Why so many cancer victims?
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 07-07-2009 - 1:20pm |
I'm sure there are those of you who read several weeks ago about the pro golfer, Phil Mickelson, and the sad fact that his beloved wife Amy had breast cancer. She recently had a very promising surgery procedure that hopefully will be a success, and she can live a long, healthy life.
It was just announced yesterday that Phil's mom has also been diagnosed with breast cancer, and is in the same hospital that Amy was in during her ordeal.
Why are there so many cases of breast cancer in women? Is this something that has been going on for decades but wasn't publicized as it is now, or due to more recent causes?
I will pray for the Mickelson family, and hope his mother has a speedy recovery. I know so many women, both young and old, who have had to undergo surgery and treatments for this most dreaded disease.
mwm

Pages
I haven't read any of the subsequent posts yet, so if I'm repeating info posted by someone else, please excuse me.
HPV is not the lone cause of cervical cancer.
I'll be sending healing karma!!!
I looked at the online information concerning cervical cancer. HPV may not be the sole cause but believe me, it's considered responsible for the vast majority of cases. Have yet to read material which points a finger of blame at anything else. I've never had any other sexual partner than my DH. He says the same of me. Apparently, we're freaks. Point is, the doctor thought SHE knew best when she ordered the pap test on MY body. She had no right to behave in such a high-handed and arrogant fashion. It will not happen again, whether because I find another doctor or because I tell her precisely what our relationship is based on--her role as a paid consultant. If she thinks a test is warranted, she will take the time and make the case. No orders.
Too many doctors I have encountered over the years have shown superiority complexes. It is absolutely inexcusable. They are taught and train extensively; the process takes years BUT the curriculae contains no more than what is currently known and/or widely practiced. That course of study is far from complete with perfect answers. Medical practitioners are NOT God (omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent). They are NOT deserving of unquestioned obedience. They are NOT always altruistic, either. As a class of people, they probably reflect the general diversity and level of "goodness" of humanity in general.
Yes, I am saying that there are probably people with non-aggressive cell formations which would be called "cancer" if they were detected--people who are unaware that they have those formations and live their lives without ever knowing or suffering unduly. Early detection is predicated on the need to look carefully and/or hard for something which may, or may not, be a threat. But it has to be treated as a threat, else why make the effort to look?! Becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, IMHO.
Soooo, early cancer detection comes concomitant with an assumption that there is a need for medical intervention. Not always true. Depends on the individual's age and health, the kind of cancer, and the risks of treatment as balanced against the possible course of the cancer--and there are close to a hundred different kinds of cancer, some of which are truly malignant and/or aggressive, others decidedly not so much. I have not seen the nuanced thinking which takes each of those factors into consideration. The oncologists I have known see the cancer first. And many of them are world-class egotists who care more about vanquishing their foe (the cancer) than counting the cost their wars take on the unlucky host (the patient). If you have experienced another reality, that's great. Hasn't been mine.
So we have these imperfect beings (patients and doctors) trying to "find" something which quite possibly has not yet manifested itself. The screens and tests are deployed to find that which the screens and tests can detect (they're less than perfect too). Then we have the conundrum of the medical establishment "needing" to disturb a find (the suspect whatever) for the purpose of discerning whether it's malignant or benign. By definition, a cancer has the ability to metastasize through the blood stream, lymph, other components of the body. Which are presumably breached by any kind of invasive procedure whether it's needle or knife. A perfect avenue for metastasis. What part of that makes sense?! Which necessitates the next step, chemo and/or radiation to attack whatever wayward cells might have escaped during the invasive procedure. More of the old lady swallowing the fly, don't you think?
It does not necessarily follow that treatment with harsh methods like chemo or radiation "therapies" "prolongs" life. Where's that proof? Moreover, there is reason to believe that IF life is prolonged by either of those therapies, there are still significant downsides. Recently there was a news item which revealed that vitamin supplements, particularly with B complex, interferes with chemotherapy because chemotherapy RELEASES FREE RADICALS to attack the cancer cells AND healthy cells as well. B complex works against free radicals. Current theory is that free radicals are responsible for the dangerous mutating and aging of cells which leads to......wait for it......cancer. In a nutshell, one of the therapies for cancer creates the conditions under which cancer shapes itself.
Take a gander at this:
"With a growing number of long-term survivors, we are only now able to define the delayed implications of adjuvant chemotherapy. These long-term side effects include acceleration of neurocognitive decline, musculoskeletal complications such as early onset osteoporosis, premature skin and ocular changes and the most common long-term complaint; mild to profound fatigue. This complex of problems is suggestive of early onset frailty"
http://tinyurl.com/n7wxsn
My point about the rigorous and methodical study of cancer, both treated and untreated, is that such a study apparently doesn't exist. Has been assumed that early detection means greater survival rates. Seemingly has NOT been proved. Conventional modern day medicine has tried to distance itself from the more bizarre therapies of earlier practitioners by claiming to be scientific. Early detection and treatment is NOT scientific practice if tangible proof cannot be provided and replicated. That's the whole point of scientific method.
As regards the role of pharmaceutical companies, is there such a thing as an American one? Near as I can tell, most of the big ones are multi-national/global entities. FDA (for whom my brother works) has been hamstrung for years by the limited government yokels of the GOP who yammer about capitalism and too many fetters. Decimated FDA. At one time, I shared your urgency about releasing drugs faster and with fewer strings. But that changed a bit when antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria like MRSA reared their ugly heads. No prescription for antibiotics was needed in Europe. Did overuse there facilitate the development of the super-bugs?
I very nearly got up and threw a pillow at the television several weeks ago when the president was giving a speech. It's been quite a while since there was a similar temptation (mid-January, to be precise;-) ) Obama was addressing a convention of doctors--possibly the AMA (whom I care for not at all) and made a comment to the effect that he followed a doctor's orders, just like the rest of us. NOT. And if he does, more fool he! Medical practitioners are humans, fallible, imperfect, and far from all-knowing. To treat them as more than they are, does nothing whatsoever to quell the arrogance or reduce egotism levels. "Snap out of it", I wanted to yell at the screen. Seemingly, we collectively (Obama included) are reluctant to give up the gods in whom we have faith, however made of clay their feet prove to be. My altars to the med profession have been in disarray or outright demolished. They operated the wrecking ball themselves.
Edited to insert a word, a parenthetical phrase and a quote which went missing in an earlier edit.
Edited 7/11/2009 8:41 pm ET by jabberwocka
Jabberwocka
I'm so sorry to hear about your situation. Of course you're scared. Rightfully so. If it's any consolation, my wife went through this same scenario a little over a year ago, and to make matters worse, when she went for her follow up session with the doctor, there was a mix up and she had to wait yet another week for her to find out it wasn't cancerous. Keep your hopes up friend. It may be nothing.
I will say a prayer for you immediately after I send this. May the good Lord watch over you and yours.
At one time, I shared your urgency about releasing drugs faster and with fewer strings.
You need to reread what I wrote.
"antibiotics...in this country, we are just as guilty of overuse"
The last few years doc's are Rx fewer
Now I'm confused. You don't want drugs released faster with less strings but complain about the European drugs which haven't been released by FDA; while other drug products which come from only American companies are fast-tracked. Huh? Maybe you could give specific examples which illustrate your point.
If antibiotics are available OTC, it seems likely that those drugs will be more heavily used than would be the case if they are only available with script. Doctors cannot be strong-armed into writing prescriptions and have been just as responsible, if not more so, than their patients in antibiotic overuse and the development of superbugs. I have read that many of the food products we eat come from animals which are routinely given large amounts of antibiotics. Would imagine that too has contributed to resistant bacteria. Elevated levels of antibiotics are showing up in our environment by way of some very outré vectors. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090528203737.htm
FDA isn't a perfect agency and was used badly by BushCo regarding certain contraceptive agents like Plan B. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm109795.htm But it was far from the only federal agency to be subjected to the bad science of meddling politicians pushing their own agenda; or the "limited government" budget and manpower cuts of conservatives.
Not, by the way, that I think pharmaceutical companies are acting in the best interests of the public. They, as with so many others involved in the health care industry, are interested in their bottom line.
<>
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
I don't think that we are phobic about germs. Too many times I've seen people give their hands no more than a cursory washing (if that!) after using toilet facilities. Hospitals which have focused seriously on hand-washing have greatly reduced their incidence of infection. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=7798023&page=1 Alcohol-based sanitizing gels don't seem to be as effective in a hospital setting but are probably still better than nothing. http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/13784 In my opinion, it makes FAR more sense to keep surfaces and hands clean than to contract an illness which has to be treated by antibiotics. Keeping our environments safe without making them entirely sterile is a balancing act.
My posts on pap tests didn't focus primarily on HPV or the causes of cervical cancer. Rather, it was on the doctor's inappropriate and erroneous jumping to conclusion about the sexual behavior and history of my husband and me. Just a couple of observations about the link you posted. It clearly indicated that HPV and sexual history were the most significant factors in cervical cancer development. And I dispute its statement about pap test history as a risk factor. Lack of a test does not result in cervical cancer unless at least one of the other factors listed is present. "Early detection" strikes again.
Am still working on finding either a video or transcript of Obama's words. Based on my recollection, the sense was that he and we collectively do what doctors tell us to do because they know best. I most emphatically do not agree. Even the word "orders" is off-putting unless one favors an authoritarian (minor god-type) environment. Nor can I think of a single other business where we pay someone handsomely to order us to do anything!
It's my belief that people are responsible for the choices they make about their bodies. Sure, doctors can play important roles in informing their clients about choices and the ramifications of those choices. But unless it's an emergency situation, I believe that those clients MUST be pro-active in their own lives and their own health decisions. Another belief: Doctors do not always know best, nor do they have enough answers about the efficacy or safety of their therapies, particularly in regards to cancer.
Last but not least, hope your mammogram went well, and that there are no suspect tissues.
Jabberwocka
Now I'm confused. You don't want drugs released faster with less strings but complain about the European drugs which haven't been released by FDA; while other drug products which come from only American companies are fast-tracked. Huh? Maybe you could give specific examples which illustrate your point.
First of all, I'm talking about drugs that have been in use for decades in Europe.
Pages