What is Digg?335 Comments
- Chairboy, on 10/11/2007, -7/+215I love the presentation. "A cancer cure MOST DOCTORS WON'T TELL YOU ABOUT!"
Why? Because Doctors love the sweet, sweet taste of your tears. They sip them from champagne flutes while cruising down the main street of your little town in their Bentleys. They also eat babies whenever they can get away with it!
....or maybe the treatment has a lower success rate than chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation. It's possible for there to be multiple treatments to something, and for some of those treatments to be better than others. - Lymphocyte, on 10/11/2007, -2/+160As an Immunologist, I can assure you we don't know how a lot of drugs work. In fact, we spend a lot of time trying to find the mechanisms of how some drugs work simply so that we can design better drugs in the future.
- CaesarBlue, on 10/11/2007, -14/+155This treatment isn't a pipe dream. Its been used successfully in several cultures throughout history. The main reason it isn't used today is because , chemotherapy, which is understood, counteracts the effects of this treatment. As a result, doctors tend to go with the understood method of treatment. Very interesting read.
- intense321, on 10/17/2007, -3/+87I am a physician. We can't employ these types of treatments today because it would be malpractice. Back in Coley's time, he could get away with doing radical things like this because society wasn't as litiginous as it is today. If I could practice without having any fear of being sued, I might be employing such tactics..
- catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -17/+80The reason why they don't use it is very simple. S. pyogenes is a virulent, pathogenic bacteria that can cause necrotizing fasciitis (flesh eating bacteria), sepsis, toxic shock syndrome, and death. Infections below the skin usually require amputation. It is probably not the smartest idea to infect a cancer patient with it. Why the hell is this even on the front page?
- dumbum, on 10/11/2007, -35/+95I'm getting tired of all the conspiracy theories that are hitting Digg nowadays
- AndrewJC, on 10/11/2007, -10/+66You REALLY think that doctors get paid more if the medications they prescribe are more expensive?
My father is a doctor and he's a damn good one. He WILL prescribe what is best for the patient. I get sick of people assuming that all doctors are out there to scam their patients, as if there's some mass conspiracy to delude the American public into thinking that there are cures for all their diseases in that locked cabinet over there that are going unused, while the doctor prescribes a lengthy and expensive treatment simply because it'll net a pharma more money.
Doctors are like cops, in a respect: There are good ones and there are bad ones (both in talent and in ethics)... but usually you can spot the bad ones a mile away. - Varnu, on 10/11/2007, -4/+41Oh, wow, a CANCER CURE, that's being kept secret by the man. I've never heard that before. Oh wait, I have. I have at 3:00 AM on infomercials sandwiched between ads for hot chicks who want to talk to me right now.
I actually worked in a lab studying a similar effect in prostate cancer (in rats) and it's not nearly as simple as it sounds. The immune response against a developed cancer is extremely usesful--at the right time with the right tumor in the right person. The reason it isn't a treatment is because it almost never works, and when it does, no one knows why. Believe me, if there is a cure out there, doctors are going to use it and labs are going to race each other to find out how it works. A guaranteed Nobel prize is a pretty good motivator. The lord knows life science researchers are not in it for the money... - gwthm, on 10/11/2007, -1/+35This is an interesting article, but seriously it's written like National Inquirer of science related articles. The article is FAR from having it's facts straight. I, as a clinical research Virologist and currently a medical student, can assure you that a majority of medical techniques currently in employ are not fully understood or even moderately understood. Cancer is a highly complex disease and can result from the deregulation of an innumerable number of controls. The medical field barely understands cancer, let alone the chemotherapeutic agents we utilize. Modern science still operates mostly by trial and error, albeit guided trial and error, we use a chemotherapeutic agent in a cancer model In Vitro or in an animal model, and see how it works, if it works we try and see what is different between the treated group and the untreated group. Only then can Scientists even begin to conjecture as to what is going on. The reason this treatment isn't used is because it is unproven, even a handful of examples by this physician in a single cancer type is far from proof that this is an effective therapeutic, not to mention the numerous botched cases where infectious agents have been used as a therapeutic. Cancer patients are often immune-compromised by the cancer itself this is added to by the chemotherapeutic agents. You can't use both these treatments together, and as a result Medicine goes with the treatment that has been tested.
- SeasonedBeef, on 10/11/2007, -1/+28Digg users should already know that the stem cells from the blood of a hybrid Cylon-human cures cancer.
- nonpareil, on 10/11/2007, -27/+52Until medical society moves towards preventative medicine (rather than treatment), cancer will *always* be an issue. That being the case, it is a lot more lucrative to treat ailments than to prevent them.
- Error601, on 10/11/2007, -6/+30Total nonsense. There's no preventative medicine that will prevent cancer. That's the kind of ***** you read from people trying to sell snake oil at health fraud stores.
- bovester, on 10/11/2007, -5/+26My dog has had a sarcoma developing on the side of his mouth for a few months. Our vet and a cancer specialist both said it would take $7,000 worth of treatments, but after looking around on the internet, we just started treatment with a drug called Neoplasene:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08202006/entertainment/a_new_hope__entertainment_julia_szabo.htm
Three weeks later it has started to disintegrate the tumor and we are very hopeful about success. - rauz, on 10/11/2007, -11/+32And, as I've noted among my stoner friends, it can also prevent intelligence!
- dpknc84, on 10/11/2007, -6/+27Preventative? In this day an age where every week there are articles shoved out doors that say that basically everything causes cancer or a disease, how preventative can we be when we don't even know what we're talking about.
- djfrey, on 10/11/2007, -6/+26http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_Nutritional_Approach
He understood ketosis just fine... - Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21Would it be possible for patients who want to undergo such radical treatments to sign away their right to sue for malpractice?
- AweMazing, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21Sarcoma is a type of cancer.
- TheGrunt, on 10/11/2007, -4/+23Actually, yes. It's called triclosan and it's a carcinogen.
http://www.newstarget.com/021703.html - brufleth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19Almost certainly not. Even a release form is not a deterrent anymore. People will often sign releases and then sue anyway.
Any doctor who did such a procedure would almost certainly be dropped by their insurance company and a doctor without malpractice insurance can't practice.
The other problem is cost. NO insurance company is going to cover such a procedure. So you have a massive shopping list of expenses from hospital stay to sterilizing which is all very expensive. No insurance company or state run insurance system is going to pay for a treatment which hasn't been "worked out" and as some people have mentioned the resulting infection that would probably occur due to the bacteria would probably be lethal. - farrellj, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21Just because you are not paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you! :-)
- joshlrogers, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20/puts on Tinfoil hat
This is exactly what insurance companies want patients to think and conservatives have jumped right on board. As long as people think the doctors are the ones screwing them they don't point the finger at insurance companies constantly cutting pay outs to doctors. Just so everyone knows the bill that they submit to the insurance is never paid in full, insurance companies just pay what THEY feel the services is worth. Trust me, medical care would be much cheaper if doctors would not have to charge so much in hopes that the insurance company won't turn a 100 dollar bill into a 5 dollar bill (and I am not exaggerating).
I was in the hospital two years ago with a bochdalek hernia. I had a 14 hour surgery and was in the hospital for 12 days at Vanderbilt university. They submitted a bill to the insurance company for 225k roughly, the insurance company paid 45k and that was it. I paid an extra 3k on top of that so they got a 21% return on their bill. So you tell me if you were a doctor and you had to check someones throat would you submit a bill for 20 bucks and get a 4.20 or would you submit a 100 dollar bill and get 20 bucks. See if they just paid the 20 bucks they would have to jack up their costs 80 bucks to get the same thing they wanted to charge in the first place. I know this for a fact as my mom has worked for doctors and hospitals all of my life.
Also if you want to do the chicken before the egg thing with who jacked up or lowered costs first I will bet my entire worth on the fact it was the insurance companies lowering payouts to increase profits, if you think otherwise you are a bit naieve. /Removes tinfoil hat - Gzero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18Yes, exactly. If I told my doctor I wanted to be injected with bacteria, could I?
- NinjaBoy, on 10/11/2007, -7/+24Stoner Fact2:
Wait what? - Ramble, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20Ignore natural ways?
A load of the drugs nowadays are just purified forms of chemicals found in herbs and such. - Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16besides, according to the article, Dr. Coley modified the toxins he injected to only use dead bacteria, and still achieved the same cancer-fighting result.
- intense321, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17I am a physician. We can't employ these types of treatments today because it would be malpractice. Back in Coley's time, he could get away with doing radical things like this because society wasn't as litiginous as it is today. The truth is that surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation are much more effective than infusing S. Pyogenes into a patient. If a patient fails such therapy, and I would run no risk of being sued, I'd happy to infuse S. Pyogenes into you.
- aaaargh, on 10/17/2007, -2/+17Only paranoid conspiracy-freaks could believe doctors are withholding its use simply because they don't fully understand it. Individual doctors don't understand lots of drugs they use, and even the best informed researchers don't understand all the aspects of how drugs work. That's why side effects can turn up even after FDA approval. And the fact is, the operation here is generally understood. Interferon (mentioned as an obscure exception in the article) has been heavily studied in cancer treatments for decades, and is prescribed in a wide variety of treatments. And finally, classifying a drug as experimental doesn't mean a tyrannical government is keeping it from us; it can be used in studies of mice and other animals, and if it shows promise advance to human testing, the same as with any drugs. True, you can't inject patients with whatever you want, the way you could in 1900, but it can be argued that that's to protect society. I can see room for debate as to how far that should be taken, but the general contrarian tone of the article is disingenuous or ill-informed.
- norman619, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16How the hell do you think we got asprin and penicillin?
- dragon76, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14That's mainly because "walla" isn't a word. It's "voila" which is French for "there it is".
- GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Atkin's didn't discover it either. Bodybuilders had used the principles (though not exactly the same implementation) for years. Indeed most fad diets are small sections of what bodybuilders have done for decades amplified to silly levels (they're silly because a one dimensional diet is counterproductive in the long term since it slams your metabolism).
- subliminalurge, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Lots of nasty things are caused by our culture's obsession with germ avoidance. If you're never exposed to anything, how can your immune system develop to its full potential?
Couple that with our extreme over usage of antibiotics and we now have bigger, badder, meaner germs out there and bodies that don't know how to fight them off. - NinjaBoy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15Yeah. AndrewJC hit it right on the head. If most doctors don't prescribe something, there is probably a good reason for it.
- sgtbutterscotch, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11that's ignorami to you.
- allywilson, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Just go to the Netherlands. They do anything and everything in my eyes.
Don't digg me down for a gross generalisation - my point is that if someone wants a treatment, there will be someplace in the world willing to administer it. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10There are other options. One treatment used on tumors in a persons brain was to infect it with rat herpes. Once infected, a treament for rat herpes was then injected and the tumor was destroyed. Rat herpes does not harm humans, though I am sure people would make fun of you for having it. :-D
There are probably a billion other virii or bacteria that could be used as well, that are not harmful to humans.
Stop being negative and find a cure. Hurry!
:-) - chingy1788, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9give them the cocktail, something dr house may do
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9And what is the real alternative? It is attitudes like that that lead to patients fearing radiation therapy even when it is the most effective and safest treatment. Do you think that Radiation Oncologist make stuff up? The dosage of radiationa and how it is applied is a very specific science.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Release forms do not protect you. In fact in many cases, it is not a legally binding document at all and there are many ways to argue a way around it. Not to mention medical funding from the NIH has many restrictions against high risk research.
- gn0stik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Not really sure how this is a conspiracy. When something is not understood, it can't very well get FDA approval, now can it?
Bottling up E-Coli, or Salmonella and stocking cancer ward shelves with it probably doesn't go over well legally for most hospitals.
Thing is, they have all kinds of liability issues, and rules that they have to be mindful of. It would take some kind of maverick like House, and some stupid slutty department head that can be steamrolled easily to make something like this fly. - inactive, on 10/17/2007, -1/+10Modern medicine hasn't cured anything since polio? What an absurd statement. Where is malaria in the US? Where are all the childhood diseases that killed off most babies? What do you call using antibiotics to treat pneumonias or various infections?
- jonnyeh, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13I can see no reason that infected someone with a highly contagious flesh eating bacteria would be frowned upon.
- p0tent1al, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8PROTIP: PROTIP isn't actually a word, I HATE WHEN OTHER NOOBS TRY TO CORRECT OTHER PEOPLE. Get off your high horse, and if your going to try to correct someone, you better be DAMN SURE that there isn't 1 mistake in your post.
- zephyrTR, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13another reason why they dont use it is that theres TONS of kinds of cancers which need to be matched with a specific disease have the desired effect. Since doctors don't know how it works, there's no good way to figure out what diseases cure what cancers.
- AndrewJC, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9For starters, infecting somebody with a disease isn't the safest way to treat somebody. There is a large number of risks involved with that—what if you were to infect somebody with this bacteria, and with their cancer-affected immune system weakened, it was unable to fight off the bacteria and an infection developed? You could end up killing a patient when with chemotherapy the risk of that is much lower.
- hockey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Either that or Chuck Norris' tears. Too bad he never cries though.
- krinn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Researchers at Wake Forest University have found a mouse with a particularly active immune system that can kill cancer cells. However they still don't understand exactly how this works.
http://www1.wfubmc.edu/cancer/Research/Mice/ - norman619, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Actually since we do not understand what actually causes cancer we can't do much prentative treatment. Take the little girl in the article as a prime example. her cancer developed from a simple injury not from smoking, drunking, drug use or anything else. So until we understand the mechanics of cancer infection and/or development we can't do much to prevent it. All we can do now is treat it.
- joshlrogers, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Yeah it isn't like America isn't sue happy or anything...I mean sheesh if someone was trying to save my life with a risky treatment and something went wrong even if I agreed with it I could sue the pants off that doctor by just saying it wasn't fully explained to me, ***** I don't even have to say that I can say he put me in a year long course and I all I have to say is I still didn't understand and boom he loses. Yes malpractice suits are that asinine
- Bluntman4000, on 10/11/2007, -7/+14"In lab and mouse studies, the compound, known as THC, cut lung tumor growth in half and helped prevent the cancer from spreading, says Anju Preet, PhD, a Harvard University researcher in Boston who tested the chemical." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Moreover, other early research suggests the cannabis compound could help fight brain, prostate, and skin cancers as well, Preet says."
http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20070417/marijuana-may-fight-lung-tumors -
Show 51 - 100 of 323 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is