3 ms·

I get that people would try anything to help their loved ones. This in itself is admirable and goes to show the guy was truly loved. We are beyond discussing t

by rscho 8y ago

I get that people would try anything to help their loved ones. This in itself is admirable and goes to show the guy was truly loved. We are beyond discussing the scientific value of your approach, so I'll try to communicate what you say conveys for a professional. This is the typical american cancer story. The guy did not want to die, and his family and himself forced him through loads of invasive/experimental procedures because the success of treatment was viewed as a meritocratic achievement, which it is within the bounds of established treatment. I've seen this too many times to count and it saddens me greatly that already sick people get a substantially added dose of suffering on the basis of wishful thinking. If the guy wanted to help OTHERS through his participation in trials, then that's really nice. His family, although very nice people I am sure, should not have had anything to do with his decision. PS: the "best" surgeon wanting to operate on someone most of his colleagues would not touch with a 10-foot pole should have you start running.

dcx 8y ago
I understand what you mean by the typical American cancer story. But I do get the sense you have pattern-matched this story for what I shared and may have missed the value of it. We're not talking about quack treatments and unnecessary procedures here. Being intelligent about diving into the medical literature for a specific cancer, and consulting with academics and professionals in the field, in order to correctly identify treatments that may be effective for this case at the cutting-edge years before they enter the mainstream - this seems like an eminently correct thing to do. A simple Google search of "glioblastoma ketogenic diet" should show you the growth of research and good results now emerging in this area. They were ten years ahead of the curve on this. And it's a fact that some medical professionals are better than others and this makes a quantifiable difference. There are bad doctors. And this is reflected in the studies. Doctors fall behind on recent developments, or have different levels of experience with specialised procedures (say, due to being in lower-population rural areas, as in this case), or just plain have worse manual dexterity. [1] [2] The original hospital did a bunch of damage, and I believe they even tried to sweep things under the rug in some way (I don't remember the exact details unfortunately). What I am describing is not something the average person can do. Which is why it is not a mainstream recommendation on how to interface with the medical system. The average person will probably end up suckered into magic cancer beads, quack doctors, and then into the story you describe. This takes intelligence, effort and time. And risk-reward calculations. My relatives are quantifiably in the top one percent on measures of intelligence and education. As mentioned I chose to share this here specifically because many of us here fit the same kind of demographic. [1] https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/a-vital-measure-your-surgeons-skill/ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/a-vital-measure-yo... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/when-evidence-says-no-but-doctors-say-yes/517368/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/when-evid...

by rscho 8y ago

dcx 8y ago

I understand what you mean by the typical American cancer story. But I do get the sense you have pattern-matched this story for what I shared and may have missed the value of it. We're not talking about quack treatments and unnecessary procedures here. Being intelligent about diving into the medical literature for a specific cancer, and consulting with academics and professionals in the field, in order to correctly identify treatments that may be effective for this case at the cutting-edge years before they enter the mainstream - this seems like an eminently correct thing to do. A simple Google search of "glioblastoma ketogenic diet" should show you the growth of research and good results now emerging in this area. They were ten years ahead of the curve on this. And it's a fact that some medical professionals are better than others and this makes a quantifiable difference. There are bad doctors. And this is reflected in the studies. Doctors fall behind on recent developments, or have different levels of experience with specialised procedures (say, due to being in lower-population rural areas, as in this case), or just plain have worse manual dexterity. [1] [2] The original hospital did a bunch of damage, and I believe they even tried to sweep things under the rug in some way (I don't remember the exact details unfortunately). What I am describing is not something the average person can do. Which is why it is not a mainstream recommendation on how to interface with the medical system. The average person will probably end up suckered into magic cancer beads, quack doctors, and then into the story you describe. This takes intelligence, effort and time. And risk-reward calculations. My relatives are quantifiably in the top one percent on measures of intelligence and education. As mentioned I chose to share this here specifically because many of us here fit the same kind of demographic. [1] https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/a-vital-measure-your-surgeons-skill/ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/a-vital-measure-yo... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/when-evidence-says-no-but-doctors-say-yes/517368/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/when-evid...