follicept - what's this?

[Justinian]

That's VERY far from the truth. Immunotherapy has been a huge disappointment so far. Most treatments increase life expectancy from for example 10 to 12 months and that's it. Biggest problem is that the cancer adapts quickly. So a patient progresses, cancer disappears, cancer comes back and then the immunotherapy doesnt work anymore and the patient dies, 2 months later than he'd die without the therapy.

Furthermore, for most cancers in the last 40 years almost no progress has been made and your changes of dying of cancer are pretty much the same as those from 40 years ago:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Cancer

You must have immunotherapy confused with something else. It teaches your immune system to recognize cancer and then your immune system knows how to combat cancer, which provides a durable response. With old chemo the cancer cells will evolve and become resistant to it, which is why it only helps for a year or so. Look up Yervoy, Anti PD-1, and Anti PD-L1 drugs.

And your second statement is plain wrong. http://healthhubs.net/images/cancer-survival-trends.gif Survival rates for most cancers have increased significantly. It's just that because of population growth and the baby boomers in the USA becoming older that cancer diagnosis are rising, but survival rates are also rising so that total cancer deaths are remaining fairly constant. These statistics, since they last for 5 years, are also behind the times with the recent advancements in the last 5 years.

[nameless]

This is most certainly a logical fallacy. What has happened in the past does not mean anything, logically speaking, of what happens in the future. So if you flip a coin 100 times, and it's tails every single time, it does not mean the probability is high the next time you flip the coin will be heads. It will still be 50/50

maybe some schooling would benefit you nameless, contrary to your message

Here how about some schooling for you:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/gamblers-take-note-the-odds-in-a-coin-flip-arent-quite-5050-145465423/?no-ist

Firstly, a simple coin toss may not really even be a perfect 50/50 proposition. Secondly, even with something as simple as which side of a coin will face up, the odds can dramatically when you add variables. Spinning a coin results in a big lean toward one side of the coin. The reason being the disparity in the weight of the coin on the two different sides. The same applies to cures for hair loss. Prior to establishing the certainty of whether or not a treatment works, there are variables to predicate reasonable prediction on. Off the top of my head three variables would be (1) complexity of the problem (2) failure rate vs success rate, and (3) the technology needed to cure the problem. These are huge variables which eliminate any randomness to the outcome whereas a simple fair coin flip is almost totally random.

[nameless]

This is most certainly a logical fallacy. What has happened in the past does not mean anything, logically speaking, of what happens in the future. So if you flip a coin 100 times, and it's tails every single time, it does not mean the probability is high the next time you flip the coin will be heads. It will still be 50/50

maybe some schooling would benefit you nameless, contrary to your message

So then are you saying that if you stand at an exact specific spot and in 20 minute intervals hit a golf ball 100 times with all of your strength there is a 50/50 chance that each time the ball will land on the exact same blade of grass?

[ShookOnes]

You think it makes sense only because it aligns with your view.
You guys love to have it failed.

you mean, we would love to have not been disappointed from having hopes up.

[NeedHairASAP]

Do you see where you fail at logic?

I see.

[Arashi]

Look up Yervoy, Anti PD-1, and Anti PD-L1 drugs.

* Yervoy: In 2010, a study was presented that showed a median survival of 10 months in advanced melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab, compared with 6 months for those treated with gp100, an experimental vaccine (total n=676). Additionally, one year survival was 46% in those treated with only ipilimumab, compared with 25% in those treated with gp100, and 44% for those receiving both.

* Anti PD-1: (like in Merck's Pembrolizumab ) : . The median progression-free survival (PFS), by RECIST criteria, was 5.5 months overall (95% CI, 3.8-6.2)

* Provenge: In clinical trials, Provenge extended survival by a median 4.1 months

That's EXACTLY what I was talking about. Did you even read those study results ? They're a joke. Immunotherapy works for a few months, tumors shrink, cancer goes away, then the cancer adapts, comes back and kills the patients. It's a joke.

"And your second statement is plain wrong"

LOL yeah I post a website with tons of links to articles and research and then you post some chart without any additional info at all and that's supposedly meant to negate all those articles and research ? Your chart is plain wrong ! Melanoma 100% survival rate in 5 years, LOL, just read about your 'holy' PD-L1 blocker, 40% of people on it with advanced melanoma DIE within 18 months ! Sure in some circumstances treatment is now better: if you detect some specific types of cancer, like melanoma, in the earliest stage and it hasnt spread out, yeah your chances of surviving are pretty awesome: if it was cut out the right way without the cancer having spread. But in most cases, almost no progress has been made the last 50 years, that's a FACT and btw also shows in your chart (red bars being only slightly longer and both bars pretty small to the right)

[Keki]

you are going off topic guys, people want to read follicept related thing, pages and pages about flaming and off topic thing...

[Arashi]

you are going off topic guys, people want to read follicept related thing, pages and pages about flaming and off topic thing...

Agreed there. Just wanted to kick a sense of reality into that pink glasses "Look how much cancer treatment has progressed, so we'll find a hairloss cure soon too !!!!" guy, while cancer treatment progression over the last 50 years for most types of cancer has been actually a (sad) joke. Anyway indeed my last post about it, I'll leave it to discuss follicept, that's what you guys are here for

[Jagger]

you are going off topic guys, people want to read follicept related thing, pages and pages about flaming and off topic thing...

This.

Take the personal attacks to private messaging, and why are we talking about cancer? This is a baldness forum.

[Arashi]

This.

Take the personal attacks to private messaging, and why are we talking about cancer? This is a baldness forum.

Well, I think it's important to realize that a lot of people confuse progress in research with progress in treatments. Both in cancer and in hairloss, research and understanding has made a tremendous progress over the last decades. However in terms of treatments, there's pretty much no progress at all (apart from a few meds with big sides that for some people do work). There's always a 'next problem' to overcome. Like in hairloss, we've solved hairloss in mice and we can now even create human hair in the lab ! However, just as with cancer research, there's always a new hurdle to overcome and only god knows when that happens: might be tomorrow, might not even happen the next 100 years. But, one thing is sure: for any given hairloss therapy that still needs testing, the chances of it succeeding are tremendously small.

[Justinian]

Agreed there. Just wanted to kick a sense of reality into that pink glasses "Look how much cancer treatment has progressed, so we'll find a hairloss cure soon too !!!!" guy, while cancer treatment progression over the last 50 years for most types of cancer has been actually a (sad) joke. Anyway indeed my last post about it, I'll leave it to discuss follicept, that's what you guys are here for

Sorry, no sense kicked in me yet.

Did your college courses allow Wikipedia as a source? I chose that website because it was easy to read all in one. If you want me to post a more valid source to every individual rate I will.

Also, just because median survival is low doesn't mean anything about how long the survival is. Do you know the difference between median and mean? The responses, although less than 50%, have lasted several years and are still going.

[Justinian]

Also read this http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ASCO/46159

Sorry, I'll let the thread (which was already de-railed ) get back on track.

[Jagger]

Well, I think it's important to realize that a lot of people confuse progress in research with progress in treatments. Both in cancer and in hairloss, research and understanding has made a tremendous progress over the last decades. However in terms of treatments, there's pretty much no progress at all (apart from a few meds with big sides that for some people do work). There's always a 'next problem' to overcome. Like in hairloss, we've solved hairloss in mice and we can now even create human hair in the lab ! However, just as with cancer research, there's always a new hurdle to overcome and only god knows when that happens: might be tomorrow, might not even happen the next 100 years. But, one thing is sure: for any given hairloss therapy that still needs testing, the chances of it succeeding are tremendously small.

Yeah, I'll give you that. Only time will tell though. Seems like we're all just antsy at this point. We've pretty much exhausted all possible discussion at this point. Unless someone pops out with a previously unseen IGF-1 hair loss study, we're just running in circles waiting for the test results.

[Hairismylife]

Well, I think it's important to realize that a lot of people confuse progress in research with progress in treatments. Both in cancer and in hairloss, research and understanding has made a tremendous progress over the last decades. However in terms of treatments, there's pretty much no progress at all (apart from a few meds with big sides that for some people do work). There's always a 'next problem' to overcome. Like in hairloss, we've solved hairloss in mice and we can now even create human hair in the lab ! However, just as with cancer research, there's always a new hurdle to overcome and only god knows when that happens: might be tomorrow, might not even happen the next 100 years. But, one thing is sure: for any given hairloss therapy that still needs testing, the chances of it succeeding are tremendously small.

Every therapy need testing. You're talking BS.

[Arashi]

Every therapy need testing. You're talking BS.

Right. I forgot that hairloss is cured and dying of cancer is a thing of the past. Have a nice day !