Hi Catherine, I am in a similar situation and for now I'm not on treatment. I hope your treatment worked well for you and you are enjoying a good health. I think you were quite lucky to get that treatment. What Hospital did you go to? Season's greeting, Koala ... View more

Hi Catherine, I am in a similar situation and for now I'm not on treatment. I hope your treatment worked well for you and you are enjoying a good health. I think you were quite lucky to get that treatment. What Hospital did you go to? Season's greeting, Koala ... View more

Hi Kazza, I was diagnosed like you sometimes this January and recommended a W and W. There is no good reasons to think this is not a good approach. I do comparative ultrasounds every 3 months for the abdomen area and blood tests. I've been reading quite a lot about the subject and I will try to avoid at almost any cost (except for life) CHOP. If I'm lucky I'll get treated with the second gen Rituximab. There is quite a large volume of good info and quite a large number of useless fluff that's happening. Season's Greetings Koala ... View more

Hi Emily, I have not heard from you in a while. I hope your husband is doing great. I wish you all a very Happy New Year !!! Cheers, Koala ... View more

Jules, It seems you've been battling with this for quite a while and I wish you good luck with continuing and hopefully getting the upper hand on this. You are right for sure. The immune system is one of the several mechanisms that have been broken and allow for a multiplication of the problem cells. It's job is to kill (directly or indirectly) exposing registered patterns. On the other hands the immune system does probably break down for most of people in their middle age. Autoimmune disorders like arthritis are just a proof of that. But just a plain immune system problem will not cause cancer. In any case, this study will not do anything for you in terms of treatment. Good luck again. ... View more

Hi Nello, It's reasonable to believe that this paper most probably don't aim at victimizing but rather at producing a publication that would advance somebody's academic career. The victimization is most likely an unintended a side effect. That does not make it right or correct. The study itself does not seem to conclude of study that lifestyle factors account for 1/3 of cancers which is an unsustainable point. It is the reporter that seems to have come up with that conclusion. Saying that cancer can not be avoided, does not mean that everybody would have cancer. A great number of human beings die in or before their infancy and they usually don't have cancer. A great amount of people die of accidents and cancer will not be on their death certificates. A great amount of people die of coronary diseases (mostly in developed countries) before contracting cancer. A great number of people die of other causes before a cancer is diagnosed. It takes quite long before the first cancer cell multiplies enough to be detectable. After that, it can take years or the rest of their lives before the cancer is diagnosed if ever. There seems to be a lot of misleading information in this space. The cause of cancer in general seems to be quite clear based on the material I saw so far. On the other hand factors that might trigger an earlier onset of cancer are poorly understood and it's unlikely that a decent understanding would be ever achieved. Based on that, the value of that is quite nebulous. I see now, processed meat might also be linked to earlier onset of cancer. It's reasonably to believe that hundreds of things around us could be correlated with earlier onset of cancer. A complete list would most likely includes many things considered healthy right now. The bottom line is that none of these studies would put on the table a treatment that would be a solution for cancer. ... View more

Hi Nello, It's reasonable to believe that this paper most probably don't aim at victimizing but rather at producing a publication that would advance somebody's academic career. The victimization is most likely an unintended a side effect. That does not make it right or correct. The study itself does not seem to conclude of study that lifestyle factors account for 1/3 of cancers which is an unsustainable point. It is the reporter that seems to have come up with that conclusion. Saying that cancer can not be avoided, does not mean that everybody would have cancer. A great number of human beings die in or before their infancy and they usually don't have cancer. A great amount of people die of accidents and cancer will not be on their death certificates. A great amount of people die of coronary diseases (mostly in developed countries) before contracting cancer. A great number of people die of other causes before a cancer is diagnosed. It takes quite long before the first cancer cell multiplies enough to be detectable. After that, it can take years or the rest of their lives before the cancer is diagnosed if ever. There seems to be a lot of misleading information in this space. The cause of cancer in general seems to be quite clear based on the material I saw so far. On the other hand factors that might trigger an earlier onset of cancer are poorly understood and it's unlikely that a decent understanding would be ever achieved. Based on that, the value of that is quite nebulous. I see now, processed meat might also be linked to earlier onset of cancer. It's reasonably to believe that hundreds of things around us could be correlated with earlier onset of cancer. A complete list would most likely includes many things considered healthy right now. The bottom line is that none of these studies would put on the table a treatment that would be a solution for cancer. ... View more

Not only that I had friends having an extremely 'healthy' lifestyle dying of cancer and people smoking dying of old age (not that I encourage that) but this article is very misleading. Let's say that somebody smokes and let's assume that that would increase the chances of lung cancer by 30%. Hard to go higher than that because I'm pretty sure less than 30% smokers die of lung cancer. So if this somebody gets cancer and reads this article he/she will blame themselves for the lifestyle. But in fact it's about 70% chance that the cancer does not have anything to do with smoking so he/she will blame themselves for nothing. This is more like a fortune teller. It tells you a lot of things hoping that one would stick. So stop blaming yourself and get on with your life in the hope that a worthy researcher will look for a solution for your cancer instead of wasting time, money and cast blame. ... View more

Reputable is a relative word. My hairdresser is reputable and she did not cure any cancer patient. In the same time she did not waste any Cancer research funds aimed at finding a solution. How can you lower the incidence of Cancer if you repeat what everybody has been saying for a long time. Everybody (except my son) knows smoking is bad for you, so that's not going to make any difference. This article aims at victimizing people that lead a very healthy life style and mislead the general population as to the reason for the cancer. ... View more