Just found out my dad has lung cancer.

Never smoked, was perfectly fit (ran 3 days a week and lifted three) and ate well. He's 70 and I don't see how this happened. I'm so lost. Phone Post 3.0

Sorry to hear. Best wishes for a speedy recovery Phone Post 3.0

Time for him to start cooking meth Phone Post

HIlldo,

So sorry to hear about this as the prognosis is very rarely decent.  I lost my mom to a lung disease a few years back and it's a fucking nightmare.

Best advice I can give, providing he is willing...Gerson therapy, apricot kernels, and a look into taking specific enzymes.

The allopathic model is rarely effective with lung cancer.

Sorry to hear. Sounds like he knows how to take care of himself, at least he can fight it with his best foot forward. All the best.

Argh man.. I'm really sorry to hear that.. Wish him best of luck.. Phone Post 3.0

dignan -


HIlldo,



So sorry to hear about this as the prognosis is very rarely decent.  I lost my mom to a lung disease a few years back and it's a fucking nightmare.



Best advice I can give, providing he is willing...Gerson therapy, apricot kernels, and a look into taking specific enzymes.



The allopathic model is rarely effective with lung cancer.

I'll look into it. Thank you. Phone Post 3.0

Sorry to hear. Dont count him out! Its gonna be a struggle for all involved but try to hang in there and please come here to vent. Sometimes its easier to vent to "strangers" but you gotta get out whatever you're feeling. We are here for you. Best wishes sent ur pops way! Phone Post 3.0

I'm very sorry to hear about this. It always feels like an empty gesture to simply write something on the internet, but I truly do feel for you and as someone who's lost multiple family members to cancer I can only wish him the best of health and the strength to endure and come out on top.

I know it's easier said than done, but it's important to try and stay strong for you father, even if it feels so crushing and pointless. It's frustrating, but there's no rhyme or reason to cancer.

Sorry to hear this. I lost my Aunt to lung cancer a few years ago but she was a long time smoker. I wonder if it could have been caused by his work from inhaling chemicals of some sort? I know non smokers can get lung cancer but it's not the norm.

dignan - 


HIlldo,



So sorry to hear about this as the prognosis is very rarely decent.  I lost my mom to a lung disease a few years back and it's a fucking nightmare.



Best advice I can give, providing he is willing...Gerson therapy, apricot kernels, and a look into taking specific enzymes.



The allopathic model is rarely effective with lung cancer.


Jesus fuck, please don't listen to this man no matter what. For the love of God don't make your father's (hopefully not, but potentially) last moments on earth include something as buttfuck retarded as coffee enemas

There's literally NO scientific evidence supporting these type of retarded alternative treatments, and they're unfortunately the last ditch efforts of desperate men. Gerson therapy is fucking quackery pseudo science...

To put it into perspective, there is currently NO FUCKING EVIDENCE, supporting Gerson therapy besides anecdotal testimonies, and as anyone who has even a basic understanding of statistics or placebo or double blind trials will tell you, those are literally of ZERO use for establishing the effectiveness of a treatment.

Sorry man.

For the record, that asshole treatment is illegal in North America.


Here, from WIKI

"In the United States

Gerson emigrated to the United States in 1936, passed his medical board examination, and became a U.S. citizen in 1942.[4]

In the U.S., Gerson applied his dietary therapy to several cancer patients, claiming good results, but other workers found his methodology and claims unconvincing. Proponents of the Gerson Therapy believe a conspiracy headed by the medical establishment prevented Gerson from publishing proof that his therapy worked.[6] In 1958, Gerson published a book in which he claimed to have cured 50 terminal cancer patients: A Cancer Therapy: Results of 50 Cases. In 1953, Gerson's malpractice insurance was discontinued and, in 1958, his medical license in New York was suspended for two years.[4][7] Gerson died March 8, 1959 of pneumonia.[4][8]
Gerson Therapy

Initially, Gerson used his therapy as a treatment for migraine headaches and tuberculosis. In 1928, he began to use it as a supposed treatment for cancer, its best known application.[5]

Gerson Therapy is based on the belief that disease is caused by the accumulation of unspecified toxins, and attempts to treat the disease by having patients consume a predominantly vegetarian diet including hourly glasses of organic juice and various dietary supplements. Animal proteins are excluded from the diet under the unproved premise that tumors develop as a result of pancreatic enzyme deficiency.[9] In addition, patients receive enemas of coffee, castor oil and sometimes hydrogen peroxide or ozone.[10]

After Gerson's death, his daughter Charlotte Gerson continued to promote the therapy, founding the "Gerson Institute" in 1977.[11] The original protocol also included raw calf's liver taken orally, but this practice was discontinued in the 1980s after ten patients were hospitalized (five of them comatose) from January 1979 to March 1981 in San Diego, California area hospitals, following an outbreak of rare Campylobacter fetus infection and sepsis which was seen only in those following Gerson-type therapy with raw liver (no other cases of patients having sepsis with this microbe, a pathogen in cattle, had been reported to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the previous two years). Nine of ten hospitalized patients had been treated in Tijuana, Mexico; the tenth followed Gerson therapy at home. One of these patients who had metastatic melatoma died within a week of his septic episode. Many of the patients had low sodium levels, thought to be associated with the very low sodium Gerson diet.[12]
Evidence

Gerson's therapy has not been independently tested or subjected to randomized controlled trials, and thus is illegal to market in the United States.[1] The Gerson Institute promotes the therapy by citing patient testimonials and other anecdotal evidence.[13] Gerson published a book discussing the alleged success of the therapy in 50 patients, but a review by the U.S. National Cancer Institute was unable to find any evidence that Gerson's claims were accurate.[1] The NCI found that no in vivo animal studies had been conducted. Similarly, case series by Gerson Institute staff published in the alternative medical literature suffered from methodological flaws, and no independent entity has been able to reproduce the claims.[1]

Attempts to independently check the results of the therapy have been negative. A group of 13 patients sickened by elements of the Gerson Therapy were evaluated in hospitals in San Diego in the early 1980s; all 13 were found to still have active cancer.[12] An investigation by Quackwatch found that the institute's claims of cure were based not on actual documentation of survival, but on "a combination of the doctor's estimate that the departing patient has a 'reasonable chance of surviving', plus feelings that the Institute staff have about the status of people who call in".[14]

A 1994 article in the Journal of Naturopathic Medicine[15] attempted to follow 39 Gerson patients in Tijuana. Patient interviews were used to confirm the existence and stage of cancer; most patients were unaware of the stage of their tumor, and medical records were not available. Most patients were lost to follow-up; of the patients successfully followed, 10 died and 6 were alive at their last follow-up. Review of this study pointed out its "obvious flaws", including "the majority of patients lost to follow-up, lack of access to detailed medical records, and reliance upon patients for disease stage information"; the authors themselves regarded the results as unclear.

The American Cancer Society reported that "[t]here is no reliable scientific evidence that Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer, and the principles behind it are not widely accepted by the medical community. It is not approved for use in the United States."[2] In 1947, the National Cancer Institute reviewed 10 claimed cures submitted by Gerson; however, all of the patients were receiving standard anticancer treatment simultaneously, making it impossible to determine what effect, if any, was due to Gerson's therapy.[16] A review of the Gerson Therapy by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center concluded: "If proponents of such therapies wish them to be evaluated scientifically and considered valid adjuvant treatments, they must provide extensive records (more than simple survival rates) and conduct controlled, prospective studies as evidence".[3] In 1959, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) again reviewed cases of patients treated by Gerson. The NCI found that the available information did not prove the regimen had benefit. Cancer Research UK states that "Available scientific evidence does not support any claims that Gerson therapy can treat cancer [...] Gerson therapy can be very harmful to your health."[17]
Safety concerns

Gerson therapy can lead to several significant health problems. Serious illness and death have occurred as a direct result of some portions of the treatment, including severe electrolyte imbalances. Continued use of enemas may weaken the colon's normal function, causing or worsening constipation and colitis. Other complications have included dehydration, serious infections and severe bleeding.[2]

The therapy may be especially hazardous to pregnant or breast-feeding women.[2]

Coffee enemas have contributed to the deaths of at least three people in the United States. Coffee enemas "can cause colitis (inflammation of the bowel), fluid and electrolyte imbalances, and in some cases septicemia".[18] The recommended diet may not be nutritionally adequate.[19][20] The diet has been blamed for the deaths of patients who substituted it for standard medical care.[21]

Relying on the therapy alone while avoiding or delaying conventional medical care for cancer has serious health consequences.[2]"

comeonman1 -


Sorry to hear this. I lost my Aunt to lung cancer a few years ago but she was a long time smoker. I wonder if it could have been caused by his work from inhaling chemicals of some sort? I know non smokers can get lung cancer but it's not the norm.

He worked in a substation for a power company (desk job). Retired almost 20 years ago. Phone Post 3.0

comeonman1 - 


Sorry to hear this. I lost my Aunt to lung cancer a few years ago but she was a long time smoker. I wonder if it could have been caused by his work from inhaling chemicals of some sort? I know non smokers can get lung cancer but it's not the norm.


To put it into perspective for you (and the many others who're confused by cancer's appearance in people who haven't smoked or done anything negative), I'll try to explain it in laymen's terms (get ready for a FRAT)...



Your genetics are constantly mutating and changing. Luckily, the vast majority of your genome is non-coding and thus, the vast majority of mutations have no real effect on individual cells' health (even better the actually important or coding parts tend to be "shielded").

Even better, there are a ton of repair mechanisms in place to fix DNA damage, and a ton of fail-safes such as "cell-suicide" (aka apoptosis) to kill offending cells before they can spread with mutations.



Having said that, every moment of your life is a dice roll, and you're constantly accumulating mutations. For cancer to actually occur, you need mutations (randomly occuring) that just happen to achieve certain commonalities.


For example, your cells rarely need to grow so they only grow when induced by certain signals, e.g. you cut yourself, your skin cells need to grow, so now your body triggers growth signals (aka they "tell the cell to grow" by sending proteins to it)

One of the hallmarks of cancer is SELF-SUFFICIENCY IN GROWTH SIGNALS. This can occur in a tremendous amount of different ways, but as long as one of those rarely activated genes/signals mutates to always be on, the cell will no longer need to be told to grow, and will start doing so non-stop on its own.

Other Hallmarks include,

--Loss of sensitivity to "stop signals"

--Loss of Apoptosis (Cell-suicide when too much genetic damage has occurred)

--Immortality (quite literally, the cell can produce an infinite amount of clones, unlike normal cells, from aberrant telomerase activity)

--Angiogenesis; Angio=Vasculature/Genesis=Creation

(Basically your cells mutate to re-activate signals meant ONLY for embryos when your body needs to grow. And so now your fucking tumor can trigger new vasculature to penetrate the tumor and feed it nutrients while also providing an escape route into the rest of the body for these mutant cells that won't stop growing)

--Metastasis (this is when the cells get fucking malignant. Only 10% of people die from a primary tumor, the other 90% die because the cells from the primary tumor site, whether it be skin, lungs, testicles...etc, become so mutated they can survive basically anywhere and start seeding to the rest of the body.)





Anyways, went on a tangent there, but the point is a large amount of random mutations are always occurring and it's just when you get the perfect shit storm of poor luck that a cell truly becomes cancerous, and even then until you hit that last hallmark I mentioned, Metastasis, you're pretty much in the clear as the tumour will still be BENIGN....
In fact, it's quite common when doing autopsies or dissections of older people to just find a shit ton of benign tumors (polyps are an example of this), and so when you realize it's all chance, you realize why cancer affects older people and affects basically everyone (just under 1 in 2 people)...


The longer you live, the more chance you have to accumulate mutations and so the more chance you have to eventually get to that perfect shitstorm.

Smoking and all these other agents that are termed carcinogenic (basically means they induce cancer when tested in mice) don't really "give you cancer" they just increase the rate of mutation, and so increase the amount of die rolls your body goes through.

That's why cancer is essentially an upper limit on human life. It's not really a disease, it's just the natural decay and consequences of your ever changing genome, and so even if you're in perfect health and ultra young, you can still get cancer if your dice roll goes south very quickly.

That probably wasn't very informative or even appealing to anyone (I apologize if this was somewhat of a thread hijack), but I know how often people are confused by WHY cancer appeared, and I think it helps to understand the nature of the disease.

Sorry to hear. My mum was diagnosed a couple of months ago. She's just had her whole left king removed and they've removed the tumor. She's waiting to get the a clear. I hope your fathers can be removed/treated.

Have a read about cannabis oil. it's said to have cured many people. There's lots of info out there about it.

Google
"Rick Simpson oil" Phone Post 3.0

Lung not king !! Phone Post 3.0

What stage? If he is 70, does he have Medicare or Medicare advantage? Most major research hospitals take Medicare but not Medicare advantage. You may want to look at switching if you want access to a research hospital.

There are promising clinical trials for solid tumors. I have a patient( I am a case manager) at md Anderson on a phase I who has been progression free for 17 cycles and she has stage IV lung cancer. She is also older than your dad and is doing really well. Phone Post

Horus2001 - What stage? If he is 70, does he have Medicare or Medicare advantage? Most major research hospitals take Medicare but not Medicare advantage. You may want to look at switching if you want access to a research hospital.

There are promising clinical trials for solid tumors. I have a patient( I am a case manager) at md Anderson on a phase I who has been progression free for 17 cycles and she has stage IV lung cancer. She is also older than your dad and is doing really well. Phone Post
We don't know anything yet. Just got diagnosed. He sees an oncologist in the next couple of days to figure out the next step. Phone Post 3.0

sorry bro Phone Post 3.0