Posts by Angela Wright

Hannah Newman43 said:Can I just go get my tumor markers tested privately at any lab?

And is there a mandatory waiting period since my last test? I'm assuming this isn't harmful like getting a scintigraphy or something similar?

Yeah, you can totally get those markers checked at private labs like Quest Diagnostics, and it’s not harmful at all.

Hannah Newman43 said:My mom had surgery for breast cancer five years ago. Over the last year or two, her tumor markers have started creeping up again—just by about 2 or 3 points each time. The second to last time, she was right on the edge (24, with the limit being 25), but now they've climbed even higher (27). Is it possible for these numbers to just keep rising slightly like this without it actually meaning the cancer is coming back? Thanks...

A rise in markers can indicate a recurrence, but it isn't a guarantee. That's why you need to get her in for a follow-up immediately to see what's actually going on. Think of these markers as a way to track things; the reagent is essentially detecting the concentration of malignant cells in the body. Right now, the marker suggests that something might be happening because that concentration is slowly increasing, and you need to verify that as soon as possible!

Grace Flores14 said:My mom passed away just a few days ago. It was all just horrific—the pain (which we couldn't manage properly even with the patches), the hallucinations, the rambling, her body literally wasting away until she was nothing but skin and bone. I’m not exaggerating; I don't think she weighed more than 65 or 75 pounds at the end. Even those extreme photos of anorexics you see online would have looked healthy compared to this... 😢 It’s going to be hard to forget any of it, that brutal stretch right before the end. Honestly, there's enough trauma in such a short window that I could write a book about it; I'm going to need a lot of time to process this and find some peace. Our lives have flipped 180 degrees; it’s just us three kids and our dad, who has never once washed two dirty plates in his entire life.

I feel like this should probably be moved to "that other" thread meant for stories like this...

On another note, I’d love to get involved with the Association's work, but I’m not sure if it makes sense. You mentioned needing activists rather than just "passive" supporters, and since I just turned 18 🙄, I'm not exactly an extrovert (not really 😁) and we haven't had direct negative run-ins with the healthcare system to spark a reaction. What else could I actually do? Then again, we're from New York City, so maybe that's a plus.
How do I even sign up? Do I register through www.zanovidan.hr, and what happens after that?

First off, please accept my deepest condolences. I am so incredibly sorry you’re facing a tragedy like this at 18. Losing a mother is always too soon, and no matter what stage of life you're in, a loss like this feels premature. At 18, it’s truly devastating. 😢 Hang in there. Believe me, as hard as it is now and as much harder it might get, you will survive this. You’ll come out stronger and more mature than peers who haven't walked the path you've had to walk.

Regarding working with the Association, first, join as a regular member (the dues are $17), and then come to the assembly on October 2nd. All the details should be posted on the Association's website soon.
Being only 18 and lacking experience isn't a barrier to being an activist. None of us knew anything when we started; you learn by doing. You actually have an advantage because you'll have people here to show you the ropes of civil society, unlike us pioneers who basically had to bash our heads against a brick wall to figure things out. 😁
I'm glad you're feeling motivated. I hope that, just like it did for me, this gives everything that happened a higher purpose—allowing you to honor your mother's memory by helping someone else extend their life or, at the very least, ensuring they get a dignified departure.
Hope to see you soon 🙂

restlesslynx20 said:Unfortunately, we don't actually have much preventative care here compared to how much people talk about it. If you go to a doctor when you're at a stage that isn't cancer yet—just a "simple" growth—our doctors often don't act. Instead, they just schedule follow-ups for 3, 6... months down the line, essentially waiting until the diagnosis is officially: you have cancer. They could have just removed that cancer while it was still a benign tumor. I'm speaking from experience.

Why didn't you just exercise your right to get a second opinion?

In America, we have prevention and screening programs, but the real issue is that most people simply don't show up for them because they're terrified of finding out something might be wrong.
Lung, breast, and colorectal cancers—in that order—remain the most statistically common types of cancer, and all three are preventable. In the US, roughly 24,000 people are diagnosed with cancer annually, with about 13,000 deaths. If people would just quit smoking, that number would drop by a quarter, and that’s without even touching other methods of prevention and screening.
The problem lies with individuals who focus solely on their rights while completely ignoring their responsibilities—both to their own health and to the society they live in. By the time someone develops metastatic disease, which is usually when they finally seek help because symptoms have finally surfaced, the wheels have already come off the wagon. The amount of money poured into treatments with uncertain outcomes is astronomical. On the flip side, we have children who typically suffer from rare tumors that are impossible to prevent or detect early, and whose medications are often unavailable because they aren't even registered in the US, or if they are, the costs are absolutely astronomical.

If grandparents, moms, and dads were more diligent about regular checkups and mindful of their lifestyle choices, how many more children could get access to their medicine and a fighting chance at life?

velvetmarlin17 said:My previous post was pretty cynical. Europe isn't the class act they pretend to be (just look at British history). Why on earth would you think they’re drastically better than Americans? They’re just more sophisticated about it.

Are you seriously suggesting it's possible to patent a well-known natural substance, grind through an expensive clinical trial process, and then hold an exclusive market monopoly for years just to recoup the investment? Not a chance. To get a patent, a compound has to be something entirely unknown. Because of that, hundreds of natural substances can't push through the validation process, even though we know perfectly well they work. And if they happen to be cheaper and safer, there’s no debate—they simply stay stuck without being able to be prescribed or gaining official drug status. It’s a tragedy for countless people, especially cancer patients. On top of that, the white-coat establishment looks down their noses at them. Medicine is far from an exact science; the flow of money (and massive egos) plays a heavy hand.

I already explained that things aren't that black and white, and it isn't true that a patented compound has to be completely unknown. The issue isn't really about whether you can patent something; the real nightmare is proving efficacy, building up that evidence-based foundation, and surviving every single regulatory approval board.
The difference between the US and Europe is that America is a more homogenous society compared to the European Union, which is composed of several powerful individual nations. In the EU, each country makes its own autonomous decisions regarding drugs and research funding, even though general guidelines are set at the EU level. If everyone follows a certain standard and one person doesn't, the whole group can pressure that outlier to change their mind.
Medicine is an exact science that is constantly being built and upgraded. Forty years ago, we declared war on cancer, but today our understanding has evolved to the point where we realize you can't fight cancer as a single entity; you have to fight every specific malignancy and its unique subtypes individually.
And that right there is the core issue—the fundamental misunderstanding that trips everyone up.

urbanorca said:Ivanica, what you're doing through the obesity prevention association is fantastic. And thanks for all the smart advice you give me and everyone else; I've learned a ton.

I live in the United Kingdom, I'm 70 years old, and I'm doing pretty well health-wise, though about ten years ago I dealt with some significant medical issues. Over the last decade, I've stayed in decent shape by keeping up with exercise, though just two months ago I suffered a fractured hip. Even though they suggested surgery, I decided to jump straight back into my routine: swimming, power walking, and cycling (just yesterday 6.2 miles).

I stay updated on health info via English-language newspapers and the internet, but there are some gems out there—not so much in the American papers, but more on American forums, especially when it comes to hearing about other people's actual experiences.

Thanks for the support, and I wish you many more high-quality, active years ahead.
My dad actually visited my sister in London last month, and he was blown away by how well the retirement community functions over there. Everyone seems so much more active physically, plus they travel way more and hit up shows... they’re living much more vibrant, fulfilling lives than some young people I know. It's probably just a perk of that Protestant mindset. 🙂

velvetmarlin17 said:She even went through with the PET-CT scan. That happened over in Austria—our insurance actually covered the cost for that one. The results showed widespread inflammation throughout her entire abdominal cavity, but there wasn't any specific, concentrated hot spot to point to. So, the bottom line? Absolutely nothing.

Get your mom to go get an ultrasound of her gallbladder. From what I’ve gathered hanging out with oncologists, I've heard plenty of stories where gallstones and those nagging, long-term inflammatory processes actually triggered malignant cellular changes. It's entirely possible that while the stones themselves might have dissolved, the damage they left behind has already set the stage for something much worse.

Alright, good. I can finally breathe again. I was honestly starting to get paranoid that money and power were just going to bend everything to their will.
But hold on... why is it actually impossible to prove that a drug is just some natural substance in practice?

How can you say that isn't the case?
Take Yondelis, for example. It’s incredibly effective at treating sarcomas and other rare tumors, and get this—the whole thing is actually based on lichen. The real kicker? It isn't even registered here in the States. Big Pharma simply sees zero profit in pushing a drug in a market where only a handful of people could possibly need it every year. It's just basic math for them. Compare that to something like Adriamycin, which is derived from a soil bacterium; that's widely used for treating lymphomas and certain types of sarcomas because there's actually a massive market for it.
I could just keep listing them if you want.
Look, the problem is that this isn't some simple, plug-and-play process. We aren't just making things up on a whim or chasing a quick buck here. There are actual rules in play, grounded in fundamental health principles that didn't just pop out of thin air for the sake of profit.
Look, I’ve been doing this professionally for a few years now, and honestly, it all started because of my mother's illness. Believe me, once you actually start digging into the grit of the subject matter, you realize how things really work.
In my book, the real danger isn't the big pharmaceutical companies—it's the charlatans screaming from the rooftops that they’ve discovered some "universal cure" for cancer. Biologically speaking, that's a total impossibility, but they don't care. They spin these wild conspiracies about how a wicked Big Pharma is suppressing a miracle breakthrough just because it wouldn't be profitable enough. These loudmouths are essentially predatory; they prey on human ignorance and pure desperation to line their own pockets. At least when you're dealing with the pharma industry, you know exactly who you're up against.
Running clinical trials is an absolute nightmare, but don't blame the industry for the red tape. They didn't invent these regulations; if you asked them, they’d probably try to scrap them in a heartbeat just to stop the financial bleeding. These rules were established by scientific circles and experts for a damn good reason. You have to understand that the sheer complexity and the grueling years required to prove a drug is both effective and safe drive prices up—and let’s be real, pharmaceutical companies still need to turn a profit. In the US, we actually have various funds specifically designed to support this process. These exist because of aggressive, proactive policies aimed at fighting cancer. The whole point is to provide funding for small-scale researchers so they can actually finish their clinical trials. Without that help, a brilliant discovery that works perfectly in a petri dish would never actually reach the patient who needs it. To keep everything honest, these processes are overseen by boards made up of scientists and specialists who work closely with the industry, yet they are constantly monitored to ensure there’s no conflict of interest. At the end of the day, the system is built so that someone with nothing but a lie can't just push their junk onto the market.

velvetmarlin17 said:Hmm, sounds serious. But look, the silver lining is that prevention works wonders, so I’d highly recommend diving into some solid books regarding nutrition and fighting cancer.

Beyond that, countless studies have proven that lifestyle choices—things like what you eat, how you handle stress, and even your general outlook on life—play a much larger role than people give them credit for, while genetics actually play a smaller part. For instance, the famous The China Study showed that in China (which is genetically homogeneous, with the Han population making up about 80%), folks living in rural areas have roughly four times less chance of developing cancer compared to those in coastal urban centers. It mostly comes down to diet; one major factor is simply that they are lower-income, meaning they consume a massive amount of leafy greens, which is incredibly healthy.

Schreiber also brought up this exact study in his book "against cancer." He pointed out how men who showed high markers for prostate cancer—even without having developed the disease yet—almost always saw the illness manifest once they moved from rural areas into the city for work, purely because their lifestyle and diet shifted so drastically.

ruggedscout91 said:You can't look at everything through the lens of glioblastoma. Not every cancer occurs in a vital organ.

😁
Glioblastoma isn't just any cancer; it's a glial cell tumor. That distinction in cellular makeup matters immensely.
Since we fall into the top tier of US spending on oncological drugs, yet our mortality rates remain disproportionately high compared to others, it is blindingly obvious that the failure lies elsewhere—specifically in our organization and infrastructure.
We are short on hospital beds, but more importantly, we are short on specialists. And frankly, we lack a population with common sense, self-awareness, and a sense of responsibility toward their own bodies (prevention response = zero points).
A cancer diagnosis or active bleeding is an emergency, yet here, people face waiting lists for radiation (UNBELIEVABLE!). Successful treatment protocols get interrupted simply because hospitals hit capacity limits, which calls the entire recovery process into question. Palliative care is non-existent, supportive care is a mess, organized psychosocial support is missing, and we lack rehabilitation, nutritionists, and basic access to adequate information. Naturally, to an uneducated layman, it looks like the treatment itself is a coma, or that radiation and chemo are what kill you.

...and this isn't just looking at it from the perspective of glioblastoma, which, as a rare tumor, comes with its own unique set of "perks" compared to more common cancers.
When you have cancer, regardless of where it's located, you're in the same boat. Your thoughts are the same, and if you live in America, you are a victim of the same systemic failures.
In practice, treating cancer shouldn't just be about cutting it out, radiating it, and pumping in chemo. That is merely one crucial chapter in a much larger, far more complex story.
Successful cancer treatment is nearly impossible without a multidisciplinary approach!
I believe I've already touched on this in a previous post.
Take this discussion thread regarding lung cancer, for example, where a woman describes her husband being treated for small cell carcinoma of the bronchi in Australia. He is receiving the exact same treatment and following the identical protocol as patients in America; the difference is that here, people die from that disease within roughly 100 days, whereas her husband beat the odds in just over a year. Why? Because everything happened on time, and beyond the standard chemo and radiation, he received all the supplemental support that is unavailable here—support that is absolutely essential in the fight against cancer.

Viewing cancer treatment solely through the prism of the American healthcare system provides a completely distorted picture of reality.

Click on my signature and educate yourself. 🙂

velvetmarlin17 said:Well, you found it. Or rather, you found her. Two years ago, my mother, who’s 65, ended up in the ER because her abdominal pain was becoming impossible to ignore. The doctors at the hospital saw something suspicious on the ultrasound, so they didn't waste any time—they just went straight in for surgery. There was no prep work, no biopsy beforehand, nothing. They pulled out this massive tumor, only to discover through testing that it wasn't even primary. They never actually found the primary source. Since the pathology report didn't suggest chemotherapy, they didn't administer any. Otherwise, I doubt they would have made things so complicated. Just get moving!
In the months following her surgery, those markers shot up—they were already hovering right at the threshold immediately after the procedure. We ran all sorts of tests, but nothing could pinpoint a primary source. That’s when she decided to get serious about her diet and started incorporating various supplements into her routine. Since making those changes, the numbers have been steadily dropping; currently, two of them are well below the limit, and only one is sitting near the borderline.

That’s it. No chemotherapy, no radiation—just a total butcher job. You want to see the marker results?

Yeah, she went down that rabbit hole of chasing alternative therapies with some "famous expert." Honestly? I think most of those people are just fundamentally immoral. You’ve got some guy over in Ljubljana selling what basically amounts to overpriced flavored water for... $1000He isn't saying a single word about what's actually in that guide. Honestly, I bet he’s staying quiet because revealing the truth would be bad for business. It would be absolutely catastrophic for his bottom line. 🙂

Look, I’ve heard stories like that hundreds of times before, but honestly, we have no idea what your mother was actually dealing with. Not all cancers are created equal; they aren't all equally aggressive, and they certainly don't follow the same timeline. There is a massive web of variables at play here. Take my uncle, for example—he was 85 when they operated on his prostate cancer. He didn't undergo radiation or chemo. If scar tissue started causing issues again, they would have just gone back in and operated. He lived to be 97, but he didn't die from cancer; he died of old age. Age is a huge factor in this equation. I believe you when you say she wasn't taking anything and that her markers are what they are, but without an actual diagnosis or a PhD's insight, we're really just guessing at what was actually happening to her.
I live with benign endometriosis, which attacks my ovaries and leads to the formation of endometriotic cysts. Because of this, my CA 125 levels have shot through the roof—even though the disease isn't malignant. In fact, I’ve actually had higher marker readings than women dealing with actual ovarian cancer. It just goes to show how incredibly shaky and unreliable that specific test can be. Honestly, it baffles me that my mom never had a PET-CT done. We have imaging technology available now that can tell you exactly what's going on with precision.

Look, I don't buy into conspiracy theories for a second. But I do believe in money and power. Anyone who doesn't is just being naive. Power is the engine that actually moves the world and pushes things forward.
Ever wonder who actually pulls the strings at the FDA? If you want to know who’s really running the show, look at their track records. They didn't spend their decades climbing the ivory towers of academia or lecturing at universities. Most of these people spent their entire careers deep within the pharmaceutical industry itself. It's a revolving door, plain and simple. 🙂

When it comes to the USA, we probably shouldn't lose too much sleep over what they're doing, but what I know for certain is that things are handled quite differently within the European Union—or at least, there's a massive push to make them that way, especially when you're looking at the approach to malignant diseases. EMEA The leadership within this European organization consists entirely of scientists and doctors who are right at the epicenter of the issue—not to mention the rest of it. ESMU It’s pretty clear that certain players hold massive sway when it comes to shaping how European policy deals with cancer patients.

urbanorca said:I’ve read that article a few times now, and I don't think the doctor is being misinterpreted here. He’s suggesting medication alongside exercise; he isn't saying you should ditch the meds entirely.

If that's the case, I don't see why you think he's questioning his own expertise. Everything checks out.

I am so sorry about your mother. Regarding glioblastoma (brain cancer) treatment, LDN (low dose Naltrexone) can actually be quite effective, but it’s not widely recognized because there’s simply no money to be made from it.

http://www.ldners.org/

I have to admit, I haven't stumbled upon LDN yet, but I did put in the work to dig through PubMed—which is where they host all the relevant, verified studies that aren't just total garbage. From what I managed to find, there is nothing specifically regarding glioblastoma. It mentions its use for prevention and improving quality of life, and in the context of cancer, it’s mentioned as something that helps protect against inflammatory processes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

By the way, the whole research process for new drugs targeting rare tumors—which includes glioblastoma (defined as rare diseases occurring in fewer than 5 per 10,000 people)—is incredibly niche. To meet the standards for evidence-based conclusions required for a legitimate clinical trial on a new substance for a rare tumor, it is notoriously difficult to gather a large enough pool of patients in one single location. Because of this, Big Pharma is often hesitant to commit to such research. However, we have seen some progress over the last decade because the European Union introduced regulations providing specific incentives to pharmaceutical companies that develop and successfully prove the efficacy of a drug for a rare tumor, eventually gaining approval from the scientific bodies responsible for evaluation. Furthermore, there are current initiatives aimed at loosening the research rules for these types of indications, including requirements that any new substance tested for common tumors must also be tested against a rare tumor. Usually, it's a small biotech firm that discovers a substance for a rare tumor, but they lack the massive funding and infrastructure needed to run full clinical trials and register the drug across all American states; even if they do manage to get it registered, it usually only hits one major market.

urbanorca said:Angela Wright, great answer, thanks.

The only thing I can't wrap my head around is why a top-tier oncologist in the United Kingdom would claim that exercise has the same effect—actually, an even more positive one—on cancer than chemotherapy.

He’s putting his entire reputation on the line here!

We all know the baggage that comes with chemo, so maybe it’s worth looking at other options, especially if they don't come with side effects and don't cost a dime.

Doctors, whether here in the States or almost anywhere else globally, tend to push whatever generates the most profit. Take statins, for example; in the US, hundreds of millions are spent on them, yet for about 90% of people, they do more harm than good.

I suspect his statement was taken completely out of context. Anything positive that surrounds someone facing a fundamentally brutal situation like a cancer diagnosis can have a massive impact on how the body fights back.
It’s rare to see anyone who stayed trapped in a negative mindset actually beat cancer. Most survivors I've seen were positive, had a solid support system, and refused to let the illness dictate their lives; instead, they took control of the disease by focusing on things that genuinely enriched their quality of life. In that sense, physical activity is definitely one of those critical factors just as vital as taking medication, but one should never be used as a replacement for the other. This is incredibly slippery territory, which is why I think the quote was misinterpreted or ripped from its original meaning.

When it comes to cancer in America, the real issue is the lack of education and the sheer irresponsibility of a population that continues to fall victim to types of cancer that could be prevented or caught early enough to avoid chemo altogether. These specific types are the most common, and they're also where the hated pharmaceutical industry makes its biggest margins. Unfortunately, we live in a society where everyone is quick to wave their rights in the air but forgets to shoulder their responsibilities. If that dynamic changed, this whole conversation would take on a completely different dimension.

ruggedscout91 said:Chemotherapy exists solely to line the pockets of Big Pharma; its only real function is to crush cancer into a temporary dormancy while simultaneously nuking every other vital cell in the body.
Once you pause treatment and the chemo wears off, the cancer comes back even more aggressive, having used up all the host's resources to fortify itself. Because it’s essentially invisible, the host's immune system just treats it like normal tissue.

The day the pharmaceutical industry starts losing more money than they make from cancer is the day they’ll suddenly announce a totally free cure.
Personally, I know more people who died from the side effects of therapy—with their organs completely trashed and poisoned—than I do from cancer itself. People rarely die from the disease; they’re killed by the white coats and their toxic drugs.

ruggedscout91, before I really dug into the specifics, I felt almost exactly the same way you do.
But look, life isn't as black-and-white as you're painting it. I had a mother who tried treating her cancer exclusively through alternative methods, and predictably, it came back. Eventually, she switched to conventional medicine, and that was the only thing that actually moved the needle. She passed away in the end, but not because chemo failed her—it was because she had glioblastoma, a disease that is basically a death sentence from day one. Chemo and radiation gave us more quality time with her; alternative routes gave us nothing.
I'm not being closed-minded; even today, I am still searching for someone who cured themselves of cancer using *only* alternative means, provided they can show me the clinical evidence before and after treatment. On the flip side, everyone I know who actually beat it was treated with conventional medicine.
The real issue lies in expectations and how we perceive malignant diseases. They are complex, aggressive beasts, and there is no "magic bullet" solution in this fight.
And honestly, the pharma industry isn't quite the monolithic superpower people make it out to be. They are hamstrung by massive regulatory hurdles they have to jump through just to develop a single drug and prove it's both effective and safe. There are multiple, independent layers of oversight deciding whether a drug hits the market. In fact, those very regulations are why so many drugs remain unavailable for certain uses, even when scientific evidence shows they actually work...
....but all of this only becomes obvious once you actually dive deep into the actual science.

urbanorca said:If we're all different biological entities, why do doctors prescribe almost identical chemotherapy regimens that come with such brutal side effects? Can anyone explain this?

It’s because current research shows those standard therapies still yield the best results overall. Cancer treatment is strictly governed by evidence-based protocols right now. That said, there's groundbreaking work happening at universities like Stanford—including research involving Dr. Šikić—that focuses specifically on tailoring treatments to the individual. From what I gathered from his lecture at the Mayo Clinic, the results look incredibly promising, even for some of the rarer tumor types.

We all want to be perfectly healthy and completely cured once we fall ill. But the reality is that modern medicine can currently only offer life extension for those who have been diagnosed. Depending on the diagnosis, once a certain period passes and the cancer is in remission, a person might be considered "cured," though that doesn't necessarily guarantee the disease won't return. It's a hard fact people just have to learn to live with. However, most survivors who successfully navigate treatment end up with a totally rebuilt mental framework; through those new insights, they often go on to live much fuller, higher-quality lives.

Angela Brown80 said:Hi everyone!
A year ago, I was diagnosed with papillary thyroid cancer. Since then, I’ve gone through surgery, radioactive ablation, and constant follow-ups. Now, my next round of radioactive iodine treatment is creeping up on me, and to put it mildly, I am absolutely terrified.
I haven't even been able to speak much for days now. My husband keeps asking what's wrong, but I just can't bring myself to talk about it. I'm paralyzed by the fear that the disease might have spread or that the treatment won't work. And I'm only 26. I know it sounds selfish—there are sick children out there, people facing much worse than this... but I am just SO AFRAID!!!!!!😢😢

They say if you're destined to deal with cancer, thyroid cancer is the best-case scenario. It’s highly treatable and rarely spreads aggressively elsewhere in the body.
Once you're staring down a cancer diagnosis, you really have to accept the reality that a recurrence is a possibility; you have to learn how to shoulder that fear. You have to learn to live day by day and truly embrace every single moment, right here and now. You deal with things as they manifest on your path, if they ever do. That’s the golden rule of life, and honestly, everyone should live by it—whether you're healthy or fighting an illness.

Susan Harris89 said:Haha, thanks 🙂 I was already bracing myself for everyone to spit on me because of how I present things 🙂 But hey, what can you do? This is just who I am, and honestly, I’ve been thinking about starting an Association myself... I just haven't figured out the where, the how, or the why yet. I'm actually terrified I might end up doing more harm than good, hahaha. Whatever, let them come at me. My big ambition now is to become the Secretary of Health or a hospital director 🙂 I heard there's a postgraduate program for that in San Francisco, so I could enroll and then go commit career suicide over at Beverly Hills. If I tried to implement an old-school imperial management model there, they wouldn't know what hit them 🙂 I'm seriously considering it, I just haven't made up my mind on the specifics 🙂

An Association would be a perfect fit for you. You'll learn the art of diplomacy—how to wrap that rebellious streak of yours in fancy packaging to get exactly what you want. And of course, you'll learn when it's necessary to play dirty, which is why we need people like you.
www.zanovidan.com Check it out to see what's going on. There's an archive of news, basically a crystal ball.
We desperately need activists! Everyone is happy to volunteer or sell some badges... sure, that's all well and good, but three little sheep aren't going to survive among a pack of wolves up there.

stormyheron4 said:Seriously? Using Lance Armstrong as an example? That guy was using everything under the sun, so I wouldn't be surprised if cancer caught up with him.

What makes you think he was "using" anything? As far as I know, there isn't any proof—or even a scandal of that magnitude—to back that claim up.
We all push our bodies to the limit, and pinpointing exact triggers is nearly impossible. The bottom line is this: the man competed at the highest level of professional sports, beat cancer, and fought his way right back to the top.

urbanorca said:Prof. Dr. Robert Thomas, a leading oncologist in the United Kingdom, points out there is substantial evidence (and plenty of research) suggesting that patients who stay active have a much higher chance of preventing cancer recurrence and feeling significantly better compared to those relying solely on chemotherapy.

Dr. Thomas even goes as far as to claim that exercising for more than two hours a week can have an impact on the disease comparable to undergoing chemotherapy—which would imply, in principle, that chemo might not even be necessary (not to mention its brutal side effects).

It’s almost unbelievable!!!

What does everyone else think?

Read more on my blog:

http://zdravljeinfo.blogspot.com/

If that were actually true, someone like Lance Armstrong would have never even gotten sick. Look, while physical activity is definitely desirable whenever your body allows it—and always in coordination with your doctor—I'm still using Armstrong as an example here. 👍 Unfortunately, it isn't a silver bullet; after all, Terry Fox ran half of Canada, yet the disease ultimately won.

Susan Harris89, I like your style😍...you want to join our Association and become one of our "ninjas"?😉 You’ve got exactly the kind of energy we’re missing. We’re going to go head-to-head, just to see who’s got the sharper wit and the better memory 👍

amberheron11 said:I didn't want to say anything until I had read at least ten pages of this, and now I feel ashamed for even deciding to share my story.

My grandfather has pancreatic cancer; it's spread to his liver and is slowly moving toward his lungs. Chemotherapy did nothing, and surgery was used to do everything possible, but the prognosis was originally six months—though every day it becomes clearer he won't last longer than a month.

In a way, part of me is relieved, just so he can get it over with quickly and not suffer.
I haven't come to terms with it yet; I’m one of those people where this stuff hits you much later, once everyone else has already finished grieving.
And during this period, nobody understands why I don't cry, why I seem so cold, or why I'm not mourning alongside them (my extended family),
instead, I'm just flying around the house. With everyone, but with no one.

My grandmother passed away two years ago from colon cancer; metastases everywhere, and she died just 17 days after the diagnosis.
She didn't want to burden us with her problems, but she had been showing symptoms for years, which we only found out about after the fact.
She didn't know what was happening to her until the very end. The doctors and the family agreed there was no point in telling her anything, because it would only make her sink faster; she couldn't have handled it, not for herself, but for our sake.

My other grandfather died six months after her. He’d been on dialysis for years, complications arose, cancer stepped in, and that was the end.

Back in 2004, my mom had breast cancer surgery—one breast removed, followed by chemo.
As a precaution, they removed her uterus and both ovaries two years later (she didn't want kids anymore—she was 44 then—so they suggested removal since the main issue was excess estrogen leading to the breast cancer).
Thank God, all her tests have been clear ever since.

My great-grandmother also died of cancer (uterine cancer).

Sometimes I feel like it's just a matter of time before one of these things hits me,
and as for preventative screenings... I don't know, I don't know if it's too early. I'm 20, and my parents are only thinking about this now,
trying to explain how it works to me while my grandfather is sick, because I honestly don't know where to start.
Now, I'm even feeling guilty because it feels like "I'm only thinking about myself."

Dear namesake,
when it comes to malignant diseases, your genetics are definitely not playing on your side. However, all of this can be kept under control by maintaining a healthy lifestyle and ditching the bad habits your family members had. It’s been shown, for instance, in studies of adopted children, that they mostly develop the same illnesses as their adoptive parents rather than their biological ones. In other words, an acquired lifestyle can dictate the development of the same disease.
Live healthy and go for regular preventative breast exams and gynecological checkups, and once you hit 40, make sure you get your first colonoscopy.