3 ms·

The day after tomorrow I am driving 12 hours across three states to get my dog the second shot of his immunotherapy treatment for hemangiosarcoma. It’s only ava

The day after tomorrow I am driving 12 hours across three states to get my dog the second shot of his immunotherapy treatment for hemangiosarcoma. It’s only available in trial (this is a yale study). Results for him are too early, but the standard prognosis with chemo is 3-6 months. This feels like we are on the cusp of profound medical breakthroughs treatment of cancer. My thanks to everyone who contributes to this kind of medical and scientific progress.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
hinkley 1y ago
Just remember that you could be at risk for three kinds of cancer. Cancer is the thing that will get you if nothing else does. And then there are the cancers that are truly unfair. That try to jump the line. Go after kids, mothers, professional athletes. If we can fix those, our relationship with cancer will change. Hope those are the ones we can fix first. Or best.
- chrisweekly 1y ago
  why professional athletes?
  - jtoberon 1y ago
    Presumably because they're otherwise very healthy.
    - ReptileMan 1y ago
      They are rarely at peak healthy. They are just in peak physical shape. Depending on the sport - strain on muscles, joints, heart
      - Hisoka 1y ago
        [dead]
  - ang_cire 1y ago
    Higher sun exposure, extended exposure to chemicals like pesticides on fields, lots and lots of reasons beyond what most people assume (steroid/ PED use).
    - hinkley 1y ago
      Those tend to be the ones that “get you” at an older age. I’m sure there are going to be a lot of retired athletes interested in the metastatic melanoma results here of course, but bone or testicular/ovarian cancer hitting 25 year olds (eg, Lance Armstrong) is just kinda brutal. And childhood leukemia is the biggest dick of them all.
  - chrisweekly 1y ago
    (clarifying my earlier Q, addressed to hinckley) "..cancers that are truly unfair. That try to jump the line. Go after kids, mothers, professional athletes" Why group athletes with kids and mothers as "unfair" victims of cancer?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

hinkley 1y ago

Just remember that you could be at risk for three kinds of cancer. Cancer is the thing that will get you if nothing else does. And then there are the cancers that are truly unfair. That try to jump the line. Go after kids, mothers, professional athletes. If we can fix those, our relationship with cancer will change. Hope those are the ones we can fix first. Or best.

chrisweekly 1y ago
why professional athletes?
- jtoberon 1y ago
  Presumably because they're otherwise very healthy.
  - ReptileMan 1y ago
    They are rarely at peak healthy. They are just in peak physical shape. Depending on the sport - strain on muscles, joints, heart
    - Hisoka 1y ago
      [dead]
- ang_cire 1y ago
  Higher sun exposure, extended exposure to chemicals like pesticides on fields, lots and lots of reasons beyond what most people assume (steroid/ PED use).
  - hinkley 1y ago
    Those tend to be the ones that “get you” at an older age. I’m sure there are going to be a lot of retired athletes interested in the metastatic melanoma results here of course, but bone or testicular/ovarian cancer hitting 25 year olds (eg, Lance Armstrong) is just kinda brutal. And childhood leukemia is the biggest dick of them all.
- chrisweekly 1y ago
  (clarifying my earlier Q, addressed to hinckley) "..cancers that are truly unfair. That try to jump the line. Go after kids, mothers, professional athletes" Why group athletes with kids and mothers as "unfair" victims of cancer?