Stuntman Stu has leukemia

[Golden_Jet]

Best wishes Stu, you can beat this.

 

[SENSational Sens Fan]

First Murray, then Reeds, then Melnyk, now Stu.

This team is cursed.

**** cancer.

 

[chipsens]

Best of luck Stuntman...hang in there.

 

[SensBrawler]

First Murray, then Reeds, then Melnyk, now Stu.

This team is cursed.

**** cancer.

This.

Best of luck to Stu in his battle.

 

[QuattroFTW]

Don't buy that (no pun intended). I believe it is the money. oh and laziness.

That's not true. Yes, big market pharma's are more focused on R&D for maintenance medication (i.e antihypertensives, dyslipidemia) but there is a LOT of independent money being pumped into cancer research. You have to remember that while Big Pharm decides what it does with its own budget, they don't control what academic and cancer research institutes spend on their own independent research with their own budget.

As another poster suggested, there's very little we can do to control environmental carcinogens. That would require a complete overhaul of our way of life we we know it. The list is absolutely gigantic but everything from food additives, to air pollution can increase ones risk to develop some form of cancer.

 

[guyzeur]

Don't buy that (no pun intended). I believe it is the money. oh and laziness.

I mentioned before, I have a type of blood cancer in the same family as Leukemia (I have polycythemia, I produce too much blood, including blood cells).

It's most likely due to a cell mutation I just happened to have. The chances of having a cell mutation increase with age. You can't protect yourself against this.

Mutation can be caused by your environment or just happened.

I'm not a doctor neither I've studied medicine. I'm sure a poster could explain it better.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Why not focus on causes instead of cures? Seriously what's the reasoning?
Is it because you can't make money off people not getting cancer?

I wonder, instead of chemo and all that stuff that hurts the body so much to destroy cancer......why not look at it from a different angle?

Isn't it possible to change the behavior of cells in some experiments these days? (Iirc, they've done this sort of thing with some cold/flu cells, or some other bad guys like HIV or something?) Instead of bombarding the body with crap to kill the cancer cells, why not just "tweak" the cells so they benefit the body (or at least don't hurt the body) instead of killing everything outright? That would be a lot easier on the patient, and eliminates the danger of cancer spreading (as it would be the tweaked cells that spread, and hopefully do no damage).

 

[ChocolateLeclaire]

I wonder, instead of chemo and all that stuff that hurts the body so much to destroy cancer......why not look at it from a different angle?

Isn't it possible to change the behavior of cells in some experiments these days? (Iirc, they've done this sort of thing with some cold/flu cells, or some other bad guys like HIV or something?) Instead of bombarding the body with crap to kill the cancer cells, why not just "tweak" the cells so they benefit the body (or at least don't hurt the body) instead of killing everything outright? That would be a lot easier on the patient, and eliminates the danger of cancer spreading (as it would be the tweaked cells that spread, and hopefully do no damage).

That's essentially what they're trying to do with stem cell research.

 

[QuattroFTW]

I mentioned before, I have a type of blood cancer in the same family as Leukemia (I have polycythemia, I produce too much blood, including blood cells).

It's most likely due to a cell mutation I just happened to have. The chances of having a cell mutation increase with age. You can't protect yourself against this.

Mutation can be caused by your environment or just happened.

I'm not a doctor neither I've studied medicine. I'm sure a poster could explain it better.

Sorry to hear about your diagnosis. You're right on the money about your condition. Many forms of cancer do have a genetic component to them making some people more genetically predisposed than others, but often times - as you alluded to- environmental factors are just as responsible for increasing ones risk to a disease/cancer. Genetics only tell you half the story, as some individuals never go on to fully develop symptoms of their genetic makeup. This is why it is important to do as much as YOU can to do prevent cancer/disease development by staying fit and eating healthy. Many things are outside the realm of your own control, but your diet and your exercise habits are forthe most part, not one of them.
Source: I'm a student in the Fac of Med at U of T.

 

[QuattroFTW]

I wonder, instead of chemo and all that stuff that hurts the body so much to destroy cancer......why not look at it from a different angle?

Isn't it possible to change the behavior of cells in some experiments these days? (Iirc, they've done this sort of thing with some cold/flu cells, or some other bad guys like HIV or something?) Instead of bombarding the body with crap to kill the cancer cells, why not just "tweak" the cells so they benefit the body (or at least don't hurt the body) instead of killing everything outright? That would be a lot easier on the patient, and eliminates the danger of cancer spreading (as it would be the tweaked cells that spread, and hopefully do no damage).

Yes you're absolutely right, and these are novel approaches to the treatment of cancer that we are all excited to see. The main problem in implementing them is that often times these successful trials you see are done on patients with end stage cancers (ethical reasons) and the cost associated with having them approved for all types of cancers is enormous, hence all the research money needed.

 

[pepty]

I wonder, instead of chemo and all that stuff that hurts the body so much to destroy cancer......why not look at it from a different angle?

Isn't it possible to change the behavior of cells in some experiments these days? (Iirc, they've done this sort of thing with some cold/flu cells, or some other bad guys like HIV or something?) Instead of bombarding the body with crap to kill the cancer cells, why not just "tweak" the cells so they benefit the body (or at least don't hurt the body) instead of killing everything outright? That would be a lot easier on the patient, and eliminates the danger of cancer spreading (as it would be the tweaked cells that spread, and hopefully do no damage).

That is what they are trying to do with a lot of new therapies.

In the meantime it is a mistake to be so fearful of chemo that you turn down proven treatments with a good chance of success to try some sort of holistic cure.So what if your hair falls out and you feel miserable for awhile?Your hair will grow back and feeling bad for awhile is worth it if it beats back cancer.

I know people who have turned to various forms of alternative treatments rather than chemo when they had a very good chance of beating the cancer with chemo. it didn't turn out well in any of the cases that I know about.

 

[QuattroFTW]

That is what they are trying to do with a lot of new therapies.

In the meantime it is a mistake to be so fearful of chemo that you turn down proven treatments with a good chance of success to try some sort of holistic cure.So what if your hair falls out and you feel miserable for awhile?Your hair will grow back and feeling bad for awhile is worth it if it beats back cancer.

I know people who have turned to various forms of alternative treatments rather than chemo when they had a very good chance of beating the cancer with chemo. it didn't turn out well in any of the cases that I know about.

Unfortunately the internet has given people the opportunity to spread bogus information about possible alternative medicine which ends up costing lives. Don't get me wrong, I believe that natural medicine has a particular place in healthcare, but it should never be used in place of scientifically proven medical treatments. I know a few people from high school who are convinced that natural remedies exist to cure diseases which irritates me to no end.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

That is what they are trying to do with a lot of new therapies.

In the meantime it is a mistake to be so fearful of chemo that you turn down proven treatments with a good chance of success to try some sort of holistic cure.So what if your hair falls out and you feel miserable for awhile?Your hair will grow back and feeling bad for awhile is worth it if it beats back cancer.

I know people who have turned to various forms of alternative treatments rather than chemo when they had a very good chance of beating the cancer with chemo. it didn't turn out well in any of the cases that I know about.

The problem I have with chemo, is that it kills off all the good cells, along with the cancer cells. And the patient goes through agony in the meantime. It's one of those things where you wonder if the cure is worse than the disease. (I've had close family members go through both radiation and chemo....neither one is pretty.) Especially if the cancer comes back, and the patient has to stare down the barrel of another round of chemo. Just the mental fatigue of climbing that mountain again....I think that has a lot to do with the mortality rate when cancer returns, just as much as the cancer itself.

If science can find a way that is less invasive (kind of like how they do many surgeries now with a camera and poking a hole into someone instead of cutting a person wide open), I think that's when we'll see survival rates really skyrocket.

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

Prayers to Stu and his family.

They'll overcome this.

 

[guyzeur]

The problem I have with chemo, is that it kills off all the good cells, along with the cancer cells. And the patient goes through agony in the meantime. It's one of those things where you wonder if the cure is worse than the disease. (I've had close family members go through both radiation and chemo....neither one is pretty.) Especially if the cancer comes back, and the patient has to stare down the barrel of another round of chemo. Just the mental fatigue of climbing that mountain again....I think that has a lot to do with the mortality rate when cancer returns, just as much as the cancer itself.

If science can find a way that is less invasive (kind of like how they do many surgeries now with a camera and poking a hole into someone instead of cutting a person wide open), I think that's when we'll see survival rates really skyrocket.

In my case, my blood cancer/disorder is that I produce too much blood. I have to get 5 litres removed per year (10 times/year). In the past, I took chemo twice already that would suppress, slow down my hyper active bone marrow. It's more complicated than this but I'll leave this simple explanation for now. I have been diagnosed in 1986.

My chemo took form in pills that were not as an aggressive treatment like STU will be treated for.

But now, starting tomorrow, I'll take a pill that will cancel the gene mutation cause by a protein JAK2 - JAK2 is a protein that functions as a signal to regulate cell functions. It sends messages in the cell, telling it to grow and make more cells, or else to stop when the body does not need more cells. Researchers believe that in MPD patients, the mutation in JAK2 enhances messages asking for more cell production.

It come to a cost of about 100k per year, I have insurance to cover it. The pill was just approved last week in Canada, it has been for a few years already in the US.

So to answer your question - If science can find a way that is less invasive?, scientists are already at this stage.

In my case, that pill is ok because it wasn't an aggressive cancer (blood disorder also like chronic leukemia). I don't think they can use it in cases of more malign cancers like acute leukemia.

Science is getting there.

 

[DylanSensFan]

Prayers are with Stu, even If I ain't Christian.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

In my case, my blood cancer/disorder is that I produce too much blood. I have to get 5 litres removed per year (10 times/year). In the past, I took chemo twice already that would suppress, slow down my hyper active bone marrow. It's more complicated than this but I'll leave this simple explanation for now. I have been diagnosed in 1986.

My chemo took form in pills that were not as an aggressive treatment like STU will be treated for.

But now, starting tomorrow, I'll take a pill that will cancel the gene mutation cause by a protein JAK2 - JAK2 is a protein that functions as a signal to regulate cell functions. It sends messages in the cell, telling it to grow and make more cells, or else to stop when the body does not need more cells. Researchers believe that in MPD patients, the mutation in JAK2 enhances messages asking for more cell production.

It come to a cost of about 100k per year, I have insurance to cover it. The pill was just approved last week in Canada, it has been for a few years already in the US.

So to answer your question - If science can find a way that is less invasive?, scientists are already at this stage.

In my case, that pill is ok because it wasn't an aggressive cancer (blood disorder also like chronic leukemia). I don't think they can use it in cases of more malign cancers like acute leukemia.

Science is getting there.

That's amazing news. Exactly what I'm hoping to see develop.

 

[QuattroFTW]

That's amazing news. Exactly what I'm hoping to see develop.

Look up Gleevec. It's an anti-cancer medication used to specifically target only cancer cells for specific types of cancer. $10,000 per treatment but its covered under prescription drug insurances.

 

[NyQuil]

In my case, my blood cancer/disorder is that I produce too much blood. I have to get 5 litres removed per year (10 times/year). In the past, I took chemo twice already that would suppress, slow down my hyper active bone marrow. It's more complicated than this but I'll leave this simple explanation for now. I have been diagnosed in 1986.

My chemo took form in pills that were not as an aggressive treatment like STU will be treated for.

But now, starting tomorrow, I'll take a pill that will cancel the gene mutation cause by a protein JAK2 - JAK2 is a protein that functions as a signal to regulate cell functions. It sends messages in the cell, telling it to grow and make more cells, or else to stop when the body does not need more cells. Researchers believe that in MPD patients, the mutation in JAK2 enhances messages asking for more cell production.

It come to a cost of about 100k per year, I have insurance to cover it. The pill was just approved last week in Canada, it has been for a few years already in the US.

So to answer your question - If science can find a way that is less invasive?, scientists are already at this stage.

In my case, that pill is ok because it wasn't an aggressive cancer (blood disorder also like chronic leukemia). I don't think they can use it in cases of more malign cancers like acute leukemia.

Science is getting there.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[swiftwin]

 

[DrEasy]

Classy Spezza.

 

[Larionov]

The key here will be how quickly they finish with his chemo. If they can knock down the leukemia with two weeks of treatment or so, they've got a good shot at getting him into remission for an extended period. If they are giving him chemo for a month straight and still aren't quite there, then it gets tougher. I know this first hand from my father's treatments for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma - my dad's first round of chemo went really well, so much so that they were able to take down the dose and duration for round two. Pray that Stu responds well also...

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Good for Spezza (and the Stars).

Positive vibes.

 

[pepty]

The problem I have with chemo, is that it kills off all the good cells, along with the cancer cells. And the patient goes through agony in the meantime. It's one of those things where you wonder if the cure is worse than the disease. (I've had close family members go through both radiation and chemo....neither one is pretty.) Especially if the cancer comes back, and the patient has to stare down the barrel of another round of chemo. Just the mental fatigue of climbing that mountain again....I think that has a lot to do with the mortality rate when cancer returns, just as much as the cancer itself.

If science can find a way that is less invasive (kind of like how they do many surgeries now with a camera and poking a hole into someone instead of cutting a person wide open), I think that's when we'll see survival rates really skyrocket.

They are moving in that direction, in the meantime they decide things by percentages which you can also check on the good websites,like WebMD or others -not the wing nut ones.

But it is a great mistake to forgo the best treatment available because you are afraid of the treatment.

I don't believe there is any way that the treatment is worse than the disease.

I know someone right now who had a very treatable form of cancer and refused treatment because he didn't want to take chemo or radiation (which is not that bad at all) and now has full blown advanced cancer.

it may have come back anyway but the odds were against it .