This is pretty amazing, I've seen footage of dogs with mere weeks left to live bounce back to near 100% only days after the treatment. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/possible-cancer-cure-found-in-blushwood-shrub/story-e6freoof-1225826874057" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/quee ... 5826874057</a> <a class="postlink" href="http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100614/Australian-rainforests-may-provide-potential-cancer-cure.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.news-medical.net/news/201006 ... -cure.aspx</a> Focus: Comment on this or share other interesting breakthroughs either medical or technological.
I'm not advocating a stem cell ethicacy argument, but an old boss of mine that had terminal cancer dropped a bucket load of money on going overseas for some of that treatment. Completely cured him (obviously got it before it metasticised)
This seems pretty promising. Why haven't we heard more about this through other media outlets? Seems like a pretty big deal no? By the way, this shit really pisses me off: Illegal, ok. Unscientific, tougher sell, but ok I'll accept it. Immoral? Where the fuck does this busybody come off calling this immoral? This agecy seems like the FDA of Australia and the sheer level of hubris this idiots exhibit amazes me. Their ridiculous approval process takes years and years. And yet this cunt says it is IMMORAL to take something without her mighty agency's approval. Clearly it is more moral that the cancer patients who have a chance at survival using this die rather than do something without the stamp of approval of the sacred Therapeutic Goods Administration. Paternalistic twats.
I agree with what the post above says but just to pose a question from the other side of the fence for discussion purposes, what if someone died rather than went on living as a result of this newly found treatment? We live in a sue-happy world now so you know the loved ones would be looking for who to file a suit against for negligence (?) I guess. Maybe part of why it's not more prominent in the news is because they don't to deal with the masses.
Wait a minute, I've seen this before: Be extremely skeptical of any medication, treatment or gadget that is presented as a cure all. To further my skepticism, neither article backed up claims with facts. What percentage of animals saw results? How were the studies conducted? Was there a control group? Were they blind or double blind studies? The articles present only anecdotal evidence, which, from a scientific standpoint, is akin to believing that drinking your own piss will cure a cold because a couple of guys at the local bar said it worked for them. Sure, I'd like this to be true, and I hope it really does work - but I'll believe it when I see valid proof.
I'm pretty sure that Jagermeister was once sold as a cure all. I guess that even if it didn't work you'd be too drunk to really care. Focus: Anti-nausea medication for chemotherapy patients. 20 years ago my girlfriend's father had to go through chemo and he said it was a fucking nightmare--sickness all the time, just absolutely terrible. Two years ago my mother went through it. They pumped two or three bags of anti-nausea meds through her before the chemo went in and she never once had any problems throughout the treatment process. She went into it very afraid, but after the first couple times, it was a breeze and really made the whole ordeal so much better. Just simple things like that vastly improve a cancer patient's quality of life in profound ways.
Just want to clear one quick thing up - most of the problems religious groups have with stem cells have to do with the embryonic type, rather than the adult type that helped the man in the story. There are two types of stem cells, embryonic and adult. The difference comes from the method they are gathered - adult stem cells are taken from healthy adults and then transplanted into those with disorders, while embryonic stem cells are taken from live embryos grown in a lab. This, like abortion, is murder to many.
Ok I'm going to nip this before it even gets off the ground. There will be NO back and forth posting about the bolded part of this post. None. If you do, this is the only warning you'll get before a few days off. Believe what you want to, you're all allowed to your own opinions on the topic but keep them out of this thread. The focus is vague enough that this can creep into the thread. Keep it out.
I was pretty happy that this turned into this so quickly. The funnest thing I've seen medically was when I had my appendix removed. I had no complications and was in the hospital for about four days recovering. The next week a friend of mine had the same procedure in the same hospital but using a laparoscopy and he was only there overnight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laparoscopic_surgery
My friend had her arm ripped off in a car accident. They iced it and rushed her to the ER, later she went in for a surgery to have it reattached. Un fortunately it did not work out for her and she ended up loosing the arm. However I found it fascinating that this surgery does work for certain people. I mean re attaching a whole limb. That is crazy, and not to mention since it can be done, I would assume we can expect higher success rates in the future.
From what I know, the TGA takes a lot of cues from the FDA, so make of that what you will. I agree that it's a bunch of paternalistic twatage, but that's the way our country has been going for years. I see the term "nanny state" more and more often. Without extensive testing, the long term effects of drugs aren't known. Even with the testing, there's no 100%. It's just a matter of getting across an arbitrary line of satisfaction. Until then, "we can't give him the drugs, we don't know what the side effects and long term ramifications are." Awesome, because where the person in question has terminal cancer the current side effects and long term ramifications are death. Odds are the drug's ones aren't so bad in the long run. It's just unfortunate that, here at least, suicide is illegal and you can't consent to being killed. It's also illegal to cause the acceleration of death of someone with a disease. Personally, if I'm in that boat give me the drugs. Hang the consequences. If the side effects are worse than death, I'll off myself and they can send my corpse to jail. If it works, I'm alive. All upside, no downside. But if my condition isn't terminal, test the fuck out of those drugs before you give them to me. I'm assuming that's the major concern with testing and time periods. I could be wrong here.
Not to turn this thread into a hippie-fest, but discoveries like this are why I think we need to pay a lot more attention to the environment and to the plant and animal species we drive to extinction in the name of progress. You never know what weird little butterfly, beetle, or berry tree might have something in it that cures a deadly disease or converts farts into jet fuel or whatever. How many awesome discoveries have we already missed out on by plowing rainforests and killing off species that we never even got the chance to document?
This is not a post on a break through but rather a question to the board, I'm taking the chance that someone has a family member or has the illness themselves. My father is being crippled by Rheumatoid arthritis. If you do not know what this is it is way worst than it sounds. Your body tricks itself into thinking that it is sick so it attacks itself. It attacks itself all over the place as well, hands, feet, hips shoulders, neck, something on my Dad is always sore. He used to be a very active man, he can only golf maybe once a week. Can't play the guitar and basically has trouble walking up stairs. It's really sad and it breaks my heart to see him in this state. Does anyone have any relatives in this condition? Any ideas on treatments? He will now be trying like the fourth different medicine, and still no results.
I know some. Rather that PM it, I'll put it here some people with more knowledge can correct in the knowledge that mods will delete it if it's not appropriate. I don't have rheumatoid arthritis, but have been to a rheumatologist for years and that was one of the conditions that was ruled out for me. I understand there's a history of it in my family, and it does seem to have a genetic pre-disposition. It's an auto-immune disorder where your immune system starts thinking that your body's tissue is foreign, so it attacks it. This tends to happen most around the joints, but can occur in various places through the body. The only way they know to counter it at this point in time is to disable the immune system. This would only cause more problems because of the susceptibility to other disease. Also, it doesn't counter the damage already done. It's one of the conditions that can be managed, but not cured. Pain relief and comfort is about all that's available at the moment.
MDMA (ecstasy) was actually used as an anti-depressant in the early part of the 20th Century. It still is, only with lots of arm movements and a fascination with individual carpet fibres to go with it. Focus The Omni Giraffe is the machine that saved my daughter's life. It's a combination incubator that prevents exposure to premature babies (she was 2 lbs. at birth) and still allows full access for doctors to handle and treat the baby,as well as lets the parents touch their kid (I didn't get to hold her for the first three weeks). It also allows direct treatment of Jondis (which she had) and monitor all life signs, with a ringing alarm if there is the slightest drop in heart rate or breathing. I owe so much to this machine that I haven't the words to express. This is living proof of how important medical science truly is. A couple of pictures of her in the Giraffe: (the blue haze and eyemask is for the Jondis treatment lamp in the incubator)
Here's my argument when it comes to experimental drugs: If you choose to try out the new drug before all the testing is complete, and you're fully aware that the doctors really don't know shit about it, then you should be allowed to take the drugs. And accept the consequences of your gamble. We all know about the drugs that were widely administered before enough testing was done and a fuck load of people died as a result. What's more difficult to see is how delaying the availability of drugs for a decade essentially kills a lot of people that otherwise would have been saved by the drug if it had been available all those years. I think the FDA and similar organizations serve a valuable roll in determining how safe and effective a drug is. But while they are doing their tests, I say let some poor fucker use it if he is fully aware of the consequences (good and bad, known and unknown) and wants to try it out. A lot of people would be willing to do that as a last resort, I know I would like to have the option. I'm sure there could be a way to set up such a system that doesn't allow the family of someone who dies as a result to sue their way to prosperity.
My back surgery (lumbar decompression, fairly common procedure) fixed my slipped disc but left my left foot hanging limp. I couldn't sue because it was an unforeseen consequence and I signed waivers. I suspect your scenario would play out the same way. I would like to think that new medications, treatments and procedures are created with the intention of doing good, and that those which are faulty, poorly-tested, or just plain scams are discredited and discarded and the purveyors of them punished accordingly. I know this is borderline-Pollyanna wishful-thinking considering the number of bogus claims and products, and the amount of money to be made by sociopathic con-artists (if they'll sell phony IED-detectors to militaries what's to stop them from selling phony meds to people "who are going to die anyway"?), but I still think overall it's true. Without the religious controversy, I don't see how stem cells are anything other than a great potential source of new medications, treatments and procedures. In fact, I'd say due to the controversy they would be tested even more extensively than silicon implants. It just embarrasses me as a human that certain things are kept off the market for reasons like this, and quack "cures" like Enzyte and homeopathy are allowed, even for a little while with the former. At best they separate people from their money and delay actual treatment. I guess what I'm saying is, there already is a system in place to deal with genuine malpractice and civil suit, and provided stem cell research actually do treat and cure diseases, it should be treated the same as any other remedy, testing included. People already have crippling and fatal illnesses, so as long as doctors can add stem cells to their tool-kit without violating their oath, test but test honestly and if it works, use it.
We'll never hear about this again. Miracle cures like this are a dime a dozen. Something will go wrong after further testing and the whole project will be abandoned.
Here's the argument, without me supporting it or your point: Say it were a legitimately promising scientific discovery, that were not yet perfected. And that five or ten years down the road, it might save thousands of lives. Suppose one person takes the treatment now, in its unready state. And then dies. A media shitstorm would ensue, and when all is said and done, it would be possible (maybe even very likely) that it would no longer be a commercially viable product. It gets banned by the government, shelved by the company, goes down in a storm of bad PR, whatever. One could then argue that this one person ruined a promising drug that might save many, many more people in the future due to her inability to accept the fact that the drug just wasn't ready yet.