatists, The Tamil Tigers - not forgetting the likes of terrorists such as Nelson Mandela and David Ben-Gurion.

MagiK - I'm guessing that your suggestion was a joke, please say it was a joke!

Look at this. Now imagine that you are a young palestinian living in poverty. What are you feeling? - is it fear or is it loathing? Will you cower or will you fight back?

<font color=yellow> Isolation and segregation - are you suggesting we repeat apartheid and the Berlin Wall? You might argue from some perspectives they were successes, but on the whole, history doesn't seem to think so. </font></font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ff00cc">Depends on what you are trying to achieve. First off, since we aren't under threat of swedish suicide bombers, but we are under threat of arab suicide bombers, AND the fact that the arab countires are doing next tonothing to curb the problem from their end...the simple solution is....don't let them in. I dont know any country that HAS to let people in if it doesnt want to. NewZealand for example, won't let anyone immigrate, UNLESS there is a specific benefit to the country by that individual. Im just saying use that to keep your own populations safe. (Berlin wall was not about keeping people out...it was about keeping people in.) All the arab nations need to do to lift the santions would be to control their own radical sects.

Yes I realize it is a very simplistic way to deal with the issue, but Im fairly sure that the USA at least would be able to actually do this. So aside from waving apartheid and berlin wall around (which are not even close to being the same thing) whats so wrong about keeping out dangerous groups of people, especially when they are easily identifiable? </font>

Ban all Arabs? why ? how many arabs live in Kenya or Bali ? In London they have arrested Algierians, the shoe bomber Richard Reed, was From Brixton, London ..Should we ban all people from brixton from the western world,I consider myself a man of average intellegence,don't go in much for politics etc but even I can see, the only way to stop more outrages is to find the root of this Disease,not bombing the life out of countries that can't defend
themselves, as Donut said killing one cell of cancer will only create more,if we are part of the root then maybe we should start with ourselves.[/QB][/QUOTE]

<font color="#ff00cc">Well mainly because banning all Swedish people would be of little use, since the Swedish peoples have not been known to be radical terror bombers of late. Sooooooooooooooo since 99% of our terror problems right this second are from arab nations. I say kick them out of the club of the civilized owrld untill they can behave themselves. Make the Arab nations control their own radical elements. Im still waiting for one solid reason...a really direct and applicable reason why that is not a good idea. Probably not practical I know, but I believe it would solve the problem....for a while at least. Untill all the middle east countries reverted to nomadic desert tribes whith no modern technology. (no it wouldnt happen but Im being ridiculous so why not go all the way ;) )</font>

<font color="#ff00cc">Yes there has to be more than JUST a military action taken to resolve this, no argument there :D But I do ask the question, what happens IF the arab extremist requirements for peace include the death of all Jews, and the destruction of all capitalistic states (all of western europe and USA) and also requires all infidels (non-muslims) to be cleansed from the earth? How do you appease such extreme conditions?

As for my suggestion :D take a look at my last line of reply to Lanesera ;) </font>

Ban all Arabs? why ? how many arabs live in Kenya or Bali ? In London they have arrested Algierians, the shoe bomber Richard Reed, was From Brixton, London ..Should we ban all people from brixton from the western world,I consider myself a man of average intellegence,don't go in much for politics etc but even I can see, the only way to stop more outrages is to find the root of this Disease,not bombing the life out of countries that can't defend
themselves, as Donut said killing one cell of cancer will only create more,if we are part of the root then maybe we should start with ourselves.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ff00cc">Well mainly because banning all Swedish people would be of little use, since the Swedish peoples have not been known to be radical terror bombers of late. Sooooooooooooooo since 99% of our terror problems right this second are from arab nations. I say kick them out of the club of the civilized owrld untill they can behave themselves. Make the Arab nations control their own radical elements. Im still waiting for one solid reason...a really direct and applicable reason why that is not a good idea. Probably not practical I know, but I believe it would solve the problem....for a while at least. Untill all the middle east countries reverted to nomadic desert tribes whith no modern technology. (no it wouldnt happen but Im being ridiculous so why not go all the way ;) )</font>[/QB][/QUOTE

Did you read my post Magik,if so the point I was trying to make is that terrorists have no state, and alot of the people associated with Al queda are not arabs,personally pre 9/11 my terrorist problems were caused mainly by the IRA,should we throw all the Irish out of the USA & the UK ?

And then there are the really alternative 'cures'. Part of today's news in DK was the story about a doctor (M.D.) who treats his pacients wiyh (among other things) misteltoe and vegetarian diet. [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] The more 'conservative' doctors naturally disapproved of this 'treatment' - and I also think that he preys of peoples fear of cancer/death.

[ 12-03-2002, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Ar-Cunin ]

<font color="#ff00cc">
Yes I did read your post. And yes I don't doubt that pre 9/11 you may have been aware of the IRA more than arab terror, however the IRA really has not been nearly so active world wide as the Muslim extremists. But that aside, I think you missed the umm ludicrouness of my post, I did admit to it in the last line to you [img]smile.gif[/img] . In reality, I think that the muslim extremists do pose the largest threat to the western way of life that has ever existed. THey do not value human life, they are ruthless and they (well some of them) do not care if they sacrifice their life in the effort to eradicate ALL infidels. The IRA at least has a small, direct objective that does not include the eradication of all UK citizens. Anyway, sorry if I made you think that I wasn't paying attention. </font>

<font color="#ff00cc">
I think perhaps we might try feeding massive doses of exlax and other purgatives to all arabs :D </font>