Dear Leroy,

I'm not sure what to say today. I only know what I read — and you sound hopeful, but frustrated.

While I don't have cancer, I have had enough experience with it in my family to say this — "Cancer sucks." That's the way I feel about it. It's a sneaky disease, one that sometimes has no symptoms. I think that we deserve an even playing field whenever illness strikes and cancer (and a few other diseases,) refuses to play by the rules.

I don't tell many people this, but I don't want to sound like some pompous, moralizing ass. My "disease" is clinical depression. Some people who don't know this wonder why I say, "You're allowed to be frustrated or angry." They just don't know that my doctor has been telling me that for years.

So, if you're angry, I hope you throw a few things today. Glasses and dishes are cheap when you compare it to the value of feeling better.

Just make sure you clean it up yourself. Two grumpy people in a household is pretty hairy.

I hope you have a good day — I mean it.

Sent by Libby | 12:20 PM ET | 08-23-2006

I don't think anyone (okay, I pray no one) would purposefully keep a cure from us. Yet, I read the work of Dr. Judah Folkman who basically discovered the process and the subsequent drug which I believe is saving my life angiogenesis (avastin). He struggled for acceptance for literally decades because he had been trained as a surgeon not as a researcher. He knew during his "eureka" moment he was on to something but it would be years before his research would be widely accepted. I do think that type of prejudice does slow the process. I wait for the magic bullet... I hope it happens in my lifetime but I am ready and willing to contribute in anyway to the future cures. I pray my children and grandchildren will never have to live or die from cancer.

Sent by Cherie Brown | 12:22 PM ET | 08-23-2006

I taught sixth grade science, and drilled to my students that when they design an experiment, they may only change one variable at a time, or they have no way of knowing what's causing the changes. Huh! If only my cancer were so easy! There are SO many variables, that it's impossible for me to sort out what is working and what isn't and why. At times, it feels that my doctors and I are just scrambling our way through this (though my doctor assures me that there is more reason behind his decisions than what I feel!) If my personal situation is so befuddling, imagine trying to find patterns in a bigger population. I'm amazed any progress is being made, yet it is. I, too, am hopeful for the future. Very good people are trying very hard to find their way through this to some answers.

Sent by Ruth Schrichte | 12:24 PM ET | 08-23-2006

Amen, brother! As a survivor doing well to date, I will continue to run, walk, crawl, if I have to, in order to keep the research cash flow moving. You inspire me more than you know. Keep the faith!

Sent by Kathy B. | 6:23 PM ET | 08-23-2006

Having a young daughter that has made it to remission has led me to do a quite a bit of research. Had she been born only two or three decades ago, she would not be here with us today. Indeed, having spoken with her oncologists, I have learned that detection methods have advanced so far that there is quite a bit of debate over what to do with the detection of residual disease. Do you treat someone that has only the faintest hint (and when I say hint, I mean mere markers at the cellular level) of disease knowing the effects of chemotherapy, or do you wait? I remember seeing the effects of chemo administered to my daughter after the first 4 days by x-ray. Using the same drugs as were used years ago, but combining them in different ways, we saw my daughter's tumor shrink by almost 50%. There have been many advances in cancer treatment over the years, and I have met some of those who have been part of it. In one case, I met a researcher from Merck who took an antiemetic drug from hit to market. For those of you on chemo, or who have known those who have been, you know how important these drugs can be. This researcher was very much aware of the impact of the drug on "real" people. In his case, there were actual patients employed by Merck who participated in trials. Imagine knowing that your own coworkers are looking to you for treatment alternatives... right now. So I would have to say the desire is there, it's just a tough nut to crack. Remember, only one out of every 10,000 potential drugs makes it to market. Take care.

Sent by Marc Charendoff | 6:26 PM ET | 08-23-2006

I only know that something is very seriously wrong with our entire health care system. Too many older people and I know a few of them, are forced to choose between eating three meals a day — and buying a drug they need to stay alive! I have heard this and hardly believed it, until I observed one of many neighbors in this painful predicament — and from her, heard of others. Another friend has to drive to Canada to get her prescription filled... at her local drug store the 30 day prescription is $600. She is usually way too sick to make the drive, so goes without it that month and feels awful and gets sicker. This is what I fear the most: when a "cure" or whatever might come close to that is found — how will the huge number of people without insurance avail themselves of that treatment? (Or those with insurance even: if you "only" have to, through your insurance, co-pay 20% of Avastin for example, that still comes to $2000.00 a month.) So we get closer and closer to a cure but our health care system through which we may obtain those drugs remains primitive.

The high cost of drugs, and the unavailability of drugs for many people who are not quite poverty level, but who have tiny incomes that just barely cover the necessities, is something I fear people are beginning to accept as normal.

Sent by Nancy | 10:23 AM ET | 08-24-2006

I'm sure plenty of researchers have cancer in their families too. It would really be inhumane if they were keeping a cure from the world and from their own families. I don't see that as a reason either.

People didn't live as long, but neither did they have the medical care we now have. So it stands to reason that people were dying of cancer long ago but didn't know what it was.

Don't ya think?

Sent by Susan | 2:10 PM ET | 08-24-2006

I have no idea why we don't have a cure for this ugly diseas, however, I do know that my partner, Gordon Cannon, just finished Gemcitebine and Navelbin and had his PET/CT today to see where we are with his cancer. Pray for a clean slate and if it works, then I can tell you whether or not we have progressed with a possible cure. I hope you realize how important this communication process has helped and encouraged us during our darkest days.

Keep up the good work, we especially look forward to reading the comments from all the good people who take the time to share their ideas.

Sent by Ron Perez | 1:48 PM ET | 08-25-2006

I'm reasonably confident in saying there isn't a conspiracy in the world of cancer research. You have to remember that cancer is researched by more than just drug companies looking for a profit. Thousands of people at universities across the world devote their lives to cancer research and usually don't make the big bucks.

Generically speaking, cancer happens when normal cells in your body stop doing their job and grow out of control. But it's really not that simple. There are six "rules" a cell must break in order to become cancerous. Right now, there are probably cells all over our bodies breaking one or two of the rules... However, there are checkpoints to ensure the rules are followed and these delinquent cells will most likely die in the near future. Cancer cells have escaped all the checkpoints and have broken all six rules -? all at the same time! Sneaky devils. Therefore, cancer is not caused by one problem (or "mutation"), but six!

Getting down to the nitty-gritty, these six rules are broken differently from cancer to cancer and from person to person. In order to "cure cancer," we have to pinpoint what causes each type of cancer then find a cure for that particular cause. That's a lot of cures to find, considering how many different types of cancers there are. We have an idea of what causes most cancers and are developing treatments that are specific to each cancer.

The common treatment for most cancers is chemotherapy. It targets cells that are rapidly growing -? cancer cells! However, it is not specific for cancer cells. Some cells in our body always grow fast and they are killed, too -? like the cells in our stomach and head. This is why chemotherapy makes you feel sick and lose your hair. In the future, we hope to develop treatments that target only cancer cells to avoid these terrible side-effects.

Sent by C.K. | 6:11 PM ET | 08-25-2006

I think there are so many environmental factors that contribute to cancer that until we deal with those, there cannot be a cure for cancer. We keep ingesting, breathing in, rubbing on and brushing our teeth with things that are hazardous to our health. Until our food is raised differently, we become more environmentally respectful; we're only seeing the beginning

Sent by Juanita Helms | 6:13 PM ET | 08-25-2006

I don't agree with the rational that people long ago, if they lived as long as we do now, would have died of cancer at the same rate as today. I think as least some of the cancers of today are due in part to the chemicals we use and the life styles we now have. I also believe this is true of some of the diseases as well. As far as holding back a cure. I think it's possible, but not probable. What the CDC needs to do is treat cancer like a crime, and try to find the cause of each kind. In my opinion the best future cure will not come in a bottle, but in prevention. In order to prevent you need to have a good understanding of cancer and all its kinds. I think the news about HPV has been long overdue and so has the vaccine. I can't believe it took this long for people to be educated about HPV. It all makes me wonder about the CDC and our government.

Sent by John Martin | 6:25 PM ET | 08-25-2006

Regarding your post about a cure, our family has often had talks over dinner about this exact topic. Chemo and radiation seem the modern day equivalent of drilling holes in people's heads. We've watched my Mom go through literally dozens of such treatments. Sometimes they beat the cancer back a little. Always, they beat my Mom back a lot. It has always seemed to me that without a cure, the best we can hope for is that Moms immune system will keep her strong and healthy for as long as possible. What immune system? Chemo and radiation see to it that her white blood cells are at all-time lows.

I share Mr. Sievers' frustrations that there have been so many talented people working on a cure for so many years, with very little to show for it. There are races for the cure, walks for the cure; even I myself did a 2100 mile trek on foot, raising money for the cure.

In the end, if we would have been spending all that time and money on prevention, where would we be? We may never know, and it seems cold-hearted to essentially write off those dying of cancer now in the hopes that we can prevent the next generation. But as a ten year cancer family member, I know that we've gone through all the conspiracy theories, miracle cures, experimental drug test groups, and this is what we're left with. My Mom has resigned herself to her fate and spends more time worrying about our family genetics and how my brother and I can prevent our own cancers.

So my question is this: why don't we know what the prevention remedy is for cancer? A cure may forever elude us. Simple preventative measures seem a much more easily attainable measure. Organic, whole and unprocessed foods, regular exercise, less stress, fresh air and clean drinking water. Those would be my first thoughts on prevention. These cost a lot less than $80 per pill and come with a lot less pain than cancer. They also would have benefits including better concentration, lower blood pressure, reduced risk of heart disease, and improved mood and self-esteem. Too bad pharmaceutical companies can't make money telling people to take a walk every day, because you'd be seeing commercials about it every three minutes.

Sent by Scott Cooney | 3:43 PM ET | 08-28-2006

As much as I want to believe that all the pharmaceutical companies and doctors want to see a cure, I also see a side that does not pay attention to other approaches.

Very few oncologists pay attention to diets. I heard a doctor who has been healing patients of cancer describe it as: cancer comes when the environment in the body is ripe for the cancer. When that environment is changed then the cancer finds it hard to exist. See the book Cancer Battle Plan by Frahm. Or check out The Moss Reports at cancerdecisions.com

When there is a remission, most times doctors don't want to know what the patient did to heal, but tell them to continue to do what they have been doing.

Please look into other approaches, there are solutions that you may be open to but would never hear from your doctor.

Sent by R.I. | 4:29 PM ET | 08-28-2006

"I'm reasonably confident in saying there isn't a conspiracy in the world of cancer research. You have to remember that cancer is researched by more than just drug companies looking for a profit. Thousands of people at universities across the world devote their lives to cancer research and usually don't make the big bucks."

I wish I was as confident as you. I have spoken to a few researchers and they seemed to lose interest when the talk turns to prevention as a cure. This has been my experience when it comes to other diseases as well. I think there's not enough emphasis on finding the main cause, prevention in these things. There is talk going on about some cancers having viruses as risk factors. If you know anything about germs, you know that viruses have to be contagious to survive. If that is true, we all should understand how these infections takes place. I hope the CDC takes the lead role in this, but not holding my breath.

Sent by John Martin | 4:49 PM ET | 08-28-2006

I often wonder just that, when I read of Dr. Budwig.

Sent by Flora | 4:54 PM ET | 08-28-2006

Honestly, if someone discovered a cure that was unpatentable, who would pay the $800 million to get it through FDA approval? From the get-go, our system is biased toward new pharmaceutical drugs. If there are any natural methods that could, singly or in combination, offer better odds of curing cancer than today's orthodox treatments, it will be difficult for them to gain acceptance. Let's say, hypothetically, it was a combination of three common herbs. Who is going to hire representatives to promote them to doctors, like the drug companies do with their chemicals? (There was a great article titled Drug Pushers in the Atlantic Monthly this spring. Everyone ought to read it.)

I have known several people who defied their doctors and used methods that some would consider quackery to cure their cancers. I suppose if I didn't know anyone personally who has recovered without standard treatment, it would be difficult to accept that we may be ignoring very useful methods. It isn't a conspiracy. It's just the way things are. Seeing is believing.

Also, people are always looking for the magic bullet that cures them and will allow them to continue to live the same unhealthy lifestyle and eat the same unhealthy foods they did before cancer. Natural methods are often very demanding, and a very strict immune-enhancing diet can be hard to get used to. Yet, that might be the only way for some people to get well.

I fear that many scientists are like the people Robert Pirsig described in his classic book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. They claim to be looking for the truth. The truth knocks on their door and they say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth!" Sometimes the answers just don't look like what we want or expect them to look like. I'm not sure Einstein ever really accepted quantum theory.

Such is the nature of human beings.

Sent by Eric Anderson | 5:21 PM ET | 08-28-2006

"I fear that many scientists are like the people Robert Pirsig described in his classic book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. They claim to be looking for the truth. The truth knocks on their door and they say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth!" Sometimes the answers just don't look like what we want or expect them to look like."

I have a web page you maybe interested in: All NCCAM Clinical Trials.

My take on alternative medicine is not positive, but I'm glad they have the program to sort it out to some extent.

Sent by John Martin | 2:33 PM ET | 08-29-2006

Our son has renal cell cancer in both lungs. He had a kidney removed two yrs ago this coming Oct. Last October they found the cancer in his lungs. He has had four treatments of IL2 high dose in Omaha. There has been no change since these treatments. He now goes in for a cat scan every 8 weeks. He was given one year to 18 months to live, yet he is traveling, riding his bike, running and living his life. This has changed his parents' lives as we now live for the next scan and pray. Cancer hurts everyone in the family. There is no cure for our son but we are buying time and hope that there will be one soon.

Sent by Kay Plummer | 11:43 AM ET | 08-30-2006

I used to be a cancer researcher and now write about cancer research for patients and their families and I want to clear up a few things:

1) We actually HAVE come a long way in curing cancer. Today, nearly 70% of people survive cancer for five years or more (that's usually the definition of cure as strange as it may sound), and that's significant. Everyone I know in oncology understands that 100% is better, but 35 years ago, children didn't survive leukemia, women didn't have mammograms and survive breast cancer, and men died of testicular cancer. Of course, people still die from these diseases, so I'm not saying its perfect, just improved.

2) What we call "cancer" is actually 100 different diseases. For example, there are more than 30 types of lymphoma. Some of these diseases have been figured out and many more remain a mystery.

3) The idea that the cure is out there and being hidden is absurd. If you take a pessimistic view of humanity, I would argue that the fame and fortune resulting from a discovery is too great a prize to keep quiet. I think a bigger problem are claims of cures that aren't substantiated, either by doctors or the media. I also know many researchers who go into science to help people, and if you are optimistic about humanity, I would argue that researchers are people, too, with families and friends who develop all sorts of awful diseases, like cancer.

4) There are data to support the idea that cancer is a disease of aging. Every time your cells divide and make more cells, there is a chance for genetic errors (mutations). Enough mutations in the right place can result in cancer. One of the first diseases where this was figured out was colon cancer. However, this does not explain why children, teens, and young adults get cancer, and there are probably environmental factors at play. The hard thing is that it is hard to determine the points at which genetics influences and environment and environment influences genetics.

5) The best way to find cures for cancer is to enroll in clinical trials (if you can — I know many have strict eligibility criteria). Most children (75%) are treated on clinical trials and childhood cancers have some of the highest cure rates. In contrast, only 2% to 3% of adults enroll in clinical trials. Even if you aren't getting the new treatment, studies have shown that people participating in clinical trials have better outcomes.

Leroy, I'm glad I found your blog, and I wish you well. I'm also glad you are on Avastin — that's one of the better advances that have been made in colon cancer in the past few years. I hope the side effects aren't too bad. Best wishes to all of you who are living with cancer. I wish you could all be healthy, even if that leaves me without a job!

Sent by J.L. | 4:54 PM ET | 09-01-2006

"Can it be that cancer is so different, so complex, so difficult, that there will never be a cure?"

I think there will be a cure some day, mostly in terms of prevention. I believe the reason why there is so much disease/cancer is due to our lack of committment to the problem. What is needed to speed things up is something like the Manhattan Project, or the Mission to the Moon. The current war on disease (as I see it) reminds me more of the war in Iraq, than anything else I can think at the moment. Yes there is progress, but it's extremely slow.

Humans have managed to use the sun and chemicals to their advantage, the thing is so have some germs. Until most researchers get a clue, diseases will continue to do well.

"Tobacco May Activate Cancer-Causing Virus in the Body"

"For people with rheumatoid arthritis, methotrexate is the treatment of choice in reducing pain and inflammation. But there's evidence the drug can activate a virus that can increase the risk of lymphoma and similar cancers in some patients."

Sent by John Martin | 5:15 PM ET | 09-01-2006

I saw one message in which you mentioned some people's belief about conspiracy in the medical industry with regard to cancer treatment and cures. I too agree that it is hard to believe that with the doctors involved, ALL of them could be in on it. However, as you mention, a LOT of money is changing hands and people should be suspicious of what is going on.

If you haven't heard of a guy named Royal Rife, take a look at his Web site. If you have already seen this, please visit it again. There is also a Yahoo Group named "Rife," with many people sharing first-hand experiences. There are also a lot of people asking questions and sharing confusion.

You are in a unique position to examine and explore some of this history in the wide open forum of the Web, which could benefit many people, and you could possibly benefit personally as well.

Thanks for reading this, and best wishes to you.

Sent by Jim Greenhaw | 4:42 PM ET | 09-06-2006

Sent by Rohart McRedmond | 5:36 PM ET | 09-18-2006