Is treatment always necessary for cancer?

[ryirkil]

A cancer cell that doesn't self-destruct generally tends to do QUITE well at dividing

Well, obviously, how are you going to find a single cancer cell?

 

[ryirkil]

I was coming back from a grocery store and had this train of thought:
-"Someone here mentioned that attitude matters"
-"It's obviously true, we know about placebo effect"
-"Probably boost's the immune system"
-"But is it?"
-"If that were true, then being optimistic during an autoimmune disease would have a negative effect."
So I have searched a little (just a few webpages) and found this: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/16/4223

It's not exactly what I thought about, there was an actual medicine with an appropriate dose given at first but it's similar. And it works as intended. So placebo is most likely not about boosting the immune system, at least not always.
Just a "shower thought".

[EDIT] I have noticed it doesn't follow the definitions: placebo is a desirable effect. So whatever gives worse results (including worsening of an autoimmune disease) is nocebo. Which of course doesn't change anything about the underlying mechanics.

 

[Reconscope]

I don't want to give much detail, since it's not my story to tell, but I find it amazing how positive of an attitude he has despite it all.

Its definitely amazing how such a feeling really drives ones health

 

[Gorgik91]

Define "necessary"?

What KIND of cancer?

Cancer is bad news - full stop.

Cancer untreated is death, sooner or later - Full stop.

Some cancers are slow-moving enough that, depending on the age of the victim, trying to treat them is pointless - a complete waste of time, effort, and resources. Certain flavors of prostate cancer fall into that category - Depending on the exact type (there are several that get called "prostate cancer" as a cover-'em-all term) the patient can go for years, if not decades, before the cancer advances far enough to actually mean anything, or start to spread in any meaningful way. The patient will (almost certainly) die of something else before the cancer gets to the point of being more than a minor annoyance. So is there any point in bothering to expend the effort to treat it? Which is why there's a pretty standard "wait and watch" attitude towards prostate cancer these days.

Other cancers are quicker - Carve 'em out, nuke 'em 'til they glow, chemo 'em into submission, and/or otherwise treat them aggressively, and hope for the best. Glioblastoma, for example - Or pancreatic cancer. Glioblastoma 'cause it moves so incredibly fast, and tends to spread like there's no tomorrow. Pancreatic 'cause it's almost always undetected until it's far past too late. For these, it's "try to give the patient as long as we're able." and that's pretty much all that can be done. (CF. Steve Jobs, or Alex Trebek for two recent famous examples of pancreatic cancer, or Neil Peart for Glioblastoma)

Then there are the ones in between - Breast, lung, cervical - depending on when they're discovered, exactly where within the affected organ they're lovcated, and if they've spread (and how much they've done so), it might not be worth even trying to treat - all that can be done is slightly postpone the inevitable and control pain. Or it might be possible to knock it out and have a reasonable lifespan afterward. No way to tell as a "general course of action" - too individual to predict.

In short, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to offer any *USEFUL* general advice regarding cancer. It's too individually specific to even make an attempt at doing so.

Your main point is very important and very true!!! Cancer ISN'T one singular disease - its a large number of very different diseases lumped together under a common name. I definitely agree with your last statement, that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to offer any useful general advice regarding cancer.

 

[PonyLove]

My adages have always been

You've got to die of something.

Age isn't measured in years but by how much one has lived.

Dying with something is not the same as dying of something.

And, prolonging someone's life is not the same as prolonging someone's death.

I am sure you have met people that just have that beaming glow of positive attitude. People are attracted to them and like to hear what they have to say. And then there are those that live off fear and hate, creating their own little private hell. I love talking to people that are 90+. They are a living history book. Seems the very old still hold onto that positive happy attitude.

Yes living a quality life is the best. Hanging onto the deathbed seems to serve no purpose but to prolong suffering. For me I want to go quickly. They found him dead in the pasture, completely naked. That can be my epitaph.

I say live you life to the fullest it can be with joy and happiness, becasue our time on earth is limited. Make the best of it.

 

[Edger_23]

N

Shouldn't this be DF?


Cancer is mutation. Mutation is the mechanism for evolution. No not all evolutionary dice are winners, in fact most are not, and when it's a bad dice throw the recipient gets to die and not pass those bad dice on to another generation.

Cancer is a perfectly normal part of all life and isn't something to be cured. It's in fact necessary.

No, cancer is a mistake in a cells mitosis process where the cell makes a bad copy of itself and that bad copy is now immortal and doesnt want to cooperate with the rest of the body, not only that but it wanta to keep making copies of itself, a mutation wuld be if all your cells were like that

 

[Edger_23]

Cancer is a virus. Like most of its brethren it is psychoactive. It CAN be affected by attitude over time. But it is not something to play with. If surgery is in your diagnosis, choose wisely, after researching those around you.
If Chemo is more likely, research the clinics that offer it. None of these are the same. Some are better than others. ASK AROUNDabout oncologists. Find a good one FIRST.

Cancer is not a virus and it's definitly not psychoactive unless it actually is in a very specific part of your brain.

Also, no, most viruses arent psychoactive, furthermore i would say that no illness inducing organism or virus is actually techncally psychoactive, yes, some can affect your brain in ways, but thats really not the deffinition.