Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dhs12345
For as much as we have spent on cancer research over the decades WE SHOULD HVE A CURE! And yet we don’t have a cure.

We have numerous survivors of cancer, including myself. There are cures. I work in early-phase drug development, and I see the progress the industry has made--it is nothing short of phenomenal.

Merck has a drug right now--perhaps you've heard of Keytruda or pembolizumab--they are pushing the FDA to recommend it as a first-line treatment for lung cancer. Keytruda is considered an immunotherapy treatment; i.e., it triggers your immune system to work to stop abnormal cell division, the hallmark of cancer.

Keytruda also has been shown to work well in head & neck cancers, as well as melanomas. Former President Carter was diagnosed with a cancer (I forget which one, perhaps liver or lung), one that spread to his brain. He's a 90 year-old man, and they usually forgo chemo at that age. After a month or two of treatment, the tumor in his brain was completely gone.

One final point--your declaration that after years of research and spending, "WE SHOULD HAVE A CURE!" is extremely ignorant of what cancer is. It's almost as arrogant as Obama and Biden declaring that a cancer "moon shot" -- spending from the federal government will finally push us over the top for a cure.

Cancer is not a single disease, and it's highly unlikely there will be a single cure for all. Some cancers are caused by a combination of viruses, some by genetic mutations, and some by the environment. Cancer is complex, and the genetic mutations that have occurred in humans over centuries make it as hard to pin down as the flu or common cold. Cancer evolves...it's a moving target. Simply throwing money at it does not solve the problem. Yet, we are making progress.

137 posted on 09/09/2016 10:26:29 AM PDT by Lou L (Health "insurance" is NOT the same as health "care")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]


To: Lou L
How much of the treatment is mainstreamed? Sounds like it is still in the pre-release phase with very limited use.

Sorry to have such high expectations but we should have made a lot more progress after four/five decades and trillions of dollars and yet, the go-to treatment options are still chemo, radiation, and surgery. Just a guess about the trillions (how about “A LOT OF MONEY”).

As for treatment, one clear vulnerability is its ability to metastasize. It is usually over once it spreads because it becomes a multi-front war and multiple organs are compromised. Second is the fact that it can grow so quickly. Early detection is critical!

The body's housekeeping function should take care of cancer and that is where I believe that the real cure lies. And maybe there is some kind of marker on a cancer cell and the body's immune system can be trained to attack it. Maybe antibodies grown outside the body that are trained to attack the cancer cells and are reintroduced to the body? Or simply boosting the body's immune system would be sufficient. Immunotherapy?

155 posted on 09/10/2016 8:42:03 AM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson