4 ms·

You can certainly be cured of cancer. The problem is there isn't really any way to know for sure.

by tsotha 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago
> You can certainly be cured of cancer. Oncologists never use the word "cure". They know better -- unless they're frauds, they say you're is remission. > The problem is there isn't really any way to know for sure. And that's why.
- tsotha 14y ago
  That's just semantics. Of course they don't want to give you false hope, but that's not the same thing as saying you can't be cured.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > That's just semantics. It's more than semantics. The reason is that we cannot declare a cure until we fully understand cancer's genesis. And we don't. > ... but that's not the same thing as saying you can't be cured. That's exactly what it means -- no one is ever "cured" of cancer. All cancer victims remain at higher recurrence risk than those who have never had cancer. It's not semantics.
    - tsotha 14y ago
      >That's exactly what it means -- no one is ever "cured" of cancer. All cancer victims remain at higher recurrence risk than those who have never had cancer. That's simply not true, with one caveat[1]. As a population, of course, it's true. Of course because you can't know whether or not you're cured you can't dismiss the possibility your cancer will return. But that doesn't mean it's actually a possibility in your specific case. If you happen to be one of those lucky people who had a cancer that didn't metastasize, and they got all of it (every last malignant cell), you are not going relapse. There's nothing to relapse. That's why I say this is semantics. You're talking about what we know and what we have to assume for the purposes of treatment. I'm talking about what is, even if we don't know it. [1] The caveat being that chemotherapy increases the risk you'll develop a cancer you would not otherwise have developed. But not the same cancer - a new one. So you can't correctly call it a relapse.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > But that doesn't mean it's actually a possibility in your specific case. We're not discussing whether a particular person -- or any person -- is cured. We're discussing whether we can know this -- you know, like in science? If I say Bigfoot is out there hiding, you may reply, "There's no evidence" and for a scientist with a scientific outlook, that ends the conversation. Only a nonscientist would argue about something that isn't a matter of evidence, of empirical observation. > That's why I say this is semantics. It is not semantics, unless you think the fact that Bigfoot's existence cannot be disproven constitutes evidence that it exists. > I'm talking about what is, even if we don't know it. Ah -- my apologies -- I didn't realize we were discussion religion. Thanks for the heads-up. Oncologists don't operate on the basis of faith and belief. That's why (s)he (at least, a professional oncologist) will never say that someone is cured of cancer. Neither will a scientist.
        tsotha 14y ago
        >We're not discussing whether a particular person -- or any person -- is cured. That's what I was discussing. >Ah -- my apologies -- I didn't realize we were discussion religion. Thanks for the heads-up. What an idiotic thing to say. We're not talking about quantum mechanics here. Just because your oncologist doesn't realize you've been cured doesn't mean that's not the case. >Oncologists don't operate on the basis of faith and belief. That's why (s)he (at least, a professional oncologist) will never say that someone is cured of cancer. Neither will a scientist. Again, they won't say it because they don't know. Let me break something to you as gently as I can: Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't true. The idea that some number of people are cured of cancer every year isn't controversial at all, even among oncologists and scientists.
        lutusp 14y ago
        > Just because your oncologist doesn't realize you've been cured doesn't mean that's not the case. You're posing a metaphysical argument. Science is limited to what we can establish with evidence. > Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't true. And my describing your argument as religious was idiotic? Check you logic. Asserting the truth of things for which there is no evidence is by definition religious. > The idea that some number of people are cured of cancer every year isn't controversial at all, even among oncologists and scientists. Absolute nonsense. Scientists require evidence, and there is no evidence. The reason? We don't understand cancer. Even a person who dies 50 years later of unrelated causes after having had cancer is still officially in remission. To claim a cure, we would need to know the cause to which the cure applies. Then we would need to prove the cure worked. We don't know these things about cancer -- out methods treat symptoms, not causes. Your claim is like playing Russian Roulette while claiming the gun is actually unloaded -- until it turns out not to be. It's not science, it not evidence, it's superstition. Apropos, a cancer treatment center was recently taken to task for claiming a higher success rate than their competitors, on the ground that they were only accepting younger, healthier people, so their claims were tainted by sampling error -- but the reason for the debate was not because that center didn't produce cures (no one can do that), but that they they were making remission claims on slippery grounds. Reading your posts, I see you just don't get science, and modern medicine is evidence-based, i.e. as scientific as possible. This is why oncologists don't commit professional suicide by claiming that anyone is ever cured of cancer. http://www.everydayhealth.com/blog/zimney-health-and-medical-news-you-can-use/cancer-cure-vs-remission/ http://www.everydayhealth.com/blog/zimney-health-and-medical... "So can we ever really talk about a cancer cure? In general, the answer is no." "When talking to your doctor about your prognosis (the course and outcome of your disease), be sure to find out exactly what he/she is talking about. If they use the term cure, ask if they really mean remission. If they use the term remission, ask if it’s complete or partial. And if they do talk about remission, ask about the rates at 5, 10 or 20 years. This will help give you an idea of the odds of cancer recurrence within your lifetime." Q.E.D.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    It's not semantics. Persons who promise a "cure" are usually snake-oil vendors (with or without accreditation.)

You can certainly be cured of cancer. The problem is there isn't really any way to know for sure.

by tsotha 14y ago

You can certainly be cured of cancer. The problem is there isn't really any way to know for sure.

> You can certainly be cured of cancer. Oncologists never use the word "cure". They know better -- unless they're frauds, they say you're is remission. > The problem is there isn't really any way to know for sure. And that's why.

tsotha 14y ago
That's just semantics. Of course they don't want to give you false hope, but that's not the same thing as saying you can't be cured.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > That's just semantics. It's more than semantics. The reason is that we cannot declare a cure until we fully understand cancer's genesis. And we don't. > ... but that's not the same thing as saying you can't be cured. That's exactly what it means -- no one is ever "cured" of cancer. All cancer victims remain at higher recurrence risk than those who have never had cancer. It's not semantics.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    >That's exactly what it means -- no one is ever "cured" of cancer. All cancer victims remain at higher recurrence risk than those who have never had cancer. That's simply not true, with one caveat[1]. As a population, of course, it's true. Of course because you can't know whether or not you're cured you can't dismiss the possibility your cancer will return. But that doesn't mean it's actually a possibility in your specific case. If you happen to be one of those lucky people who had a cancer that didn't metastasize, and they got all of it (every last malignant cell), you are not going relapse. There's nothing to relapse. That's why I say this is semantics. You're talking about what we know and what we have to assume for the purposes of treatment. I'm talking about what is, even if we don't know it. [1] The caveat being that chemotherapy increases the risk you'll develop a cancer you would not otherwise have developed. But not the same cancer - a new one. So you can't correctly call it a relapse.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > But that doesn't mean it's actually a possibility in your specific case. We're not discussing whether a particular person -- or any person -- is cured. We're discussing whether we can know this -- you know, like in science? If I say Bigfoot is out there hiding, you may reply, "There's no evidence" and for a scientist with a scientific outlook, that ends the conversation. Only a nonscientist would argue about something that isn't a matter of evidence, of empirical observation. > That's why I say this is semantics. It is not semantics, unless you think the fact that Bigfoot's existence cannot be disproven constitutes evidence that it exists. > I'm talking about what is, even if we don't know it. Ah -- my apologies -- I didn't realize we were discussion religion. Thanks for the heads-up. Oncologists don't operate on the basis of faith and belief. That's why (s)he (at least, a professional oncologist) will never say that someone is cured of cancer. Neither will a scientist.
      - tsotha 14y ago
        >We're not discussing whether a particular person -- or any person -- is cured. That's what I was discussing. >Ah -- my apologies -- I didn't realize we were discussion religion. Thanks for the heads-up. What an idiotic thing to say. We're not talking about quantum mechanics here. Just because your oncologist doesn't realize you've been cured doesn't mean that's not the case. >Oncologists don't operate on the basis of faith and belief. That's why (s)he (at least, a professional oncologist) will never say that someone is cured of cancer. Neither will a scientist. Again, they won't say it because they don't know. Let me break something to you as gently as I can: Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't true. The idea that some number of people are cured of cancer every year isn't controversial at all, even among oncologists and scientists.
        lutusp 14y ago
        > Just because your oncologist doesn't realize you've been cured doesn't mean that's not the case. You're posing a metaphysical argument. Science is limited to what we can establish with evidence. > Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't true. And my describing your argument as religious was idiotic? Check you logic. Asserting the truth of things for which there is no evidence is by definition religious. > The idea that some number of people are cured of cancer every year isn't controversial at all, even among oncologists and scientists. Absolute nonsense. Scientists require evidence, and there is no evidence. The reason? We don't understand cancer. Even a person who dies 50 years later of unrelated causes after having had cancer is still officially in remission. To claim a cure, we would need to know the cause to which the cure applies. Then we would need to prove the cure worked. We don't know these things about cancer -- out methods treat symptoms, not causes. Your claim is like playing Russian Roulette while claiming the gun is actually unloaded -- until it turns out not to be. It's not science, it not evidence, it's superstition. Apropos, a cancer treatment center was recently taken to task for claiming a higher success rate than their competitors, on the ground that they were only accepting younger, healthier people, so their claims were tainted by sampling error -- but the reason for the debate was not because that center didn't produce cures (no one can do that), but that they they were making remission claims on slippery grounds. Reading your posts, I see you just don't get science, and modern medicine is evidence-based, i.e. as scientific as possible. This is why oncologists don't commit professional suicide by claiming that anyone is ever cured of cancer. http://www.everydayhealth.com/blog/zimney-health-and-medical-news-you-can-use/cancer-cure-vs-remission/ http://www.everydayhealth.com/blog/zimney-health-and-medical... "So can we ever really talk about a cancer cure? In general, the answer is no." "When talking to your doctor about your prognosis (the course and outcome of your disease), be sure to find out exactly what he/she is talking about. If they use the term cure, ask if they really mean remission. If they use the term remission, ask if it’s complete or partial. And if they do talk about remission, ask about the rates at 5, 10 or 20 years. This will help give you an idea of the odds of cancer recurrence within your lifetime." Q.E.D.
- illuminate 14y ago
  It's not semantics. Persons who promise a "cure" are usually snake-oil vendors (with or without accreditation.)