"If they ever cure lung cancer, I would go back to smoking."

Kit Cat (Gold)
Joined: 19 Dec 2008, 00:03

13 Mar 2003, 03:09 #11


Image
Well, it's been awhile since I've posted to this site, but this article hit home with me.


When I QUIT smoking May 5, 2002 I used to think exactly like this article depicted. If they came up with a cure I would go back to smoking. That's how I thought 10 months ago!


Now that 10 months have gone by and I have taken CONTROL I do not have thoughts of going back to something that controlled me. I won't say I miss what I THOUGHT smoking did for me, but the advantages of being of the MAJORITY now outweigh any thought of wanting to go back.


I never let my guard down, but there are now many days in a row that I do not think of cigarettes anymore. I initially QUIT when my father died of cancer, but now I know I QUIT for myself. I like the clean, uncontrolled, healthier life that I have now chosen to live.


In Canada, we now have various adverstisements and one in particular shows the smoker standing outside in the winter freezing his butt off, but still justifying why he's out there smoking. To me, this looks really sad and I also relate to them since I used to smoke. What we didn't see is how it really looked. Now that's an ADDICT.
For all of you out there, as most of the achievers never get tired of telling you, keep up the struggle, because eventually it will become what will be normal. Nothing is easy is ever worth keeping, so you all keep up the hard work. It does have it's rewards!


Catherine

SMOKE FREE for 10 months, 1 week. NEVER TAKE ANOTHER PUFF!
Last edited by Kit Cat (Gold) on 29 Jul 2009, 02:26, edited 1 time in total.
Reply

Joanne Gold
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:58

15 Apr 2003, 22:26 #12

Last edited by Joanne Gold on 29 Jul 2009, 02:30, edited 1 time in total.
Reply

Joel
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

06 Aug 2003, 20:59 #13

Hopes dim for cancer cure in near future By Daniel Q. Haney
The Associated Press

July 28, 2003

Not long ago, the defeat of cancer seemed inevitable. Decades of research would soon pay off with a completely fresh approach, an arsenal of clever new drugs to attack the very forces that make tumors grow and spread and kill.

No more chemotherapy, the thinking went. No more horrid side effects. Just brilliantly designed drugs that stop cancer while leaving everything else untouched.

Those elegant drugs are now here. But so is cancer.

The approach, which appeared so straightforward, has proved disappointingly difficult to turn into broadly useful treatments. Some now wonder if malignancy will ever be reliably and predictably cured.

The dearth of substantial impact so far suggests the fight against cancer will continue to be a tedious slog, and victories will be scored in weeks or months of extra life, not years. The full potential of the new approach may take decades to be realized.

The drugs, called targeted therapies, are intended to arrest cancer by disrupting the internal signals that fuel its unruly growth. Unlike chemo, which attacks all dividing cells, these medicines are crafted with pinpoint accuracy to go after the genetically controlled irregularities that make cancer unique.

Several have made it through testing, but despite their apparent bull's-eye hits, lasting results are rare. Instead, these new drugs turn out to be about as effective - or as powerless - as old-line chemotherapy. Aimed at the major forms of cancer, they work spectacularly for a lucky few and modestly for some.

But for most? Not at all.

Doctors have many theories about what's gone wrong. But it is clear that cancer is a surprisingly robust foe, packed with convoluted backup systems that kick in when threatened by the new drugs.

At best, experts now expect knocking down cancer will require an elaborate mixture of targeted drugs, assembled to match the distinct biology of each person's cancer.

"It's a much more complicated problem than anyone ever appreciated," says Dr. Leonard Saltz, a colon cancer expert at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. "It will, unfortunately, be with us for a long time."

The job is so daunting, especially for advanced cancers propelled by potentially dozens of nefarious genetic mutations, that scientists are even rethinking the goal of cancer research.

"Society as a whole, and most of the medical profession, have it wrong understanding we'll wake up one morning and find out cancer is cured. It won't happen. The public should give it up," says Dr. Craig Henderson, a breast cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and president of Access Oncology, a drug developer.

"What we have learned by these billions of dollars invested in cancer biology is that cancer are us," he goes on. True, cancer is different. But not different enough. "Identify what makes cancer unique and wipe it out? That won't happen. We cannot wipe out the cancer without wiping out a lot of the rest of us."

Henderson and many others have shifted their sights to something less - converting cancer into a chronic disease, like diabetes or AIDS. Treatments might slow or even stop its worst effects so people survive for years reasonably free of symptoms.

Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, head of the National Cancer Institute, argues that a cure is not even necessary if this can be done, something he optimistically hopes to see by 2015. But eliminate cancer? "Not in the foreseeable future," he says.

Experts concede there is no firm evidence that targeted treatments will tame cancer to a chronic condition, either. Certainly, the ones tested so far do not often come close to this for the common varieties, such as lung, breast, colon and prostate cancer.

Although targeted therapies have their origins in basic cancer discoveries of the 1980s, the story for many began at a meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 1998. Researchers were thrilled to hear of the first convincing demonstration that a targeted drug could slow the course of cancer even a little. It was proof that the principle is sound.

Usually wary oncologists rhapsodized about a new era of treatment. "A tidal wave," one of them called it. Even then, no one predicted quick cures. But they clearly felt they at least had the key to getting inside cancer and fixing it.

The drug that caused the euphoria, Herceptin, became a standard treatment for spreading breast cancer, typically delaying progression by a few months in the quarter of victims with a particular genetic profile.

Since Herceptin, targeted drugs have become the prevailing approach in cancer research. Whenever any of these make slight progress, the news is widely and sometimes breathlessly reported.

An estimated two-thirds of the nearly 400 cancer medicines in human study take this tack. Yet researchers do not envision successes any more spectacular from this pipeline than the modest effects of the handful already on the market.

"Right now, in the short run, we can bring an occasional miracle and have an overall small benefit," says Dr. John Glaspy, medical director of UCLA's surgical oncology center. "But there has not been a major improvement on what happens to them ultimately."

Furthermore, the dream of abandoning chemotherapy has largely evaporated. Even the targeted drugs' small benefits are typically seen only when combined with standard chemo.

Cancer doctors facing waiting rooms full of dying cancer patients, with little to offer but easing misery and perhaps a few extra months of survival, clearly had wished for more.

"The hope was that these targeted therapies would be the new magic bullet and would cure cancer," says Dr. David Decker, an oncologist at William Beaumont Hospital outside Detroit. "It's fair to say they haven't panned out the way we thought they would."

The targeted drugs have been most impressive against cancers of the blood and immune system, which are easier to control than the more common organ tumors. For instance, about half of patients getting Rituxan for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma have at least a 50 percent reduction in their cancer.

Side note:|

While there is no magic cure for smoking induced cancers right around the corner, there is a non-magic solution to minimizing your risks of over developing a smoking induced cancer and a host of other diseases caused by cigarettes. It is simply sticking to your commitment to never take another puff!

Joel
Reply

Joel
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

01 Dec 2003, 08:18 #14

Image While there is no magic cure for smoking induced cancers right around the corner, there is a non-magic solution to minimizing your risks of over developing a smoking induced cancer and a host of other diseases caused by cigarettes. It is simply sticking to your commitment to never take another puff!

Joel
Reply

John (Gold)
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

15 Jan 2004, 22:06 #15

Cancer May Never Be Eliminated,
Nobel Laureate Says
Monday February 25, 2002 10:11 AM ET
By Patricia Reaney
LONDON (Reuters) - Scientists are winning the fight against cancer but it is a long, slow process and the disease that kills about six million people each year may never be eliminated, said Nobel medicine laureate Sir Paul Nurse.
Don't expect any magic bullets. Forget miracle cures.
Cancer is not one but more than 200 different types of disease and far too complicated for any quick fixes.
``Our generation will make significant progress. I really do believe that. I don't believe we will eliminate cancer,'' the co-director of Cancer Research UK, Europe's largest research organization, told Reuters in an interview.
Nurse should know.
The 53-year-old motorcycle enthusiast who has the look and boyish charm of American comedian Robin Williams has been delving into the secrets of cells for more than two decades. He shared the 2001 Nobel Prize for identifying essential components that control how cells replicate.
Faults in the controls of cell division are what causes cancer. Instead of dying the mutated cell keeps dividing and eventually forms a tumor.
``It is an immensely complex disease. Much more complex than most other (diseases) we have to deal with,'' said Nurse.
``Because of the complexity there aren't going to be easy quick hits. There may be some but essentially we have to understand fully one of the most complicated diseases known to mankind,'' he told Reuters.
LONG-TERM STRATEGY
Nurse, who celebrated his award with a new Kawasaki GPZ 500 motorcycle, is confident that new findings about the genetic and environmental components that cause cancer will lead to better treatments and improved prevention strategies.
But he said the one component that could have the biggest impact on cancer has nothing to do with a miracle drug.
``The single most major hit we can get for short-term cancer rates is to eliminate the use of tobacco. We have to try to do that.''
It is an old message but one which Nurse said people are failing to heed. If smokers quit and adolescents don't start fewer people would die from lung and other cancers linked to tobacco. Lung cancer kills about a million people each year.
Avoiding known causes of cancer such as tobacco and over-exposure to the sun, coupled with a better understanding of the genetic components that promote cancer, is the two-prong attack that Nurse said will make a difference.
``If you understand the genetic makeup better we will be able to sort out the environment more easily. That is a new type of approach that we will be able to increasingly use over the next 10-20 years and I think that could lead to significant improvements in prevention,'' according to Nurse.
Of the estimated 30,000-40,000 genes in humans, scientists suspect perhaps a few hundred are involved in cancer. Each particular cancer, be it breast, colon or skin, is probably defective in a subset of those genes.
``We now understand cancer much better. We have the conceptual tools and we have the scientific tools to dissect it and it is that understanding that will lead to better treatments,'' said Nurse.
Nurse likens some of the cruder cancer treatments to shaking a broken radio. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't but it is better than doing nothing.
``If we really understand how the radio works we should tailor treatment to make it work better. That's the state we're in (with cancer) and that's why I'm optimistic,'' he explained.
``We will always have cancer with us because of natural mistakes in the natural body so it will never be eliminated but I think we can do much better than we are doing now.''
Reply

Joel
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

11 Mar 2004, 21:50 #16

From: Joel. Sent: 9/23/2001 6:53 AM


There is one other side note I could have attached to this article when I wrote it. If they really ever did find a cure for lung cancer that was 100% effective--most people who die from smoking would still die. More people die from heart and other circulatory conditions from smoking than who die from lung cancer from smoking. The biggest risk posed by smoking numerically is actually the assault on the circulatory system and it often causes premature death at a much younger age than lung cancer normally does.




Although at many of my recent programs participants have been telling me of anecdotal instances of younger people they know personally or know of, many being in their very early 40's, dying of lung cancer. The tragedy of these cases is how often they are saying they have left young children and families behind--all in order for the "enjoyment" of smoking. The only way to reduce all the risks posed by smoking is to never take another puff!



Joel
Last edited by Joel on 15 Jun 2010, 12:12, edited 1 time in total.
Reply

Coolmare2green
Joined: 19 Dec 2008, 00:54

04 Apr 2004, 00:24 #17

Hi Everybody--- even if there were no rewards to our physical health by quitting the use of nicotine, the TREMENDOUS benefit to our psyches when we free ourselves from " mandatory feedings " makes all this SO worth it. so, for me, even if they came up with a cure for every ailment caused by nicotine use, i'd never go back to using. there will never be a cure for the spiritual sense of despair caused by drug dependency.
Love and life to all of you---
Mary
I have chosen not to smoke for 6 Months 3 Days 12 Hours 4 Minutes 10 Seconds. Cigarettes not smoked: 1855. Money saved: $426.66.
Reply

Joel
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

13 Mar 2005, 19:16 #18

There is one other side note I could have attached to this article when I wrote it. If they really ever did find a cure for lung cancer that was 100% effective--most people who die from smoking would still die. More people die from heart and other circulatory conditions from smoking than who die from lung cancer from smoking. The biggest risk posed by smoking numerically is actually the assault on the circulatory system and it often causes premature death at a much younger age than lung cancer normally does. Although at many of my recent programs participants have been telling me of anecdotal instances of younger people they know personally or know of, many being in their very early 40's, dying of lung cancer. The tragedy of these cases is how often they are saying they have left young children and families behind--all in order for the "enjoyment" of smoking. The only way to reduce all the risks posed by smoking is to never take another puff! Joel
Reply

John (Gold)
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

08 Apr 2005, 02:55 #19

Image
Last edited by John (Gold) on 29 Jul 2009, 02:23, edited 1 time in total.
Reply

Joel
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

12 May 2005, 19:31 #20

While there is no magic cure for smoking induced cancers right around the corner, there is a non-magic solution to minimizing your risks of over developing a smoking induced cancer and a host of other diseases caused by cigarettes. It is simply sticking to your commitment to never take another puff! Joel
Reply