4 ms·

Not using the word cure is superstitious claptrap. If I get cancer I want a cure. If anybody in my family gets cancer I want them cured. This wariness of usi

Not using the word cure is superstitious claptrap. If I get cancer I want a cure. If anybody in my family gets cancer I want them cured. This wariness of using the word cure is just because of the idiots in this world. People who can't understand percentages and possibilities. People who believe that anecdotes prove a point. HN doesn't have to conform to that silliness.

lutusp 13y ago
> Not using the word cure is superstitious claptrap. Not using the word cure is the rational response to the fact that there is no cure for cancer -- there is only remission. > If I get cancer I want a cure. If anybody in my family gets cancer I want them cured. You just changed the subject. Wanting a cure, and having a cure, are obviously different topics. > This wariness of using the word cure is just because of the idiots in this world. So scientists, and medical ethicists, are idiots. Good for you -- I prefer it when a person reveals his ignorance without beating around the bush. > People who believe that anecdotes prove a point. It is you who are relying on anecdotes. Scientists evaluate evidence, and the evidence says there is no cure. Anyone who claims otherwise is deluding himself.
- adaml_623 13y ago
  I never said that this article was about a cure. I was responding to the quote: "A cure is the hope so great, so seemingly out of reach, that it must never be invoked" I was responding to the fact that people seem scared to hope. There is no cure yet (probably). But to not hope that somebody has just found a cure is just silly.
vidarh 13y ago
And this is exactly why they don't use the word cure: None of our current approaches to fighting cancer are particularly good as cures. They remove enough of the cancerous cells that with luck the cancer won't regrow. But unlike a lot of diseases where we can usually pretty much guarantee that we wiped it out, we can usually do no such thing with cancer. A cure has a vastly stronger expectation. The day remission is something that happens in so few cases it's a rounding error, we can start talking about it being a cure.
- VLM 13y ago
  "The day remission is something that happens in so few cases it's a rounding error" No, it merely has to be about as reliable as a "cure for pneumonia". It doesn't have to exceed that limit and approach a "cure for a laceration" or a "cure for appendicitis" both of which basically don't spontaneously reappear (assuming surgical removal of appendix)
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > No, it merely has to be about as reliable as a "cure for pneumonia". You're overlooking something very important -- we know what causes pneumonia, but we don't know what causes cancer. When we treat pneumonia, we're treating a cause. When we treat cancer, we're treating a symptom. The reason for "remission not cure" is because we don't have any way to definitively say there won't be a recurrence, and this will remain true until we fully understand cancer.
    - maaku 13y ago
      So? That's a state of our knowledge. When we learn more about cancer and find a way to treat the underlying causes, we will have actual cures: treatments which result in complete remission in >95% of cases. This will happen. It may take the tools provided by molecular nanotechnology, and a generation of oncological research, but it will. To accept that cancer is special is irrational deathism.
      - lutusp 13y ago
        > When we learn more about cancer and find a way to treat the underlying causes, we will have actual cures: treatments which result in complete remission in >95% of cases. You clearly haven't decided what position you're taking. A cure is not remission in 95% of cases. A cure is a cure, with no chance of a recurrence if there is no further exposure to the responsible pathogen. Take malaria, for example -- do you think malaria victims experience spontaneous recurrences, far from the anopheles mosquito and its hitchhiker, plasmodium falciparum? > To accept that cancer is special is irrational deathism. In modern scientific medicine, anything we don't understand is special and deserves our attention. We don't understand cancer and it's deadly. Therefore it's special for perfectly scientific reasons. To call cancer just another disease is simply irrational -- and dangerous thinking.

lutusp 13y ago

> Not using the word cure is superstitious claptrap. Not using the word cure is the rational response to the fact that there is no cure for cancer -- there is only remission. > If I get cancer I want a cure. If anybody in my family gets cancer I want them cured. You just changed the subject. Wanting a cure, and having a cure, are obviously different topics. > This wariness of using the word cure is just because of the idiots in this world. So scientists, and medical ethicists, are idiots. Good for you -- I prefer it when a person reveals his ignorance without beating around the bush. > People who believe that anecdotes prove a point. It is you who are relying on anecdotes. Scientists evaluate evidence, and the evidence says there is no cure. Anyone who claims otherwise is deluding himself.

adaml_623 13y ago
I never said that this article was about a cure. I was responding to the quote: "A cure is the hope so great, so seemingly out of reach, that it must never be invoked" I was responding to the fact that people seem scared to hope. There is no cure yet (probably). But to not hope that somebody has just found a cure is just silly.

vidarh 13y ago

And this is exactly why they don't use the word cure: None of our current approaches to fighting cancer are particularly good as cures. They remove enough of the cancerous cells that with luck the cancer won't regrow. But unlike a lot of diseases where we can usually pretty much guarantee that we wiped it out, we can usually do no such thing with cancer. A cure has a vastly stronger expectation. The day remission is something that happens in so few cases it's a rounding error, we can start talking about it being a cure.

VLM 13y ago
"The day remission is something that happens in so few cases it's a rounding error" No, it merely has to be about as reliable as a "cure for pneumonia". It doesn't have to exceed that limit and approach a "cure for a laceration" or a "cure for appendicitis" both of which basically don't spontaneously reappear (assuming surgical removal of appendix)
- lutusp 13y ago
  > No, it merely has to be about as reliable as a "cure for pneumonia". You're overlooking something very important -- we know what causes pneumonia, but we don't know what causes cancer. When we treat pneumonia, we're treating a cause. When we treat cancer, we're treating a symptom. The reason for "remission not cure" is because we don't have any way to definitively say there won't be a recurrence, and this will remain true until we fully understand cancer.
  - maaku 13y ago
    So? That's a state of our knowledge. When we learn more about cancer and find a way to treat the underlying causes, we will have actual cures: treatments which result in complete remission in >95% of cases. This will happen. It may take the tools provided by molecular nanotechnology, and a generation of oncological research, but it will. To accept that cancer is special is irrational deathism.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > When we learn more about cancer and find a way to treat the underlying causes, we will have actual cures: treatments which result in complete remission in >95% of cases. You clearly haven't decided what position you're taking. A cure is not remission in 95% of cases. A cure is a cure, with no chance of a recurrence if there is no further exposure to the responsible pathogen. Take malaria, for example -- do you think malaria victims experience spontaneous recurrences, far from the anopheles mosquito and its hitchhiker, plasmodium falciparum? > To accept that cancer is special is irrational deathism. In modern scientific medicine, anything we don't understand is special and deserves our attention. We don't understand cancer and it's deadly. Therefore it's special for perfectly scientific reasons. To call cancer just another disease is simply irrational -- and dangerous thinking.