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

Skip to comments.

Simple Test May Spot Early Lung Cancer
HealthDay News ^ | April 7, 2010 | Amanda Gardner

Posted on 04/09/2010 3:08:19 PM PDT by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last
To: GloriaJane

Praise G-d! He still has a mission for you.


21 posted on 04/09/2010 3:47:16 PM PDT by richardtavor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“This project will be led by a team of principal investigators, including David Schwartz, MD, at National Jewish Health, Mark Geraci, MD, at the University of Colorado Denver’s School of Medicine; Naftali Kaminski, MD, and Frank Sciurba, MD, at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; John Quackenbush, PhD, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; and Avrum Spira, MD, at Boston University School of Medicine.”

Source: National Jewish Health

Another gift from the Jewish People to the People of the world—how much did we lose when hitler murdered 6 MM Jews? They are truly the Light of the World.


22 posted on 04/09/2010 3:49:42 PM PDT by richardtavor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
"This doesn’t make sense to me. 10-20% of smokers develop lung cancer, and apparently smoking isn’t related to 10% (100 minus 90), so how are they certain that smoking causes 90% of lung cancer. Not saying that they are wrong, it just seems... off."

Many types of cancers from other organs can migrate to the lungs.

23 posted on 04/09/2010 3:50:20 PM PDT by StormEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mears

Sorry. Evil stuff.


24 posted on 04/09/2010 3:51:00 PM PDT by Nuc1 (NUC1 Sub pusher SSN 668 (Liberals Aren't Patriots))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
Apples and oranges. Of the total population of lung cancer victims...90% are smokers. Ten percent of lung cancer victims are not smokers. Total population of lung cancer victims 100%. Now, only 10-20% of the total population of smokers fall victim to lung cancer. These are not the same percentages. See? :D)
25 posted on 04/09/2010 3:57:44 PM PDT by Nuc1 (NUC1 Sub pusher SSN 668 (Liberals Aren't Patriots))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Copied from somewhere...more sources would be good to find out about:
Major sources of inositol include beans, citrus fruit, nuts, rice, veal, pork, and wheat germ.


26 posted on 04/09/2010 4:14:53 PM PDT by spankalib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Good observation.

The article is interesting to me because my mother is undergoing chemo for a lymphoma cancer in here lungs. She has never smoked. She appears to be responding well to the chemo, but we had a very difficult time identifying the cancer cell. The needle biopsies revealed nothing.

We finally got desperate and took her to Scott & White in Temple TX. Made 4 trips there. One the 3rd trip they went a step past a needle biopsy and found the lymphoma.

If this can be detected early with a test and treated with an over the counter med, this will be a major step forward.

TF


27 posted on 04/09/2010 4:20:35 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: se_ohio_young_conservative

I gotta simple test for lung cancer. Check the patient’s pockets for cigarettes!


28 posted on 04/09/2010 4:33:40 PM PDT by Haiku Guy (Gov. Chris Christie (R) won the NJ-6 held by Rep. Frank Pallone (D) by a 15.5% margin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pebcak

Interesting, thought you might think so too.


29 posted on 04/09/2010 4:37:07 PM PDT by MizSterious ("Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Still, only 10 to 20% of smokers actually develop lung cancer, ...

According to WHO/CDC studies it is 8%.

Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer (According to WHO/CDC Data)*

Would you believe that the real number is < 10% (see Appendix A)? Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer (see Appendix A). In fact, the data used is biased in the way that it was collected and the actual risk for a smoker is probably less.


30 posted on 04/09/2010 4:43:06 PM PDT by TigersEye (Duncan Hunter, Jim DeMint, Michelle Bachman, ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
Still, only 10 to 20% of smokers actually develop lung cancer, begging the question: Why do some smokers succumb to the disease and others don’t.”

I have an aunt who is approx. 80 years old who once smoked many years ago, developed lung cancer in her later years and has had a full recovery following treatment.........She is one amazing woman......

But to answer your question, why do people who have never smoked develope lung cancer or emphysema anyway?

Some people get fat, some people don't, some people are allergic to latex, most people aren't.

I'm thinking that the medical and scientific community are now getting too big for their britches..........

31 posted on 04/09/2010 4:50:24 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hot Tabasco

The largest cohort of cancer victims in the world are chinese women who cook oily foods over stoves in their homes. Inadequate ventilation.


32 posted on 04/09/2010 5:28:01 PM PDT by Chickensoup (We have the government we deserve. Is our government our traitor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

It sounds to me like 10-20% of smokers will develop lung cancer. They represent 90% of the lung cancer cases. 10% of lung cancer cases are non-smokers. Better? It was a really weird way of saying it.


33 posted on 04/09/2010 9:38:55 PM PDT by TNdandelion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: StormEye

Yup. Ovarian cancer is one of them. :(


34 posted on 04/09/2010 9:43:36 PM PDT by TNdandelion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

Inhaling an irritant of some kind, over a lengthy period of years, increases the chance of precancerous cell mutation, which increases the chance of cancer. Some precancerous lesions form in the absence of any carcinogen. This would be either random chance, or an unknown or less obvious carcinogen. An older population as a whole increases the apparent frequency of cancers. Live long enough and individual odds of having some form of cancer are more than even.

I hate to sound even remotely like some of these leftist environmentalists, but something has changed. Cancers in pet dogs have gone through the roof in the past decade or so. Excessive vaccinations and/or chemical exposure (lawn chemicals and internal or external flea and tick treatments, primarily) are being blamed there.

Many cancer treatments in humans originate with canine veterinary medicine. The two, human and canine, respond similarly to treatment and are prone to many of the same cancers. So, it’s reasonable to theorize that the cause(s) might be similar as well.


35 posted on 04/10/2010 5:55:05 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

i have known many good young dogs who have died in the past year. I am rethinking heartowrm and flea treatments


36 posted on 04/10/2010 7:31:45 PM PDT by Chickensoup (We have the government we deserve. Is our government our traitor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

Think long and hard about dropping the heartworm treatment. That’ll kill a dog, too. If you’re in a heartworm endemic area and your dog spends any large amount of time outdoors, a mosquito carrying the parasite will eventually bite your dog, and then heartworm will develop. The treatment for a dog with heartworm isn’t pretty, and many do not survive it. If you’re not in an endemic area, it’s something to consider, but only if you’re not.

Fleas and ticks can be controlled in other ways. Diatomaceous earth (not the swimming pool kind but the kind that is safe for human and animal contact) kills fleas indoors and out. Nematodes deliberately introduced into the exterior yard areas that the dog frequents will eat the flea larvae in the ground, breaking the reproduction cycle. Any number of herbal preparations can be used to repel fleas and ticks from the dog as well. It’s more work and it’s more expensive, but if you’ve had a beloved dog go through cancer, and I have, it’s something you’re willing to do, to remove a potential source of the disease.

All the vaccinations are problematic, according to a number of credible sources. I only vaccinate mine as required by law, and once they’re older, I’ve been known to get a titer test to see if a particular vaccination can be bypassed for another year. It really throws their immune system for a loop, and an older dog doesn’t take it nearly as well.


37 posted on 04/10/2010 9:16:55 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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