13 ms·
Perhaps the real problem is that chemo, radiation, and surgery don't really cure cancer, in most cases. There is a lot of bad science in cancer research. The
by alejohausner 8y ago
Perhaps the real problem is that chemo, radiation, and surgery don't really cure cancer, in most cases. There is a lot of bad science in cancer research. The "science" that bothers me the most is the use of 5-year survival rates.
Suppose that a cancer that starts at age 60 becomes symptomatic at age 65, and kills the patient at age 70.
Scenario 1: you are 60 years old, get screened, and opt for treatment (who wouldn't?). However, the treatment does temporarily put the cancer into remission, and you are "cured" at age 65. But then the cancer comes back, now resistant to the treatment, and you die at age 70.
Scenario 2: you don't get screened, and die at age 70.
Both outcomes are the same, but in the first scenario your oncologist declares you "cured" at age 65.
This kind of statistical chicanery leads people to opt for treatment, which is usually very bad for you.
If you or your child has cancer, could you bring yourself to not spend every penny you have? Most people would opt for treatment. But it's often a futile waste of money and life, as the article points out.
- malcolmgreaves 8y agoScenario 2 implies you don't have cancer. If you have it and don't get treated, you'll probably die by 62 in your scenario.
- DanBC 8y agoParent post makes a reasonable point about the problems of 5 year survival rates in a culture of massive screening of otherwise healthy people. If you scan every man over the age of 55 you'll pick up a lot of prostate cancer. If you then do nothing else at all your country's 5 year survival rate improves because you have a bunch of people who'll die with, from from, cancer.
- zrail 8y agoYou're being very misleading when you say "in most cases". There are a lot of very common cancers that respond very well to treatment. "If you or your child has cancer, could you bring yourself to not spend every penny you have?" This is what health insurance is for. You buy insurance so that you don't have to worry about monetary decisions and can make decisions based on quality of life.
- macintux 8y ago> This is what health insurance is for. You buy insurance so that you don't have to worry about monetary decisions and can make decisions based on quality of life. When it comes to big medical problems, health insurance is rarely 100% effective against monetary problems.
- zrail 8y agoOf course it's not 100% effective, and nobody ever claimed it was. Health insurance in the US, after ACA, caps your costs at a predictable amount.
- sjg007 8y agoJust wait a minute. Even with your deductible and max out of pocket you will find that your provider was out of network or that drug isn't covered or that procedure wasn't. Or is considered experimental (when it isn't).. Or something was denied incorrectly and what not. Even in the best scenario say deductible only costs... say you get sick in December with a 15k deductible you're now at out of pocket 30k by February.
- alejohausner 8y agoThat's not really true. A few cancers can be put into permanent remission (eg Hodgkins'), but most cancers kill you regardless of what you do.
- zrail 8y agoYou should do more research. Most skin cancers are trivial to treat. Testicular cancer, one of the most common cancers in boys and young men is, for the most part, extremely treatable as long as it's caught relatively early.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- 8y ago
- nkozyra 8y ago> your oncologist declares you "cured" at age 65 I don't think an oncologist would do this, though.
- zrail 8y agoMy oncologist has never said the word "cured" in my presence.
- slantyyz 8y agoMine used the word "cured", after the chemo and surgery to remove all remaining tissue. Mind you, it was in the 80s, and in Canada. So use of the word could be related to time period and geography.
- gerbilly 8y agoA famous doctor said somewhere in an interview (sorry forgot the source) that there really are very few 'cures' in medicine. Aside from assisting the body's natural healing process, the best medicine can usually offer are treatments. Example: insulin is not a cure for type 1 diabetes, even though you can live a long life with this treatment.
- 738472527784 8y agoYes. I think after 10 years you are pronounced "cured", which means no clinical presentation after that time usually means this type of cancer won't come back. The 5-year interval is the minimum used in studies on cancer survival benefit.
- anonuser123456 8y agoSurvival rates are conditioned on stage and grading. Scenario 1 you have stage 1. Scenario 2, you have stage 4. The 5 year rate differs for each stage.
- entee 8y agoOne quibble: child cancer and adult cancer are treated differently. Children can actually take a whole lot more punishment (they tolerate toxicity better, have more ability to recover afterwards), so for some cancers the success rate is substantially higher than for adults.
- jopsen 8y ago> This kind of statistical chicanery leads people to opt for treatment, which is usually very bad for you. In the 70ties survival rates for cancer was 25% today it's 50%. You think that's because we discover it sooner and tweak statistics. Sure statistics can be made misleading, but overall stats comparing survivor rates across decades can be expected to correct for stages and time of discovery.
- 738472527784 8y agoSee monoclonal antibody therapy for lymphoma. I think there is debate about late stage cancer survival and chemotherapy drug effectiveness, which OP somehow spread over the whole "cancer" topic. I doubt there is any debate about treatment in early stage cancer cases, apart from some indolent types diagnosed at old age.
- 738472527784 8y agoWhat? Super unlikely a cancer diagnosed at 60 which killed you at 70, while showing complete remission at 65, would have let you live 10 years without treatment. Most people survive early stage cancer. Very few survive late stage cancer. Very often cancer is diagnosed late stage, which is the main reason for cancer lethality.
- tracker1 8y agoRight now my grandmother has stage 4 cancer, and has opted to not treat. The chances were very low for survival and the process painful. I'm pretty sure I would opt similarly if over 60. It sucks, and it's hard to see her that way. I'm heading over to see her after work in a few minutes (she's gotten worse the past couple days). I don't think it's responsible to always opt for treatment. It sucks and it's a hard decision to make and everyone needs to decide for themselves. Your scenario 1, for example also likely includes $30-200k in medical bills that your family has to pay when you die. Do you have your estate in a trust? There's a lot of things that nobody considers.
- greedo 8y agoYour family doesn't have to pay ANY of your medical bills when you die. Hospitals will try to guilt them into paying, but there's no legal obligation (this doesn't apply to spouses, but there are ways to protect them).
- amanaplanacanal 8y agoIf you die, your estate will be tapped to pay what it can, assuming you die with assets.
- sjg007 8y agoA spouse doesn't have to pay unless they cosigned.