<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_21_1433249</id>
	<title>Mayo Clinic Reports Dramatic Outcomes In Prostate Cancer Treatment</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245597840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Zorglub writes <i>"Two prostate cancer patients who had been told their condition was inoperable are now <a href="http://discoverysedge.mayo.edu/de09-2-kwonblute/">cancer-free as the result of an experimental therapy</a>, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester announced Friday. 'Cancer has a propensity for turning off T cells. Dr. Allison hypothesized that if you block the off-switch, T cells will stay turned on and create a prolonged immune response. Dr. Kwon, then at NIH, demonstrated that CTLA-4 blockage could be used to treat aggressive forms of prostate cancer in mice. There was one limitation to that concept &mdash; the worry that by simply leaving all the T cells on there may not be enough response aimed at the tumor. Dr. Kwon called Dr. Allison and designed the trial together. The idea: use androgen ablation or hormone therapy to ignite an immune approach &mdash; a pilot light &mdash; and then, after a short interval of hormone therapy, introduce an anti-CTLA-4 antibody that acts like gasoline to this pilot light and overwhelms the cancer cells.' After the treatment, the patients' tumors shrunk to such a degree that they could be successfully removed."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zorglub writes " Two prostate cancer patients who had been told their condition was inoperable are now cancer-free as the result of an experimental therapy , the Mayo Clinic in Rochester announced Friday .
'Cancer has a propensity for turning off T cells .
Dr. Allison hypothesized that if you block the off-switch , T cells will stay turned on and create a prolonged immune response .
Dr. Kwon , then at NIH , demonstrated that CTLA-4 blockage could be used to treat aggressive forms of prostate cancer in mice .
There was one limitation to that concept    the worry that by simply leaving all the T cells on there may not be enough response aimed at the tumor .
Dr. Kwon called Dr. Allison and designed the trial together .
The idea : use androgen ablation or hormone therapy to ignite an immune approach    a pilot light    and then , after a short interval of hormone therapy , introduce an anti-CTLA-4 antibody that acts like gasoline to this pilot light and overwhelms the cancer cells .
' After the treatment , the patients ' tumors shrunk to such a degree that they could be successfully removed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zorglub writes "Two prostate cancer patients who had been told their condition was inoperable are now cancer-free as the result of an experimental therapy, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester announced Friday.
'Cancer has a propensity for turning off T cells.
Dr. Allison hypothesized that if you block the off-switch, T cells will stay turned on and create a prolonged immune response.
Dr. Kwon, then at NIH, demonstrated that CTLA-4 blockage could be used to treat aggressive forms of prostate cancer in mice.
There was one limitation to that concept — the worry that by simply leaving all the T cells on there may not be enough response aimed at the tumor.
Dr. Kwon called Dr. Allison and designed the trial together.
The idea: use androgen ablation or hormone therapy to ignite an immune approach — a pilot light — and then, after a short interval of hormone therapy, introduce an anti-CTLA-4 antibody that acts like gasoline to this pilot light and overwhelms the cancer cells.
' After the treatment, the patients' tumors shrunk to such a degree that they could be successfully removed.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28412905</id>
	<title>Re:Under the health care plan</title>
	<author>SydShamino</author>
	<datestamp>1245616740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The nation can't afford to fund every experimental or crazy expensive treatment for everyone - we'd go broke.  It's a noble goal but just not possible.</p><p>Instead, I see this as an opportunity for private insurance to thrive.  I welcome government insurance as it will allow me to disconnect my health care from my employer.  But I see an opportunity for a private company to offer supplemental insurance.  With no preexisting conditions and, say, $20 a month, you could be covered up to $500,000 for experimental surgeries, out-of-country treatment, or other options for things not covered by your government plan.  It lets the rich folks spend their extra money on something.</p><p>And the government can continue to fund research studies, like they probably did this one, so that those too poor or without supplemental insurance have a chance to participate.  It's a win-win situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The nation ca n't afford to fund every experimental or crazy expensive treatment for everyone - we 'd go broke .
It 's a noble goal but just not possible.Instead , I see this as an opportunity for private insurance to thrive .
I welcome government insurance as it will allow me to disconnect my health care from my employer .
But I see an opportunity for a private company to offer supplemental insurance .
With no preexisting conditions and , say , $ 20 a month , you could be covered up to $ 500,000 for experimental surgeries , out-of-country treatment , or other options for things not covered by your government plan .
It lets the rich folks spend their extra money on something.And the government can continue to fund research studies , like they probably did this one , so that those too poor or without supplemental insurance have a chance to participate .
It 's a win-win situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The nation can't afford to fund every experimental or crazy expensive treatment for everyone - we'd go broke.
It's a noble goal but just not possible.Instead, I see this as an opportunity for private insurance to thrive.
I welcome government insurance as it will allow me to disconnect my health care from my employer.
But I see an opportunity for a private company to offer supplemental insurance.
With no preexisting conditions and, say, $20 a month, you could be covered up to $500,000 for experimental surgeries, out-of-country treatment, or other options for things not covered by your government plan.
It lets the rich folks spend their extra money on something.And the government can continue to fund research studies, like they probably did this one, so that those too poor or without supplemental insurance have a chance to participate.
It's a win-win situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411179</id>
	<title>Mayo Clinic is falling behind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245603240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Miracle Whip Clinic announced a similar breakthrough last year and they did it with much more tang.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Miracle Whip Clinic announced a similar breakthrough last year and they did it with much more tang .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Miracle Whip Clinic announced a similar breakthrough last year and they did it with much more tang.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28415661</id>
	<title>Re:Under the health care plan</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1245597780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>The nation can't afford to fund every experimental or crazy expensive treatment for everyone - we'd go broke. It's a noble goal but just not possible.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p> Your right but when the disease is too far gone and the medically accepted treatment is death, then what makes the difference if the person doesn't get the treatment because he can't afford the insurance or because the government can't afford the treatment? I mean isn't that what the entire problem is in the first place, people not getting treatments because it costs too much for the treatment and the insurance denies it or because the insurance costs too much and the person cannot afford it?</p><p>Sounds to me like this is nothing but a lateral move and the only difference is going to be the government being involved. Why the fuck do we need that when it won't change anything?</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>Instead, I see this as an opportunity for private insurance to thrive. I welcome government insurance as it will allow me to disconnect my health care from my employer. But I see an opportunity for a private company to offer supplemental insurance. With no preexisting conditions and, say, $20 a month, you could be covered up to $500,000 for experimental surgeries, out-of-country treatment, or other options for things not covered by your government plan. It lets the rich folks spend their extra money on something.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p> What world are you living in? Do you think if that was possible for $20 it wouldn't be an option right now? I'm seriously doubting you have thought that through much.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>And the government can continue to fund research studies, like they probably did this one, so that those too poor or without supplemental insurance have a chance to participate. It's a win-win situation.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Wow. Are you saying that right now, the poor and people without insurance get treatment through government studies? Then why do we need government health care if they are already getting the treatment? I don't know, you have just completely confused me. You have went against the entire grain of why people think we need the government health care, talked about a $20 coverage option as if it would magically be possible after government health care when it isn't being offered right now, and then claimed that the poor and under insured would participate in government studies like they already do now.</p><p>It seems like too much smoke and mirrors for me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The nation ca n't afford to fund every experimental or crazy expensive treatment for everyone - we 'd go broke .
It 's a noble goal but just not possible .
Your right but when the disease is too far gone and the medically accepted treatment is death , then what makes the difference if the person does n't get the treatment because he ca n't afford the insurance or because the government ca n't afford the treatment ?
I mean is n't that what the entire problem is in the first place , people not getting treatments because it costs too much for the treatment and the insurance denies it or because the insurance costs too much and the person can not afford it ? Sounds to me like this is nothing but a lateral move and the only difference is going to be the government being involved .
Why the fuck do we need that when it wo n't change anything ?
Instead , I see this as an opportunity for private insurance to thrive .
I welcome government insurance as it will allow me to disconnect my health care from my employer .
But I see an opportunity for a private company to offer supplemental insurance .
With no preexisting conditions and , say , $ 20 a month , you could be covered up to $ 500,000 for experimental surgeries , out-of-country treatment , or other options for things not covered by your government plan .
It lets the rich folks spend their extra money on something .
What world are you living in ?
Do you think if that was possible for $ 20 it would n't be an option right now ?
I 'm seriously doubting you have thought that through much .
And the government can continue to fund research studies , like they probably did this one , so that those too poor or without supplemental insurance have a chance to participate .
It 's a win-win situation .
Wow. Are you saying that right now , the poor and people without insurance get treatment through government studies ?
Then why do we need government health care if they are already getting the treatment ?
I do n't know , you have just completely confused me .
You have went against the entire grain of why people think we need the government health care , talked about a $ 20 coverage option as if it would magically be possible after government health care when it is n't being offered right now , and then claimed that the poor and under insured would participate in government studies like they already do now.It seems like too much smoke and mirrors for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The nation can't afford to fund every experimental or crazy expensive treatment for everyone - we'd go broke.
It's a noble goal but just not possible.
Your right but when the disease is too far gone and the medically accepted treatment is death, then what makes the difference if the person doesn't get the treatment because he can't afford the insurance or because the government can't afford the treatment?
I mean isn't that what the entire problem is in the first place, people not getting treatments because it costs too much for the treatment and the insurance denies it or because the insurance costs too much and the person cannot afford it?Sounds to me like this is nothing but a lateral move and the only difference is going to be the government being involved.
Why the fuck do we need that when it won't change anything?
Instead, I see this as an opportunity for private insurance to thrive.
I welcome government insurance as it will allow me to disconnect my health care from my employer.
But I see an opportunity for a private company to offer supplemental insurance.
With no preexisting conditions and, say, $20 a month, you could be covered up to $500,000 for experimental surgeries, out-of-country treatment, or other options for things not covered by your government plan.
It lets the rich folks spend their extra money on something.
What world are you living in?
Do you think if that was possible for $20 it wouldn't be an option right now?
I'm seriously doubting you have thought that through much.
And the government can continue to fund research studies, like they probably did this one, so that those too poor or without supplemental insurance have a chance to participate.
It's a win-win situation.
Wow. Are you saying that right now, the poor and people without insurance get treatment through government studies?
Then why do we need government health care if they are already getting the treatment?
I don't know, you have just completely confused me.
You have went against the entire grain of why people think we need the government health care, talked about a $20 coverage option as if it would magically be possible after government health care when it isn't being offered right now, and then claimed that the poor and under insured would participate in government studies like they already do now.It seems like too much smoke and mirrors for me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28412905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28436173</id>
	<title>Prostate cancer</title>
	<author>UroMed</author>
	<datestamp>1245750180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.uromed.gr/" title="uromed.gr" rel="nofollow">http://www.uromed.gr/</a> [uromed.gr]



Prostate cancer is the leading cancer diagnosis and the second most common cause of cancer-related death in men in the United States. Worldwide, prostate cancer is the fourth most common cancer in men, with incidence and mortality rates that vary markedly among and within different countries. Since the early 1990s, new screening tests and improved treatments have been associated with dramatic shifts in the incidence, stage at diagnosis, and mortality of this disease. Major advances in molecular biology and epidemiology have provided new insights into the etiology and biology of prostate cancer. These developments promise to transform our understanding of this disease and will likely lead to new and better ways to prevent and treat prostate cancer in the foreseeable future.
Worldwide
Prostate cancer is the fourth most common male malignancy worldwide. Incidence and mortality rates vary tremendously among countries, similar to the variations seen among distinct ethnic groups in the United States. Incidence and mortality rates are generally higher in Western countries than in developing countries. Scandinavian countries have a particularly high rate of prostate cancer diagnosis and death compared with southern European countries. Prostate cancer mortality, for example, is twice as high in Norway as in Spain (24 per 100,000 compared with 13 per 100,000) (Landis et al, 1998; 1999). Asian countries, notably Japan and China, have some of the lowest prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates in the world. Prostate cancer mortality in Japan between 1992 and 1995 was 4 per 100,000 (Landis et al, 1998; 1999).
There are multiple complex causes for the worldwide and ethnic variations in prostate cancer incidence. The two major factors are genetics and environment. Epidemiologic studies show that men of African heritage have a high incidence of prostate cancer across the Americas. The prostate cancer incidence in Jamaica, for example, is estimated at 305 per 100,000 (Glover et al, 1998a; 1998b). Although it is possible that this increased incidence can be attributed to shared environmental risks across nations, it is more likely that Africans have a genetic predisposition to developing clinical prostate cancer. This hypothesis is also supported by a report showing that prostate cancer incidence in Nigerian men is similar to that seen in African American men (Osegbe, 1997). The putative genetic causes for this increased susceptibility to prostate cancer are described later in this chapter.
Environment also plays an important role in modulating prostate cancer risk around the world. Japanese and Chinese men in the United States have a higher risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer than do their relatives in Japan and China (Muir et al, 1991; Shimizu et al, 1991). Likewise, prostate cancer incidence and mortality have increased in Japan as the country has become more Westernized (Landis et al, 1998). It is important to note, however, that Asian-American men have a lower prostate cancer incidence than white or African-American men, indicating that genetics still plays an important role in determining prostate cancer predisposition.
As in the United States, prostate cancer incidence has increased in many countries since the early 1990s. Although much of this increase, as discussed later, can be correlated with the introduction of widespread PSA testing, some of the increase predates prostate cancer screening. In the southeastern Netherlands, prostate cancer incidence increased from 36 per 100,000 in 1971 to 55 per 100,000 in 1989 (Post et al, 1998; 1999). After PSA was introduced in 1990, incidence increased further to 80 per 100,000. Similar increases were reported in Denmark despite the absence of extensive prostate cancer screening. Incidence increased from 11.5 per 100,000 in 1943 to 30.9 per 100,000 (Brasso et al, 1998; Brasso &amp; Iverson, 1999). These findings suggest that some of the worldwide increase in prostate cancer incidence reflects a true increase in the number of patients with clinical prostate cancer, rather than a simple result of increased detection.


<a href="http://www.uromed.gr/" title="uromed.gr" rel="nofollow">http://www.uromed.gr/</a> [uromed.gr]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.uromed.gr/ [ uromed.gr ] Prostate cancer is the leading cancer diagnosis and the second most common cause of cancer-related death in men in the United States .
Worldwide , prostate cancer is the fourth most common cancer in men , with incidence and mortality rates that vary markedly among and within different countries .
Since the early 1990s , new screening tests and improved treatments have been associated with dramatic shifts in the incidence , stage at diagnosis , and mortality of this disease .
Major advances in molecular biology and epidemiology have provided new insights into the etiology and biology of prostate cancer .
These developments promise to transform our understanding of this disease and will likely lead to new and better ways to prevent and treat prostate cancer in the foreseeable future .
Worldwide Prostate cancer is the fourth most common male malignancy worldwide .
Incidence and mortality rates vary tremendously among countries , similar to the variations seen among distinct ethnic groups in the United States .
Incidence and mortality rates are generally higher in Western countries than in developing countries .
Scandinavian countries have a particularly high rate of prostate cancer diagnosis and death compared with southern European countries .
Prostate cancer mortality , for example , is twice as high in Norway as in Spain ( 24 per 100,000 compared with 13 per 100,000 ) ( Landis et al , 1998 ; 1999 ) .
Asian countries , notably Japan and China , have some of the lowest prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates in the world .
Prostate cancer mortality in Japan between 1992 and 1995 was 4 per 100,000 ( Landis et al , 1998 ; 1999 ) .
There are multiple complex causes for the worldwide and ethnic variations in prostate cancer incidence .
The two major factors are genetics and environment .
Epidemiologic studies show that men of African heritage have a high incidence of prostate cancer across the Americas .
The prostate cancer incidence in Jamaica , for example , is estimated at 305 per 100,000 ( Glover et al , 1998a ; 1998b ) .
Although it is possible that this increased incidence can be attributed to shared environmental risks across nations , it is more likely that Africans have a genetic predisposition to developing clinical prostate cancer .
This hypothesis is also supported by a report showing that prostate cancer incidence in Nigerian men is similar to that seen in African American men ( Osegbe , 1997 ) .
The putative genetic causes for this increased susceptibility to prostate cancer are described later in this chapter .
Environment also plays an important role in modulating prostate cancer risk around the world .
Japanese and Chinese men in the United States have a higher risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer than do their relatives in Japan and China ( Muir et al , 1991 ; Shimizu et al , 1991 ) .
Likewise , prostate cancer incidence and mortality have increased in Japan as the country has become more Westernized ( Landis et al , 1998 ) .
It is important to note , however , that Asian-American men have a lower prostate cancer incidence than white or African-American men , indicating that genetics still plays an important role in determining prostate cancer predisposition .
As in the United States , prostate cancer incidence has increased in many countries since the early 1990s .
Although much of this increase , as discussed later , can be correlated with the introduction of widespread PSA testing , some of the increase predates prostate cancer screening .
In the southeastern Netherlands , prostate cancer incidence increased from 36 per 100,000 in 1971 to 55 per 100,000 in 1989 ( Post et al , 1998 ; 1999 ) .
After PSA was introduced in 1990 , incidence increased further to 80 per 100,000 .
Similar increases were reported in Denmark despite the absence of extensive prostate cancer screening .
Incidence increased from 11.5 per 100,000 in 1943 to 30.9 per 100,000 ( Brasso et al , 1998 ; Brasso &amp; Iverson , 1999 ) .
These findings suggest that some of the worldwide increase in prostate cancer incidence reflects a true increase in the number of patients with clinical prostate cancer , rather than a simple result of increased detection .
http : //www.uromed.gr/ [ uromed.gr ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.uromed.gr/ [uromed.gr]



Prostate cancer is the leading cancer diagnosis and the second most common cause of cancer-related death in men in the United States.
Worldwide, prostate cancer is the fourth most common cancer in men, with incidence and mortality rates that vary markedly among and within different countries.
Since the early 1990s, new screening tests and improved treatments have been associated with dramatic shifts in the incidence, stage at diagnosis, and mortality of this disease.
Major advances in molecular biology and epidemiology have provided new insights into the etiology and biology of prostate cancer.
These developments promise to transform our understanding of this disease and will likely lead to new and better ways to prevent and treat prostate cancer in the foreseeable future.
Worldwide
Prostate cancer is the fourth most common male malignancy worldwide.
Incidence and mortality rates vary tremendously among countries, similar to the variations seen among distinct ethnic groups in the United States.
Incidence and mortality rates are generally higher in Western countries than in developing countries.
Scandinavian countries have a particularly high rate of prostate cancer diagnosis and death compared with southern European countries.
Prostate cancer mortality, for example, is twice as high in Norway as in Spain (24 per 100,000 compared with 13 per 100,000) (Landis et al, 1998; 1999).
Asian countries, notably Japan and China, have some of the lowest prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates in the world.
Prostate cancer mortality in Japan between 1992 and 1995 was 4 per 100,000 (Landis et al, 1998; 1999).
There are multiple complex causes for the worldwide and ethnic variations in prostate cancer incidence.
The two major factors are genetics and environment.
Epidemiologic studies show that men of African heritage have a high incidence of prostate cancer across the Americas.
The prostate cancer incidence in Jamaica, for example, is estimated at 305 per 100,000 (Glover et al, 1998a; 1998b).
Although it is possible that this increased incidence can be attributed to shared environmental risks across nations, it is more likely that Africans have a genetic predisposition to developing clinical prostate cancer.
This hypothesis is also supported by a report showing that prostate cancer incidence in Nigerian men is similar to that seen in African American men (Osegbe, 1997).
The putative genetic causes for this increased susceptibility to prostate cancer are described later in this chapter.
Environment also plays an important role in modulating prostate cancer risk around the world.
Japanese and Chinese men in the United States have a higher risk of developing and dying from prostate cancer than do their relatives in Japan and China (Muir et al, 1991; Shimizu et al, 1991).
Likewise, prostate cancer incidence and mortality have increased in Japan as the country has become more Westernized (Landis et al, 1998).
It is important to note, however, that Asian-American men have a lower prostate cancer incidence than white or African-American men, indicating that genetics still plays an important role in determining prostate cancer predisposition.
As in the United States, prostate cancer incidence has increased in many countries since the early 1990s.
Although much of this increase, as discussed later, can be correlated with the introduction of widespread PSA testing, some of the increase predates prostate cancer screening.
In the southeastern Netherlands, prostate cancer incidence increased from 36 per 100,000 in 1971 to 55 per 100,000 in 1989 (Post et al, 1998; 1999).
After PSA was introduced in 1990, incidence increased further to 80 per 100,000.
Similar increases were reported in Denmark despite the absence of extensive prostate cancer screening.
Incidence increased from 11.5 per 100,000 in 1943 to 30.9 per 100,000 (Brasso et al, 1998; Brasso &amp; Iverson, 1999).
These findings suggest that some of the worldwide increase in prostate cancer incidence reflects a true increase in the number of patients with clinical prostate cancer, rather than a simple result of increased detection.
http://www.uromed.gr/ [uromed.gr]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411527</id>
	<title>Re:Smoke up America!</title>
	<author>Grym</author>
	<datestamp>1245606780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Look, the study also says that this has applications against lung cancer as well. This is good, because, even if you quit smoking, you don't actually reduce your chances of getting lung cancer.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's not true.

</p><p>While it is true that previous smokers will always have (if only slightly) a higher lung cancer risk than non-smokers, the relationship is dose-dependent based upon the additive amount of tobacco exposure over time. So, those who quit smoking (particularly those who quit smoking earlier), are less likely to get lung cancer.  In fact, <a href="http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/328/7455/1519" title="bmj.com">one major study</a> [bmj.com] found that those who quit smoking before the age of 30 had a lung cancer risk close to the non-smoker group.   Those who quit smoking before the age of 50 had about half the risk of those who didn't.

</p><p>-Grym</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , the study also says that this has applications against lung cancer as well .
This is good , because , even if you quit smoking , you do n't actually reduce your chances of getting lung cancer.That 's not true .
While it is true that previous smokers will always have ( if only slightly ) a higher lung cancer risk than non-smokers , the relationship is dose-dependent based upon the additive amount of tobacco exposure over time .
So , those who quit smoking ( particularly those who quit smoking earlier ) , are less likely to get lung cancer .
In fact , one major study [ bmj.com ] found that those who quit smoking before the age of 30 had a lung cancer risk close to the non-smoker group .
Those who quit smoking before the age of 50 had about half the risk of those who did n't .
-Grym</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, the study also says that this has applications against lung cancer as well.
This is good, because, even if you quit smoking, you don't actually reduce your chances of getting lung cancer.That's not true.
While it is true that previous smokers will always have (if only slightly) a higher lung cancer risk than non-smokers, the relationship is dose-dependent based upon the additive amount of tobacco exposure over time.
So, those who quit smoking (particularly those who quit smoking earlier), are less likely to get lung cancer.
In fact, one major study [bmj.com] found that those who quit smoking before the age of 30 had a lung cancer risk close to the non-smoker group.
Those who quit smoking before the age of 50 had about half the risk of those who didn't.
-Grym
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411551</id>
	<title>Re:Smoke up America!</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1245606900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you stop increasing them?</p><p>I haven't looked closely at such a thing, but I don't have the nicotine itch either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you stop increasing them ? I have n't looked closely at such a thing , but I do n't have the nicotine itch either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you stop increasing them?I haven't looked closely at such a thing, but I don't have the nicotine itch either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28421949</id>
	<title>Re:Mayo Clinic is falling behind</title>
	<author>bruthasj</author>
	<datestamp>1245684900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who wants Tang in their Miracle Whip?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who wants Tang in their Miracle Whip ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who wants Tang in their Miracle Whip?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021</id>
	<title>Hmmmm</title>
	<author>ZosX</author>
	<datestamp>1245601920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the immune system will actually fight cancer, but the cancer negates this by turning off the T-cells. This is fascinating. The problem, from what I understand, is that cancer cells reproduce indefinitely as their DNA does not slowly break down. It seems like this could be a real breakthrough for lots of cancer patients.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the immune system will actually fight cancer , but the cancer negates this by turning off the T-cells .
This is fascinating .
The problem , from what I understand , is that cancer cells reproduce indefinitely as their DNA does not slowly break down .
It seems like this could be a real breakthrough for lots of cancer patients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the immune system will actually fight cancer, but the cancer negates this by turning off the T-cells.
This is fascinating.
The problem, from what I understand, is that cancer cells reproduce indefinitely as their DNA does not slowly break down.
It seems like this could be a real breakthrough for lots of cancer patients.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411343</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1245604980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The immune system is constantly fighting cancer.  Whenever something goes wrong when one of your cells divides, which happens relatively frequently, if the built in suicide mechanisms don't work then the immune system deals with it.  What we call "cancer" is just the result when the cancerous cells get too far ahead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The immune system is constantly fighting cancer .
Whenever something goes wrong when one of your cells divides , which happens relatively frequently , if the built in suicide mechanisms do n't work then the immune system deals with it .
What we call " cancer " is just the result when the cancerous cells get too far ahead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The immune system is constantly fighting cancer.
Whenever something goes wrong when one of your cells divides, which happens relatively frequently, if the built in suicide mechanisms don't work then the immune system deals with it.
What we call "cancer" is just the result when the cancerous cells get too far ahead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411877</id>
	<title>Re:Lyle Alzado is rolling in his grave</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245609060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a lot of different types of steroids...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of different types of steroids.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of different types of steroids...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411781</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm</title>
	<author>reverseengineer</author>
	<datestamp>1245608340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're wondering why it is cancer can gain the ability to turn off your T-cells, it's important to remember that overactive immunity can be just as dangerous as immune insufficiency.  Mutations in the CTLA-4 gene that boost its activity are associated with autoimmune diseases like lupus (yes, sometimes it is lupus), type I diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis.  In fact, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, makers of the ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4 antibody) investigational drug discussed here already make abatacept, which is CTLA-4 fused to antibody.  Abatacept, marketed as Orencia, is FDA approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, and is under investigation for treatment of other autoimmune diseases, as well as for treatment of automimmune rejection of transplanted tissues.  So on both ends of the spectrum, CTLA-4 and other T-cell regulatory genes play a big role in disease, and make for promising avenues of research.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're wondering why it is cancer can gain the ability to turn off your T-cells , it 's important to remember that overactive immunity can be just as dangerous as immune insufficiency .
Mutations in the CTLA-4 gene that boost its activity are associated with autoimmune diseases like lupus ( yes , sometimes it is lupus ) , type I diabetes , and rheumatoid arthritis .
In fact , Bristol-Myers-Squibb , makers of the ipilimumab ( anti-CTLA-4 antibody ) investigational drug discussed here already make abatacept , which is CTLA-4 fused to antibody .
Abatacept , marketed as Orencia , is FDA approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis , and is under investigation for treatment of other autoimmune diseases , as well as for treatment of automimmune rejection of transplanted tissues .
So on both ends of the spectrum , CTLA-4 and other T-cell regulatory genes play a big role in disease , and make for promising avenues of research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're wondering why it is cancer can gain the ability to turn off your T-cells, it's important to remember that overactive immunity can be just as dangerous as immune insufficiency.
Mutations in the CTLA-4 gene that boost its activity are associated with autoimmune diseases like lupus (yes, sometimes it is lupus), type I diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis.
In fact, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, makers of the ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4 antibody) investigational drug discussed here already make abatacept, which is CTLA-4 fused to antibody.
Abatacept, marketed as Orencia, is FDA approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, and is under investigation for treatment of other autoimmune diseases, as well as for treatment of automimmune rejection of transplanted tissues.
So on both ends of the spectrum, CTLA-4 and other T-cell regulatory genes play a big role in disease, and make for promising avenues of research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28422881</id>
	<title>Re:It still needs surgery</title>
	<author>OhHellWithIt</author>
	<datestamp>1245687900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In particular, prostate surgery has a very high risk of causing impotence. It would be nice if this new method could replace surgery altogether, at least for less severe cases.</p></div><p>Yeah, and if they could develop the surgery-free treatment real fast, that would be great. My prostatectomy is scheduled for next Monday, and I'd be delighted to skip it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In particular , prostate surgery has a very high risk of causing impotence .
It would be nice if this new method could replace surgery altogether , at least for less severe cases.Yeah , and if they could develop the surgery-free treatment real fast , that would be great .
My prostatectomy is scheduled for next Monday , and I 'd be delighted to skip it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In particular, prostate surgery has a very high risk of causing impotence.
It would be nice if this new method could replace surgery altogether, at least for less severe cases.Yeah, and if they could develop the surgery-free treatment real fast, that would be great.
My prostatectomy is scheduled for next Monday, and I'd be delighted to skip it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411427</id>
	<title>This can't be</title>
	<author>hrvatska</author>
	<datestamp>1245605820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone knows that advances in medical treatment can only come from profit motivated companies that can patent their treatment and then charge what the market will bear.  It defies logic that an institution and its associated researchers would be motivated to advance knowledge and reduce suffering without being able to extract every last cent from desperate patients and their families.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows that advances in medical treatment can only come from profit motivated companies that can patent their treatment and then charge what the market will bear .
It defies logic that an institution and its associated researchers would be motivated to advance knowledge and reduce suffering without being able to extract every last cent from desperate patients and their families .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows that advances in medical treatment can only come from profit motivated companies that can patent their treatment and then charge what the market will bear.
It defies logic that an institution and its associated researchers would be motivated to advance knowledge and reduce suffering without being able to extract every last cent from desperate patients and their families.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28413133</id>
	<title>Re:Under the health care plan</title>
	<author>jabithew</author>
	<datestamp>1245575400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a big problem in the British National Health Service. Essentially a lot of treatments aren't affordable on socialised healthcare, and so don't get rationed out by National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Institute\_for\_Health\_and\_Clinical\_Excellence" title="wikipedia.org">NICE</a> [wikipedia.org]). Not necessarily a problem, but if individuals want to try the treatment then they must go private for the whole package, not just buy in the drugs they want. This is because NICE usually rejects treatments because of either their lack of cost-effectiveness (how many good life-hours can be saved per pound) or because of the costs of the side effects. The NHS would have to pay for the side effects.</p><p>The rules are not applied consistently, and what treatment the NHS will pay for depends a lot on where you are, with the most generous being in oil-rich Scotland and it varying significantly with Primary Care Trust (PCT, but the phenomenon is known colloquially as the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5531954/Postcode-lottery-in-protate-cancer-treatment.html" title="telegraph.co.uk">postcode lottery</a> [telegraph.co.uk]). The disparity is caused by efficiency of management, the presence of renowned hospitals that can pull in patients and hence funding from outside the PCT and in the case of the different nations, disparity in the funding per head of population.</p><p>Socialised healthcare has many of the pitfalls associated with all government spending, with political interference leading to popular-but-ineffective treatments getting funding priority over cheaper and better programmes (a new cancer treatment that NICE refuses will sometimes be pushed out by the government anyway as a vote-winner, no matter how clinically effective it is, and the money will have to come from far more useful screening programmes). There are other issues to do with patient choice and quality of care (patients find it near impossible to judge whether the local hospital is actually competent at cancer operations, for example). It is no panacea.</p><p>Equally, the current American system sees the average American paying ten times more for healthcare than the average Brit, yet achieving only a similar outcome and without the universal coverage*. To a certain extent it's a personal choice, but the NHS (like the BBC) is more of a national religion than Christianity over here.</p><p>*Can't find the citation for this. Was either a WHO study or the Economist reporting on it. Will look more later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a big problem in the British National Health Service .
Essentially a lot of treatments are n't affordable on socialised healthcare , and so do n't get rationed out by National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence ( NICE [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
Not necessarily a problem , but if individuals want to try the treatment then they must go private for the whole package , not just buy in the drugs they want .
This is because NICE usually rejects treatments because of either their lack of cost-effectiveness ( how many good life-hours can be saved per pound ) or because of the costs of the side effects .
The NHS would have to pay for the side effects.The rules are not applied consistently , and what treatment the NHS will pay for depends a lot on where you are , with the most generous being in oil-rich Scotland and it varying significantly with Primary Care Trust ( PCT , but the phenomenon is known colloquially as the postcode lottery [ telegraph.co.uk ] ) .
The disparity is caused by efficiency of management , the presence of renowned hospitals that can pull in patients and hence funding from outside the PCT and in the case of the different nations , disparity in the funding per head of population.Socialised healthcare has many of the pitfalls associated with all government spending , with political interference leading to popular-but-ineffective treatments getting funding priority over cheaper and better programmes ( a new cancer treatment that NICE refuses will sometimes be pushed out by the government anyway as a vote-winner , no matter how clinically effective it is , and the money will have to come from far more useful screening programmes ) .
There are other issues to do with patient choice and quality of care ( patients find it near impossible to judge whether the local hospital is actually competent at cancer operations , for example ) .
It is no panacea.Equally , the current American system sees the average American paying ten times more for healthcare than the average Brit , yet achieving only a similar outcome and without the universal coverage * .
To a certain extent it 's a personal choice , but the NHS ( like the BBC ) is more of a national religion than Christianity over here .
* Ca n't find the citation for this .
Was either a WHO study or the Economist reporting on it .
Will look more later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a big problem in the British National Health Service.
Essentially a lot of treatments aren't affordable on socialised healthcare, and so don't get rationed out by National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE [wikipedia.org]).
Not necessarily a problem, but if individuals want to try the treatment then they must go private for the whole package, not just buy in the drugs they want.
This is because NICE usually rejects treatments because of either their lack of cost-effectiveness (how many good life-hours can be saved per pound) or because of the costs of the side effects.
The NHS would have to pay for the side effects.The rules are not applied consistently, and what treatment the NHS will pay for depends a lot on where you are, with the most generous being in oil-rich Scotland and it varying significantly with Primary Care Trust (PCT, but the phenomenon is known colloquially as the postcode lottery [telegraph.co.uk]).
The disparity is caused by efficiency of management, the presence of renowned hospitals that can pull in patients and hence funding from outside the PCT and in the case of the different nations, disparity in the funding per head of population.Socialised healthcare has many of the pitfalls associated with all government spending, with political interference leading to popular-but-ineffective treatments getting funding priority over cheaper and better programmes (a new cancer treatment that NICE refuses will sometimes be pushed out by the government anyway as a vote-winner, no matter how clinically effective it is, and the money will have to come from far more useful screening programmes).
There are other issues to do with patient choice and quality of care (patients find it near impossible to judge whether the local hospital is actually competent at cancer operations, for example).
It is no panacea.Equally, the current American system sees the average American paying ten times more for healthcare than the average Brit, yet achieving only a similar outcome and without the universal coverage*.
To a certain extent it's a personal choice, but the NHS (like the BBC) is more of a national religion than Christianity over here.
*Can't find the citation for this.
Was either a WHO study or the Economist reporting on it.
Will look more later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28415451</id>
	<title>Re:It still needs surgery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245595980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>t I was disappointed to read that they still had to operate in the end.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

Dude, that's where the prostate <i>is.</i> Duh.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>t I was disappointed to read that they still had to operate in the end .
Dude , that 's where the prostate is .
Duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>t I was disappointed to read that they still had to operate in the end.
Dude, that's where the prostate is.
Duh.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411175</id>
	<title>Re:Lyle Alzado is rolling in his grave</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245603120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's hormone ablation therapy. they are lowering testosterone levels...</p><p>FTA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Before receiving the MDX-010, both men underwent a hormone therapy called androgen ablation. It's a combination of a pill that blocks testosterone and an injection tells the brain to order the testicles to stop producing it. This removal of testosterone from the system usually shrinks the tumor to some degree.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's hormone ablation therapy .
they are lowering testosterone levels...FTA : Before receiving the MDX-010 , both men underwent a hormone therapy called androgen ablation .
It 's a combination of a pill that blocks testosterone and an injection tells the brain to order the testicles to stop producing it .
This removal of testosterone from the system usually shrinks the tumor to some degree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's hormone ablation therapy.
they are lowering testosterone levels...FTA:Before receiving the MDX-010, both men underwent a hormone therapy called androgen ablation.
It's a combination of a pill that blocks testosterone and an injection tells the brain to order the testicles to stop producing it.
This removal of testosterone from the system usually shrinks the tumor to some degree.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28420591</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm</title>
	<author>Merpy</author>
	<datestamp>1245680100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would it be possible to find out how cancer cells shut of the T-cells and apply it to say, a heart transplant?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would it be possible to find out how cancer cells shut of the T-cells and apply it to say , a heart transplant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would it be possible to find out how cancer cells shut of the T-cells and apply it to say, a heart transplant?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411691</id>
	<title>Re:Mayo Clinic is falling behind</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1245607740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...they did it with much more tang.</i></p><p>One man's tang is another man's taint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they did it with much more tang.One man 's tang is another man 's taint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...they did it with much more tang.One man's tang is another man's taint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411219</id>
	<title>Re:FIST SPORT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245603660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you do more anti-Islamic trolling? The best trolls always have that core of truth to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you do more anti-Islamic trolling ?
The best trolls always have that core of truth to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you do more anti-Islamic trolling?
The best trolls always have that core of truth to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28412885</id>
	<title>Re:Lyle Alzado is rolling in his grave</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1245616680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good god.  Could you please propagate any more myths?  Lyle Alzado did not die from steroids, first of all.</p><p>I was actually kind.  Your second sentence is just an outright fabrication, and a laughable one.  Checked out of Mexican hospitals for various cancers, huh?  Right...  Cancer isn't really something you need to worry about with steroids, there are other health complications though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good god .
Could you please propagate any more myths ?
Lyle Alzado did not die from steroids , first of all.I was actually kind .
Your second sentence is just an outright fabrication , and a laughable one .
Checked out of Mexican hospitals for various cancers , huh ?
Right... Cancer is n't really something you need to worry about with steroids , there are other health complications though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good god.
Could you please propagate any more myths?
Lyle Alzado did not die from steroids, first of all.I was actually kind.
Your second sentence is just an outright fabrication, and a laughable one.
Checked out of Mexican hospitals for various cancers, huh?
Right...  Cancer isn't really something you need to worry about with steroids, there are other health complications though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28416347</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm</title>
	<author>Eris13</author>
	<datestamp>1245602760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's great for the primary cancer tumour, but there is no indication though if it will help the patient long term. Normally when the tumour becomes inoperable it's already metastasized - in case of prostate cancer, into the bones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's great for the primary cancer tumour , but there is no indication though if it will help the patient long term .
Normally when the tumour becomes inoperable it 's already metastasized - in case of prostate cancer , into the bones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's great for the primary cancer tumour, but there is no indication though if it will help the patient long term.
Normally when the tumour becomes inoperable it's already metastasized - in case of prostate cancer, into the bones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411261</id>
	<title>It still needs surgery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245604080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is great news, but I was disappointed to read that they still had to operate in the end. Recently I've read stories about how doctors are reconsidering the need of surgical treatment of prostate cancer in benign cases, due to the bad side effects involved. In particular, prostate surgery has a very high risk of causing impotence. It would be nice if this new method could replace surgery altogether, at least for less severe cases.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is great news , but I was disappointed to read that they still had to operate in the end .
Recently I 've read stories about how doctors are reconsidering the need of surgical treatment of prostate cancer in benign cases , due to the bad side effects involved .
In particular , prostate surgery has a very high risk of causing impotence .
It would be nice if this new method could replace surgery altogether , at least for less severe cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is great news, but I was disappointed to read that they still had to operate in the end.
Recently I've read stories about how doctors are reconsidering the need of surgical treatment of prostate cancer in benign cases, due to the bad side effects involved.
In particular, prostate surgery has a very high risk of causing impotence.
It would be nice if this new method could replace surgery altogether, at least for less severe cases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411397</id>
	<title>Get a PSA Test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245605400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a 48 year old prostate cancer survivor who accidentally ordered a PSA test (simple blood test) which revealed that I had been carrying the slow growing cancer for 10 to 12 years.  By the time of my discovery it was quite serious and I opted for surgery which I believe saved my life.  While I was 'shopping' for treatments and surgeons, I found many teenagers and early adults with the disease.  There has been controversy regarding the PSA test, and the medical establishment seems to not prescribe the test until patients are in their 50's (would have been dead by then).  I was young once and never went to the doctor unless I could not function--but I urge you folks in your 20s and 30s to get a PSA test--cheap insurance &amp; your life is worth a minor disruption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a 48 year old prostate cancer survivor who accidentally ordered a PSA test ( simple blood test ) which revealed that I had been carrying the slow growing cancer for 10 to 12 years .
By the time of my discovery it was quite serious and I opted for surgery which I believe saved my life .
While I was 'shopping ' for treatments and surgeons , I found many teenagers and early adults with the disease .
There has been controversy regarding the PSA test , and the medical establishment seems to not prescribe the test until patients are in their 50 's ( would have been dead by then ) .
I was young once and never went to the doctor unless I could not function--but I urge you folks in your 20s and 30s to get a PSA test--cheap insurance &amp; your life is worth a minor disruption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a 48 year old prostate cancer survivor who accidentally ordered a PSA test (simple blood test) which revealed that I had been carrying the slow growing cancer for 10 to 12 years.
By the time of my discovery it was quite serious and I opted for surgery which I believe saved my life.
While I was 'shopping' for treatments and surgeons, I found many teenagers and early adults with the disease.
There has been controversy regarding the PSA test, and the medical establishment seems to not prescribe the test until patients are in their 50's (would have been dead by then).
I was young once and never went to the doctor unless I could not function--but I urge you folks in your 20s and 30s to get a PSA test--cheap insurance &amp; your life is worth a minor disruption.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411005</id>
	<title>Who would have thought ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245601800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot, fast forward 10 years into the future: stories about prostate cancer and excessive flatulence.<br>Who would have thought ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot , fast forward 10 years into the future : stories about prostate cancer and excessive flatulence.Who would have thought ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot, fast forward 10 years into the future: stories about prostate cancer and excessive flatulence.Who would have thought ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411927</id>
	<title>Good news...</title>
	<author>Mashiki</author>
	<datestamp>1245609420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey guys...get your ass checked!</p><p>Seriously.  Not joking here, if you think that this shit won't kill you hard and fast you need a reality check.  Get it young, you're probably going to die.  Get it when you're older, probably going to live.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey guys...get your ass checked ! Seriously .
Not joking here , if you think that this shit wo n't kill you hard and fast you need a reality check .
Get it young , you 're probably going to die .
Get it when you 're older , probably going to live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey guys...get your ass checked!Seriously.
Not joking here, if you think that this shit won't kill you hard and fast you need a reality check.
Get it young, you're probably going to die.
Get it when you're older, probably going to live.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411007</id>
	<title>FIST SPORT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245601800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of this could have been prevented if these homosexuals weren't cramming things into their asses in the first place!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of this could have been prevented if these homosexuals were n't cramming things into their asses in the first place !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of this could have been prevented if these homosexuals weren't cramming things into their asses in the first place!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411523</id>
	<title>Under the health care plan</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1245606720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Under the health care plan currently circulating Washington and mentioned on <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/06/20/1844214/US-House-Democrats-Unveil-a-Health-Care-Plan" title="slashdot.org">slashdot</a> [slashdot.org] earlier, a treatment like this still wouldn't be availible to people under the proposed coverage. It only allows standardized accepted treatments. This means that off label applications wouldn't be covered and you couldn't participate in a program like this until such time it becomes a standard treatment.</p><p>It sounds like this treatment, if it remains competent, has the potential to be a cheaper treatment then surgery as well as being effective in earlier detections and perhaps other cancers as well.</p><p>Regardless of what I like or dislike about the health care plan, exceptions or provisions in any plan need to be in place so normal people can get treatments like this when they become availible- even if they are still experimental and turn out to be a hail marry pass with the hopes of doing something other then the alternative of death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Under the health care plan currently circulating Washington and mentioned on slashdot [ slashdot.org ] earlier , a treatment like this still would n't be availible to people under the proposed coverage .
It only allows standardized accepted treatments .
This means that off label applications would n't be covered and you could n't participate in a program like this until such time it becomes a standard treatment.It sounds like this treatment , if it remains competent , has the potential to be a cheaper treatment then surgery as well as being effective in earlier detections and perhaps other cancers as well.Regardless of what I like or dislike about the health care plan , exceptions or provisions in any plan need to be in place so normal people can get treatments like this when they become availible- even if they are still experimental and turn out to be a hail marry pass with the hopes of doing something other then the alternative of death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under the health care plan currently circulating Washington and mentioned on slashdot [slashdot.org] earlier, a treatment like this still wouldn't be availible to people under the proposed coverage.
It only allows standardized accepted treatments.
This means that off label applications wouldn't be covered and you couldn't participate in a program like this until such time it becomes a standard treatment.It sounds like this treatment, if it remains competent, has the potential to be a cheaper treatment then surgery as well as being effective in earlier detections and perhaps other cancers as well.Regardless of what I like or dislike about the health care plan, exceptions or provisions in any plan need to be in place so normal people can get treatments like this when they become availible- even if they are still experimental and turn out to be a hail marry pass with the hopes of doing something other then the alternative of death.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28413435</id>
	<title>Re:Good news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245577800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey guys...get your ass checked!</p><p>Seriously.  Not joking here, if you think that this shit won't kill you hard and fast you need a reality check.  Get it young, you're probably going to die.  Get it when you're older, probably going to live.</p></div><p>For those who are confused after parsing the above, the "it" in "Get it" refers to "prostate cancer", not "checked out".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey guys...get your ass checked ! Seriously .
Not joking here , if you think that this shit wo n't kill you hard and fast you need a reality check .
Get it young , you 're probably going to die .
Get it when you 're older , probably going to live.For those who are confused after parsing the above , the " it " in " Get it " refers to " prostate cancer " , not " checked out " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey guys...get your ass checked!Seriously.
Not joking here, if you think that this shit won't kill you hard and fast you need a reality check.
Get it young, you're probably going to die.
Get it when you're older, probably going to live.For those who are confused after parsing the above, the "it" in "Get it" refers to "prostate cancer", not "checked out".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411273</id>
	<title>Smoke up America!</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245604200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, the study also says that this has applications against lung cancer as well.  This is good, because, even if you quit smoking, you don't actually reduce your chances of getting lung cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , the study also says that this has applications against lung cancer as well .
This is good , because , even if you quit smoking , you do n't actually reduce your chances of getting lung cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, the study also says that this has applications against lung cancer as well.
This is good, because, even if you quit smoking, you don't actually reduce your chances of getting lung cancer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28426159</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245699300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mutations are always created in your body. For vast majority, these trigger cell death. For those that survive, vast majority of those are destroyed by the immune system. Only very select mutations are able to pass both marks and grow. Then they are detected by us as causing some sort of a problem.</p><p>Yes, immune system destroys cancer cells. But cancers that mask themselves get passed that. Using immune system to target cancer cells is actually something being worked on - using a genetically engineered virus to selectively mark cancel cells for immune reaction.</p><p>On a different note about masking from immune system, human embryo and fetus masks itself from mother's immune system.. The mechanism is the same as many different parasites. Understanding these better will allow us to deal with cancer better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mutations are always created in your body .
For vast majority , these trigger cell death .
For those that survive , vast majority of those are destroyed by the immune system .
Only very select mutations are able to pass both marks and grow .
Then they are detected by us as causing some sort of a problem.Yes , immune system destroys cancer cells .
But cancers that mask themselves get passed that .
Using immune system to target cancer cells is actually something being worked on - using a genetically engineered virus to selectively mark cancel cells for immune reaction.On a different note about masking from immune system , human embryo and fetus masks itself from mother 's immune system.. The mechanism is the same as many different parasites .
Understanding these better will allow us to deal with cancer better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mutations are always created in your body.
For vast majority, these trigger cell death.
For those that survive, vast majority of those are destroyed by the immune system.
Only very select mutations are able to pass both marks and grow.
Then they are detected by us as causing some sort of a problem.Yes, immune system destroys cancer cells.
But cancers that mask themselves get passed that.
Using immune system to target cancer cells is actually something being worked on - using a genetically engineered virus to selectively mark cancel cells for immune reaction.On a different note about masking from immune system, human embryo and fetus masks itself from mother's immune system.. The mechanism is the same as many different parasites.
Understanding these better will allow us to deal with cancer better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411479</id>
	<title>Re:Smoke up America!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245606360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>even if you quit smoking, you don't actually reduce your chances of getting lung cancer.</p></div><p>The information you got is either wrong or very short sighted.<br>

Our bodies are not static and unchanging.  After you quit smoking it's not like your lungs never change from that state.  They may never be as healthy as if you had never smoked, but healthy habits will certainly have an affect on your chances of getting lung cancer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>even if you quit smoking , you do n't actually reduce your chances of getting lung cancer.The information you got is either wrong or very short sighted .
Our bodies are not static and unchanging .
After you quit smoking it 's not like your lungs never change from that state .
They may never be as healthy as if you had never smoked , but healthy habits will certainly have an affect on your chances of getting lung cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even if you quit smoking, you don't actually reduce your chances of getting lung cancer.The information you got is either wrong or very short sighted.
Our bodies are not static and unchanging.
After you quit smoking it's not like your lungs never change from that state.
They may never be as healthy as if you had never smoked, but healthy habits will certainly have an affect on your chances of getting lung cancer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28415583</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm</title>
	<author>sponzereII</author>
	<datestamp>1245597240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cancer cells do not reproduce indefinitely because of their rate of DNA degradation.  Cancer cells reproduce indefinitely because the intracellular signaling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal\_transduction) that controls apoptosis, survival, proliferation or differentiation has gone awry.  Mutations associated with cancer usually result in a gene product that causes the aberrant signaling. <br> <br>

One thing that concerns me about this study is that the authors use androgen ablation therapy (ABT) as a "pilot."  ABT usually works well at first, shrinking a tumor so that it can be surgically removed, and this new therapy increases the speed with which that happens, which is great.  However, ABT also causes transdifferentiation of prostate cancer cells into a neuroendocrine-like phenotype.  This NE-like phenotype secretes growth factors that prostate cancer cells thrive on, and may even induce transformation in normal prostate cells.  So while the therapy is successful at first, remission years down the road (and many times sooner) is not uncommon.  So it seems to me that in order for this new therapy, and ABT in general, to truly cure patients, the transdifferentiation process to NE-like cells must be blocked.  Luckily there are several groups already working on sorting the signaling pathway activation that occurs during this particular transdifferentiation, which could potentially identify some new drug targets.  It will be interesting to see if the patients taking part in this new therapy will regress in the same way "successfully" ABT treated patients have in the past.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cancer cells do not reproduce indefinitely because of their rate of DNA degradation .
Cancer cells reproduce indefinitely because the intracellular signaling ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal \ _transduction ) that controls apoptosis , survival , proliferation or differentiation has gone awry .
Mutations associated with cancer usually result in a gene product that causes the aberrant signaling .
One thing that concerns me about this study is that the authors use androgen ablation therapy ( ABT ) as a " pilot .
" ABT usually works well at first , shrinking a tumor so that it can be surgically removed , and this new therapy increases the speed with which that happens , which is great .
However , ABT also causes transdifferentiation of prostate cancer cells into a neuroendocrine-like phenotype .
This NE-like phenotype secretes growth factors that prostate cancer cells thrive on , and may even induce transformation in normal prostate cells .
So while the therapy is successful at first , remission years down the road ( and many times sooner ) is not uncommon .
So it seems to me that in order for this new therapy , and ABT in general , to truly cure patients , the transdifferentiation process to NE-like cells must be blocked .
Luckily there are several groups already working on sorting the signaling pathway activation that occurs during this particular transdifferentiation , which could potentially identify some new drug targets .
It will be interesting to see if the patients taking part in this new therapy will regress in the same way " successfully " ABT treated patients have in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cancer cells do not reproduce indefinitely because of their rate of DNA degradation.
Cancer cells reproduce indefinitely because the intracellular signaling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal\_transduction) that controls apoptosis, survival, proliferation or differentiation has gone awry.
Mutations associated with cancer usually result in a gene product that causes the aberrant signaling.
One thing that concerns me about this study is that the authors use androgen ablation therapy (ABT) as a "pilot.
"  ABT usually works well at first, shrinking a tumor so that it can be surgically removed, and this new therapy increases the speed with which that happens, which is great.
However, ABT also causes transdifferentiation of prostate cancer cells into a neuroendocrine-like phenotype.
This NE-like phenotype secretes growth factors that prostate cancer cells thrive on, and may even induce transformation in normal prostate cells.
So while the therapy is successful at first, remission years down the road (and many times sooner) is not uncommon.
So it seems to me that in order for this new therapy, and ABT in general, to truly cure patients, the transdifferentiation process to NE-like cells must be blocked.
Luckily there are several groups already working on sorting the signaling pathway activation that occurs during this particular transdifferentiation, which could potentially identify some new drug targets.
It will be interesting to see if the patients taking part in this new therapy will regress in the same way "successfully" ABT treated patients have in the past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411639</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm</title>
	<author>infaustus</author>
	<datestamp>1245607440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Normal cells do not reproduce indefinitely not because their DNA is breaking down, but because of checkpoints in the cell cycle.  In cancerous cells, these checkpoints fail because of problems such as the overexpression of oncogenes or the underexpression of tumor suppressors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Normal cells do not reproduce indefinitely not because their DNA is breaking down , but because of checkpoints in the cell cycle .
In cancerous cells , these checkpoints fail because of problems such as the overexpression of oncogenes or the underexpression of tumor suppressors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Normal cells do not reproduce indefinitely not because their DNA is breaking down, but because of checkpoints in the cell cycle.
In cancerous cells, these checkpoints fail because of problems such as the overexpression of oncogenes or the underexpression of tumor suppressors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411259</id>
	<title>Re:Lyle Alzado is rolling in his grave</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245604020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you told me just 1 year ago that steroids could be used to cure cancer rather than cause it, I would have laughed in your face.</p><p>There are so many incidences of steroid users succumbing to cancer that it's not uncommon to see American body builders getting checked out in Mexican hospitals for various cancers. If this therapy really works, it is critical to find the balance point between androgenic steroid therapeutic use and outright abuse.</p></div><p>Absolute nonsense. Firstly, this isn't relevant to the therapy dicussed here - their therapy reduces testosterone.</p><p>Secondly, your claims about anabolic steroids are simply false. Lyle Alzado claimed that his steroid use caused his brain cancer. However, this is incorrect, as *his own physicians* pointed out. Not only is there no known possible causal link between steroids and brain cancer, there is no statistical link either. It's just media hype.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you told me just 1 year ago that steroids could be used to cure cancer rather than cause it , I would have laughed in your face.There are so many incidences of steroid users succumbing to cancer that it 's not uncommon to see American body builders getting checked out in Mexican hospitals for various cancers .
If this therapy really works , it is critical to find the balance point between androgenic steroid therapeutic use and outright abuse.Absolute nonsense .
Firstly , this is n't relevant to the therapy dicussed here - their therapy reduces testosterone.Secondly , your claims about anabolic steroids are simply false .
Lyle Alzado claimed that his steroid use caused his brain cancer .
However , this is incorrect , as * his own physicians * pointed out .
Not only is there no known possible causal link between steroids and brain cancer , there is no statistical link either .
It 's just media hype .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you told me just 1 year ago that steroids could be used to cure cancer rather than cause it, I would have laughed in your face.There are so many incidences of steroid users succumbing to cancer that it's not uncommon to see American body builders getting checked out in Mexican hospitals for various cancers.
If this therapy really works, it is critical to find the balance point between androgenic steroid therapeutic use and outright abuse.Absolute nonsense.
Firstly, this isn't relevant to the therapy dicussed here - their therapy reduces testosterone.Secondly, your claims about anabolic steroids are simply false.
Lyle Alzado claimed that his steroid use caused his brain cancer.
However, this is incorrect, as *his own physicians* pointed out.
Not only is there no known possible causal link between steroids and brain cancer, there is no statistical link either.
It's just media hype.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411025</id>
	<title>Lyle Alzado is rolling in his grave</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1245602040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you told me just 1 year ago that steroids could be used to cure cancer rather than cause it, I would have laughed in your face.</p><p>There are so many incidences of steroid users succumbing to cancer that it's not uncommon to see American body builders getting checked out in Mexican hospitals for various cancers. If this therapy really works, it is critical to find the balance point between androgenic steroid therapeutic use and outright abuse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you told me just 1 year ago that steroids could be used to cure cancer rather than cause it , I would have laughed in your face.There are so many incidences of steroid users succumbing to cancer that it 's not uncommon to see American body builders getting checked out in Mexican hospitals for various cancers .
If this therapy really works , it is critical to find the balance point between androgenic steroid therapeutic use and outright abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you told me just 1 year ago that steroids could be used to cure cancer rather than cause it, I would have laughed in your face.There are so many incidences of steroid users succumbing to cancer that it's not uncommon to see American body builders getting checked out in Mexican hospitals for various cancers.
If this therapy really works, it is critical to find the balance point between androgenic steroid therapeutic use and outright abuse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28415909</id>
	<title>Re:Under the health care plan</title>
	<author>nbauman</author>
	<datestamp>1245600420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Under the UK NICE system, they pay for a treatment if it saves life at a cost of about $55,000 a year or less.
They make a lot of exceptions.
<p>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html" title="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html</a> [nytimes.com]
</p><p>
The New York Times<br>
December 3, 2008<br>
The Evidence Gap<br>
British Balance Gain Against the Cost of the Latest Drugs<br>
By GARDINER HARRIS
</p><p>
RUISLIP, England &#226;" When Bruce Hardy's kidney cancer spread to his lung, his doctor recommended an expensive new pill from Pfizer. But Mr. Hardy is British, and the British health authorities refused to buy the medicine. His wife has been distraught.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Under the UK NICE system , they pay for a treatment if it saves life at a cost of about $ 55,000 a year or less .
They make a lot of exceptions .
http : //www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html [ nytimes.com ] The New York Times December 3 , 2008 The Evidence Gap British Balance Gain Against the Cost of the Latest Drugs By GARDINER HARRIS RUISLIP , England   " When Bruce Hardy 's kidney cancer spread to his lung , his doctor recommended an expensive new pill from Pfizer .
But Mr. Hardy is British , and the British health authorities refused to buy the medicine .
His wife has been distraught .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under the UK NICE system, they pay for a treatment if it saves life at a cost of about $55,000 a year or less.
They make a lot of exceptions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html [nytimes.com]

The New York Times
December 3, 2008
The Evidence Gap
British Balance Gain Against the Cost of the Latest Drugs
By GARDINER HARRIS

RUISLIP, England â" When Bruce Hardy's kidney cancer spread to his lung, his doctor recommended an expensive new pill from Pfizer.
But Mr. Hardy is British, and the British health authorities refused to buy the medicine.
His wife has been distraught.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28413133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28412287</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1245612000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't T-Cells that shit that made the zombies in Resident Evil? I don't think anyone should be fucking with that stuff man!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't T-Cells that shit that made the zombies in Resident Evil ?
I do n't think anyone should be fucking with that stuff man !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't T-Cells that shit that made the zombies in Resident Evil?
I don't think anyone should be fucking with that stuff man!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411301</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245604560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not that their DNA doesn't slowly break down but that DNA in Humans is not fail-safe (intelligently designed? probably not). There are specific genes that suppress tumor growth, etc, when they fail you can get cancer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that their DNA does n't slowly break down but that DNA in Humans is not fail-safe ( intelligently designed ?
probably not ) .
There are specific genes that suppress tumor growth , etc , when they fail you can get cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that their DNA doesn't slowly break down but that DNA in Humans is not fail-safe (intelligently designed?
probably not).
There are specific genes that suppress tumor growth, etc, when they fail you can get cancer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411103</id>
	<title>Nice analogy</title>
	<author>metalhed77</author>
	<datestamp>1245602580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The idea: use androgen ablation or hormone therapy to ignite an immune approach &#226;"  a pilot light &#226;" and then, after a short interval of hormone therapy, introduce an anti-CTLA-4 antibody that acts like gasoline to this pilot light and overwhelms the cancer cells.</p></div></blockquote><p>Fry: Usually on the show, they came up with a complicated plan, then explained it with a simple analogy.<br>Leela: Hmmm... If we can re-route engine power through the primary weapons and configure them to Melllvar's frequency, that should overload his electro-quantum structure.<br>Bender: Like putting too much air in a balloon!<br>Fry: Of course! It's all so simple!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea : use androgen ablation or hormone therapy to ignite an immune approach   " a pilot light   " and then , after a short interval of hormone therapy , introduce an anti-CTLA-4 antibody that acts like gasoline to this pilot light and overwhelms the cancer cells.Fry : Usually on the show , they came up with a complicated plan , then explained it with a simple analogy.Leela : Hmmm... If we can re-route engine power through the primary weapons and configure them to Melllvar 's frequency , that should overload his electro-quantum structure.Bender : Like putting too much air in a balloon ! Fry : Of course !
It 's all so simple !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea: use androgen ablation or hormone therapy to ignite an immune approach â"  a pilot light â" and then, after a short interval of hormone therapy, introduce an anti-CTLA-4 antibody that acts like gasoline to this pilot light and overwhelms the cancer cells.Fry: Usually on the show, they came up with a complicated plan, then explained it with a simple analogy.Leela: Hmmm... If we can re-route engine power through the primary weapons and configure them to Melllvar's frequency, that should overload his electro-quantum structure.Bender: Like putting too much air in a balloon!Fry: Of course!
It's all so simple!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411543</id>
	<title>One sided report</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245606840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There were 54 patients and only 3 had dramatic response.<br>They are hoping that by adjusting the dosage that this<br>will improve.<br>http://www.minnpost.com/healthblog/2009/06/19/9659</p><p>Ipilimumab failed a prior clinical trial for prostate cancer.<br>http://pmid.us/17363537</p><p>and failed a prior clinical trial for skin cancer. Also its<br>side effects can include rashes, diarrhea and hepatitis.<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipilimumab</p><p>It would be great if it worked but this is more likely<br>one of the numerous "breakthroughs" that never<br>pan out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There were 54 patients and only 3 had dramatic response.They are hoping that by adjusting the dosage that thiswill improve.http : //www.minnpost.com/healthblog/2009/06/19/9659Ipilimumab failed a prior clinical trial for prostate cancer.http : //pmid.us/17363537and failed a prior clinical trial for skin cancer .
Also itsside effects can include rashes , diarrhea and hepatitis.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IpilimumabIt would be great if it worked but this is more likelyone of the numerous " breakthroughs " that neverpan out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were 54 patients and only 3 had dramatic response.They are hoping that by adjusting the dosage that thiswill improve.http://www.minnpost.com/healthblog/2009/06/19/9659Ipilimumab failed a prior clinical trial for prostate cancer.http://pmid.us/17363537and failed a prior clinical trial for skin cancer.
Also itsside effects can include rashes, diarrhea and hepatitis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IpilimumabIt would be great if it worked but this is more likelyone of the numerous "breakthroughs" that neverpan out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28416347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28420591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28415583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28415451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28412885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28415909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28413133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28426159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28413435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28421949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28412287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28422881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_21_1433249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28415661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28412905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1433249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28413435
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1433249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28412287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28415583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28416347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28426159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28420591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411343
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1433249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411479
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1433249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1433249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1433249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28415451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28422881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1433249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28412885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1433249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411219
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1433249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28412905
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28415661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28413133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28415909
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_21_1433249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28411691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_21_1433249.28421949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
