Hi, this article didn't mention Oral cancer at all, but it was very interesting.
It talked about breast/ leukemia and testicular and brain cancer.
It discusses how all cells in a tumor are not created equal. Most cancer cells are not capable of seeding new tumors, and today's therapies are missing the point. Radiation and Chemo kill the rapidly dividing cells that make up the bulk of a tumor but don't target the rare and perhaps slower growing cells that serve as its secret wellspring or source. Some cancers experts say can be totally eliminated only if treatment also eliminates the cancerous stem cells.
It was saying this is why some cancers go away forever and some come back, if it is a cancer started by the stemcell of that area.
One example given at the end of the article said,
"The patient had large abdominal tumors, which shrank after chemotherapy but didn't go away completely. Post treatment biopsies however showed that the rare, embryonic looking cells had disapeared, and the cancer hasn't grown back. This patient was cured and Clarke (the dr) believes it was by eliminating the cancer's source."
Has anyone read this article?
I have read things like this before with breast cancer, doctors treat 90% of cancer patients the same but only a handful of them need such radical treatment. They are trying to find out why some tumors mutate and others don't. They could spare many women radical surgery.

I just thought this was a good read. It is wonderful that some researchers are looking beyond what is the norm.
Sherrie

I've often wondered about that sort of thing actuall. For example, some people wind up with cancer for no particular reason. Didn't smoke, didn't drink, but yet....

Others, like myself, have a definite cause. In my case, pipes and cigars mostly, cancer started on a spot on my tongue where the smoke would most likely hit.

So, is there a difference in these types? Does one have a more successful cure rate than the other? Should one type be treated differently than another? Seems that when all is said and done, it's a "cookie cutter" approach with minor philosophical differences between institutuions. But should it be?

Bob

There is a Dr. Clark listed in Quackwatch.
http://www.quackwatch.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=Dr.+Clark
This will give you more information. he is under FTC indictment.

There are many charlatans, snake oil salesmen and quacks out there - beware!

He's not the same guy - oops!