I heard about something similar to this back in 2019. It was used to treat lung cancer.
If instead of light if the molecules could action on intense RF then a goodly dose of this via IV infusion, a two week wait and then a pass through the NMR machine and done! Would be totally amazing.
This seems like another way of excising a tumor, which doesn’t seem to arrest progress of the disease.
From some anecdotal evidence regarding the difference-in-opinion between surgeons and oncologists along with yes, something I saw on PBS Nova about Judah Folkman’s work on angiogenesis, it could be that a tumor is sending out “feed me, feed me Seymour” signals to suppresses satellite tumors? And if you remove an obvious tumor, that removes that signal and then the satellite tumors spring up. And that is why oncologists prefer a cancer treatment throughout your entire body rather than the surgical approach of “the tumor has to come out”?
This is all speculation on my part, and if you or someone you know is battling an advanced cancer, listen to your doctor. But the anecdotal part is that a long term breast-cancer survivor had a tumor appear in her liver, her surgeon was willing to operate in this high-risk-to-operate-in organ, but her oncologist was threatening to drop her as a patient if she did this?
It could be that the oncologist thought the surgery itself was too dangerous for the expected benefit. I am also speculating, here, that the oncologist may have also thought that removing the liver tumor would make the small not-yet-appearing tumors worse?
There are long-term treatments for breast cancer and not all of them are the traditional lose-all-your-hair chemotherapy. Breast cancers are not the same, and some of them respond to the hormone-suppression drugs, some don’t. I am not saying breast cancers have been cured, but there are advances in their treatment.
I am not advocating for Steve Jobs-styled cancer treatment. But if there is some disagreement between doctors or between a surgeon doctor and an oncologist doctor, ask that person for the theory guiding their recommendation, especially if an oncologist is recommending not-to-operate.
A bacterial infection is not a cancer — for one thing, there is effective treatment, I guess, until the antibiotic resistant bugs take over. But it is analogous in that the surgeons and the internal medicine doctors might disagree.
Long story short, this started with an urgent-care appointment for a quarter-sized red blotch that hurt that grew to silver-dollar sized even when taking the prescribed antibiotic pills, a couple more urgent-care appointments where I was finally told, “check yourself into the hospital this evening.”
Internal medicine resident doctor told me I would be treated with IV antibiotics and I was going to be confined to the hospital room “for a couple days.” Later that evening, two enthusiastic surgical residents examined me and said, “Sign this consent form for emergency surgery!”
I was indoctrinated by an internal medicine doctor I knew from a social relationship that “doctors” looked upon “surgeons” as being Maverick and Goose from Top Gun, so I balked. Internal medicine resident comes back an hour later to check on me and I ask her, “A pair of surgeons were in here telling me I needed this operated on, tonight. Do I need this?” The reply was, “Oh, yes, you do need this!” to which I answered, “Get me that consent form to sign.”
I am not advocating that if you are in the ER bleeding from multiple wounds that you should engage your doctors in a discussion regarding a preferred treatment plan. But in this case, I thought I was internal-medicine resident’s patient when Goose and Maverick walked in. Internal-medicine doc could have told me, “Your case is serious enough that I am referring you to the surgery resident. Depending on his finding, he may have to operate.”
That said, I have to face my primary-care doc for my yearly check-up in a few days, who a year ago told me I had a hernia that needed surgery “sooner than later” and referred me to the General Surgery clinic in my health care group. The surgeon, offered me a treatment plan where I would “keep an eye on it” if I didn’t have overt symptoms, telling me of a study of 100 men who did this under medical supervision, and only one of them ended up in the hospital for emergency surgery and a week-long hospital stay from a bowel resection — the non-emergency hernia surgery is usually an “outpatient” arrangement to prevent such an outcome.
A friend told me I was wasting money to buy an “ultra-safe” car because at my age, I have a 1:100 chance of not making it to the next year whereas the expensive car mitigates a 1:1000 chance of an auto-accident death. I thought 1:100 odds of risking a strangulating hernia was OK taking, but I might get a lecture about that.
Then again, whose hernia patient am I, the internal-medicine doc making the initial diagnosis or the surgeon for whom the referral is valid for 2 years?
“I was indoctrinated by an internal medicine doctor I knew from a social relationship that “doctors” looked upon “surgeons” as being Maverick and Goose from Top Gun,”
Maverick and Goose were much more personable than most of the surgeons that I have met.
I went to an outpatient clinic for some minor surgery on a skin lesion, and went home 4 hours later with 65 stitches on my face. You never know.
I heard about something similar to this back in 2019. It was used to treat lung cancer.
If instead of light if the molecules could action on intense RF then a goodly dose of this via IV infusion, a two week wait and then a pass through the NMR machine and done! Would be totally amazing.
This seems like another way of excising a tumor, which doesn’t seem to arrest progress of the disease.
From some anecdotal evidence regarding the difference-in-opinion between surgeons and oncologists along with yes, something I saw on PBS Nova about Judah Folkman’s work on angiogenesis, it could be that a tumor is sending out “feed me, feed me Seymour” signals to suppresses satellite tumors? And if you remove an obvious tumor, that removes that signal and then the satellite tumors spring up. And that is why oncologists prefer a cancer treatment throughout your entire body rather than the surgical approach of “the tumor has to come out”?
This is all speculation on my part, and if you or someone you know is battling an advanced cancer, listen to your doctor. But the anecdotal part is that a long term breast-cancer survivor had a tumor appear in her liver, her surgeon was willing to operate in this high-risk-to-operate-in organ, but her oncologist was threatening to drop her as a patient if she did this?
It could be that the oncologist thought the surgery itself was too dangerous for the expected benefit. I am also speculating, here, that the oncologist may have also thought that removing the liver tumor would make the small not-yet-appearing tumors worse?
There are long-term treatments for breast cancer and not all of them are the traditional lose-all-your-hair chemotherapy. Breast cancers are not the same, and some of them respond to the hormone-suppression drugs, some don’t. I am not saying breast cancers have been cured, but there are advances in their treatment.
I am not advocating for Steve Jobs-styled cancer treatment. But if there is some disagreement between doctors or between a surgeon doctor and an oncologist doctor, ask that person for the theory guiding their recommendation, especially if an oncologist is recommending not-to-operate.
A bacterial infection is not a cancer — for one thing, there is effective treatment, I guess, until the antibiotic resistant bugs take over. But it is analogous in that the surgeons and the internal medicine doctors might disagree.
Long story short, this started with an urgent-care appointment for a quarter-sized red blotch that hurt that grew to silver-dollar sized even when taking the prescribed antibiotic pills, a couple more urgent-care appointments where I was finally told, “check yourself into the hospital this evening.”
Internal medicine resident doctor told me I would be treated with IV antibiotics and I was going to be confined to the hospital room “for a couple days.” Later that evening, two enthusiastic surgical residents examined me and said, “Sign this consent form for emergency surgery!”
I was indoctrinated by an internal medicine doctor I knew from a social relationship that “doctors” looked upon “surgeons” as being Maverick and Goose from Top Gun, so I balked. Internal medicine resident comes back an hour later to check on me and I ask her, “A pair of surgeons were in here telling me I needed this operated on, tonight. Do I need this?” The reply was, “Oh, yes, you do need this!” to which I answered, “Get me that consent form to sign.”
I am not advocating that if you are in the ER bleeding from multiple wounds that you should engage your doctors in a discussion regarding a preferred treatment plan. But in this case, I thought I was internal-medicine resident’s patient when Goose and Maverick walked in. Internal-medicine doc could have told me, “Your case is serious enough that I am referring you to the surgery resident. Depending on his finding, he may have to operate.”
That said, I have to face my primary-care doc for my yearly check-up in a few days, who a year ago told me I had a hernia that needed surgery “sooner than later” and referred me to the General Surgery clinic in my health care group. The surgeon, offered me a treatment plan where I would “keep an eye on it” if I didn’t have overt symptoms, telling me of a study of 100 men who did this under medical supervision, and only one of them ended up in the hospital for emergency surgery and a week-long hospital stay from a bowel resection — the non-emergency hernia surgery is usually an “outpatient” arrangement to prevent such an outcome.
A friend told me I was wasting money to buy an “ultra-safe” car because at my age, I have a 1:100 chance of not making it to the next year whereas the expensive car mitigates a 1:1000 chance of an auto-accident death. I thought 1:100 odds of risking a strangulating hernia was OK taking, but I might get a lecture about that.
Then again, whose hernia patient am I, the internal-medicine doc making the initial diagnosis or the surgeon for whom the referral is valid for 2 years?
“I was indoctrinated by an internal medicine doctor I knew from a social relationship that “doctors” looked upon “surgeons” as being Maverick and Goose from Top Gun,”
Maverick and Goose were much more personable than most of the surgeons that I have met.
I went to an outpatient clinic for some minor surgery on a skin lesion, and went home 4 hours later with 65 stitches on my face. You never know.