Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

scarshapedstar

(2 posts)
12. It's a fair question
Tue Jan 17, 2012, 02:30 AM
Jan 2012

To be perfectly honest, you could decimate oncology, cardiology, and pulmonology (oh, and also save $$$$$$$$$) with one fell swoop by banning tobacco. Just throwin' that out there!

And yes, oncologists will be very much thrilled if this pans out. We're talking about a field where 30% of your patients die, even if you are the absolute best on the planet. That's what keeps people up at night. My interest in oncology (and in medicine in general), like that of countless others, began when I lost a wonderful friend to cancer after a decade and a half of increasingly painful but relatively successful treatments. It was the best anyone could do, but that's also what made it so unbearable, watching her become so fatalistic towards the end and knowing that, well, she was right.

It's not just a job.

That said, if this vaccine is wildly successful, I guess heme/oncs will be doing a lot more hematology, although there will still be cancer. "Treats 90% of cancers" will not translate to "reduces cancer rate by 90%" for reasons both epidemiological (this is a vaccine against a protein that all of our bodies can produce, and as such I don't know if it will be recommended for everyone the same way that the HPV vaccine is) and biological (if we do that, there will be an uptick in the rate of MUC1-negative cancers, probably small but statistically significant). The realistic view of "cured cancer" is something more akin to HIV; effective screening, regular followups, but ultimately a livable condition. These days, if you are diagnosed with HIV, the first thought through your mind isn't "oh my god, I'm going to die". It won't be a good thought, but it's just not a guaranteed death sentence anymore. That's what oncology is aiming for. There's plenty of work to do and chemo agents are problematic right now anyway, what with supply shortages and drastically lower reimbursement rates.

Every heme/onc has spent at least 8-10 years as an internist and they'll figure out something to do if it really does come to that. If there is a shadowy conspiracy to keep cancer alive, it won't be them.

The poor radiation oncologists, though, will be in for a shock. Theirs is essentially THE most competitive specialty, and they're basically separate from the rest of medicine because they're the ones who can do math, physics, all that hard stuff. They might raise hell.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Is there a link to a medical journal or scientific publication? nt Xipe Totec Jan 2012 #1
Here is a link FourScore Jan 2012 #4
Those are company press releases, Xipe Totec Jan 2012 #14
I have posted some links in the OP. n/t FourScore Jan 2012 #7
I see them now in your OP. I'll check them out. Thanks! nt Xipe Totec Jan 2012 #15
Impressive work Xipe Totec Jan 2012 #19
And after 8-10 years of testing they will quietly admit that there was no there there bluestateguy Jan 2012 #2
Corporate PR superpatriotman Jan 2012 #3
Smells like a scam. LeftyMom Jan 2012 #5
zombiepocolypse,....nt Demonaut Jan 2012 #6
THC ? 99th_Monkey Jan 2012 #8
Medical student here scarshapedstar Jan 2012 #9
If something's going to work, it will be something like this. Radiation & chemo are crude. DirkGently Jan 2012 #10
thanks for this great explanation! renate Jan 2012 #11
It's a fair question scarshapedstar Jan 2012 #12
It looks like its based on Ralph M Steinman's work on Dendritic Cells. Xipe Totec Jan 2012 #16
Thank you for your input. FourScore Jan 2012 #17
Welcome to DU! DesertRat Jan 2012 #18
If it works- big IF- Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #13
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Cancer Vaccine for 90 Per...»Reply #12