Tumor and Cancer detection, why do Doctors always seem to miss most until they are really advanced ?

Question

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=CherylShuman90210 Why aren't doctors forced to look for Tumors and Cancers like every 6 months on people ? We can beat most cancers if we detect them early.

Answer 1

The medical community is lagging far behind in warning teenagers and young adults that they too can get cancer. They have done a fairly good job with diagnosing children (perhaps because they get a yearly exam and are seen more frequently by the pediatrician) and they are doing a good job educating older adults (perhaps because they too get a yearly exam and are seen more frequently for medical conditions).

Here is the problem. Young people are relatively healthy and can withstand and ignore medical conditions far longer than younger or older people. Cancer is also frequently asymptomatic until in the late stages.

The public including family physicians need to begin an education program for cancer. Cancer needs to be a priority. The word needs to reach young people that they can get cancer. They need to know that all parts of their bodies can have cancer. They need to become aware that unusual lumps and bumps need to be immediately examined. They should not ignore odd symptoms just because they feel 'okay'.

My son had multiple abdominal tumors and the only early symptom was that he had gained 30 pounds. We did not recognize this as being cancer related . . who would . . he was 17 years old, had just had a well physical, and was playing high school basketball. By the time he was diagnosed he was a stage IV with advanced sarcoma. It was the first time he'd ever been sick.

I think instead of relying on doctors we need to become better educated to take care of ourselves. We need to be proactive about our own health.

Answer 2

The following was copied from an Internet news group.

DIAGNOSIS--

Why would I rely on your backward methods for diagnosing cancer, that is, with invasive procedures such as biopsies and radiation from CT scans?? Are you aware that when a person has cancer they have elevated levels of hCGH in their urine? This can sometime be detected with a pregnancy test if the hCGH levels are high enough.

Because I had a dozen visible lesions or more and testicular pain, I screened myself with a simple pregnancy test. In my case the levels were high enough to register positive. Since I'm a man, and I had lesions and pain, it was quite obvious that I had cancer.

So once again, the macabre ways you are familiar with for diagnosing and treating cancer patients are unnecessary.

Let me add a caveat, pregnancy tests don't always show positive when a person has cancer because the hCGH levels aren't always high enough. But if they are high enough...bingo! It's a great way to to uncover cancer cheaply and painlessly.

There is a more sophisticated pregnancy test that is about 98% accurate and picks up malignancies six months to two years prior to other methods of screening. The downside to that test right now is that you have to send away for the results and there is a six week turn around on the results.

One more thing. The hCGH conection is yet another piece of evidence that cancer cells are trophoblast cells that have been turned on. It's the unitarian theory of cancer which was first discovered by a Dr. Beard about 100 years ago.

Trophoblast cells release hCGH as a byproduct of its activity. In pregnancy it plays a role in producing life by invasively eating a niche in the uterine wall. In cancer, the same invasiveness causes destruction. But the trophoblast cells can be turned off easily as my own case helps to demonstrate.

In conclusion, in this thread we're discussing the merits of a variety of deadly chemo agents in a case that is so far advanced that the only outcome from the chemo is going to be negative. It's a case of 'pretending' to be doing something. The doctors want to help. Unfortunately their tools aren't suited to the task. But psychologically they must believe, especially when it can be difficult to tell the patient you have nothing to offer them.

Meanwhile, the only methods that work are the ones that turn off the trophoblast cells while supporting the healthy cells....which happen to be the vast majority of the cells. Chemo fails in the latter. And instead of turning off the trophoblast cells, they kill them.

It's a recipe for disaster.

Answer 3

Try Vitamin C therapy. A few years ago a cancer researcher came out with a paper saying that the best cancer and infection fighter as yet found was Interferon, but, at the time, it cost $15,000 a gram. The good part was that Interferon was a product of the natural breakdown of Vitamin C in your system. The FDA says that the RDA for Vit C is 64 mg a day, just enough to prevent scurvy. Linus Pauling, who got a Nobel Prize for his work with Vit C and a second Nobel Prize for organic chemistry, said 1000 mg a day as a minimum and 2000 mg a day if you are sick. On a personal note, I was sick twice a year, for 2 weeks at a time, for 20 years, and was flat on my back for at least a week each time. To this day the doctors have no idea what the problem was. After I gave up on the doctors I tried Vit C. I took enough to keep from being sick and just below too much to get diarrhea. It followed a bell curve over 2 weeks with a peak at 40,000 mg a day – about 300,000 over the 2 weeks. I was not sick for those 2 weeks and after a couple of years of that I have not been sick since. I did not dissolve my kidneys, as some doctors said would happen. I did not get any calcium build up or stones and did not dissolve my cones or solidify my joints. Try it, but drink a lot of water – Vit C is a natural diuretic.

Answer 4

That is correct. BUT, your insurance isn't going to cover biopsy's on every part of your body every 6 months. Without a biopsy it's not cancer. They didn't know I had breast cancer til they removed an egg sized lymph node under my arm. Now here I am nearly 4 yrs later wondering why I am having mammograms every few months when the cancer wasn't even discovered there, it had already metastasized. I think I need an ultrasound around the area but I have to ask 4 people to get it. I also think I should have a bone scan-but, it hasn't been suggested. I have had 2 brain scans in 3 yrs.

Answer 5

I hate to say it, but the insurance companies seem to be running the medical treatment programs these days.

I was "just" diagnosed with breast cancer - a fairly small tumor of about 2.8cm. They couldn't see in in mammograms because I have fibrocystic breasts. They missed it in ultrasound (but were suspicious). So I got myself a special "Aurora MRI" and that finally found it. But I am the one who decided to go there. Certainly the doctors are being warned by the insurance companies to stop ordering expensive tests until things definitely point that way.

Unfortunately, during the "rule out metastatic desease" of checking me out, they also found an 8cm tumor in my liver.

Nothing would have found that, because NOBODY does MRI's on the whole body "just to check things". And liver cancers don't show up until they are quite big, or are blocking things - in which case you get jaundiced.

In any case, sometimes, it's just how things are. Eventually, we will have the Star Trek kind of medicine where they can wave a wand over you and find (and fix!) all the things wrong with a body.

Answer 6

First, most people do not see the doctor regularly for examinations.

Second, the most deadly cancers present few or no symptoms until they are well advanced and much more difficult to treat.

Third, cancer symptoms are often vague. Most doctors will assume a symptom will have a more common cause before suspecting cancer.

There are some general tests that doctors use to check for cancer. Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) for colon cancer, digital rectal exam (DRE) for prostate cancer, visual examination of the mouth by the dentist for oral cancer, Pap Smears for cervical cancer, Complete Blood Count (CBC) for leukemia. That's just naming a few obvious ones.

X-Rays and CAT scans are sources of radiation and expensive. MRIs are expensive.

More invasive tests such as colonoscopies, endoscopies, etc. are uncomfortable and expensive.

Answer 7

In my case I had a mammogram and it came out clear,yet I wondered why I could still feel a lump.I insisted on a ultra sound because I felt the lump was in a position on the breast that was impossible for the mammogram to detect.I was right ,it was cancer,so after a lumpectomy(surgery)and sixteen treatments of radiation I am now clear six years later.Sometimes you have to be a little forceful and take control after all who knows your body better than you?

Answer 8

First, nobody wants to be probed that much. Colon cancer is one of the most common, and I just don't see people lining up to have a tube stuck up their butt twice a year if they feel fine.
Second, there's the matter of cost-effectiveness. There are always studies going on about cancer screening, and it usually turns out that it costs a pile of money---think maybe $300,000---to save one year of life in one person for many of the screens that are looked at. In general, it's not considered cost-effective until that number gets down to about $50,000, which is still more than the average guy makes. There simply isn't enough money to do better. We already spend almost a fifth of our money on health care.
Third, and related to the first, it normally isn't the doctor that's in control of the situation. You can't screen a patient who doesn't get to the office to be screened.

Answer 9

I desire the deep conversations. I evaluate myself an psychological, and that i do savor philosophical factors of existence, so while somebody is waiting and prepared to have a deep verbal substitute with me I open it with open arms. The lighthearted conversations are solid for small talk, however the deep conversations are those that I stay for. The final verbal substitute that i'm able to undergo in strategies that replaced my attitude on issues replaced into probable with a woman i've got at present met. It replaced right into a verbal substitute approximately relationships, the destiny, and existence. It does open your eyes slightly extra to what's obtainable. :)