4 ms·

This is because of effective treatment. I was dx'ed with "fatal" cancer just over 10 years ago... Modern medicine FTW.

by aosmith 12y ago

tsotha 12y ago
I doubt it has anything to do with treatment. On average we've been able to add a whopping four months to longevity since the '70s, and even that's questionable since we have better diagnostic equipment. You were really, really lucky. A drop in cancer deaths is probably related to two things: a drop in smoking, and an increase in obesity that's killing people before they can get cancer.
- Gatsky 12y ago
  Sorry but how can you doubt anything when you have no idea of the details of this person's disease? I think it is a bit off colour for you to impose your ideas on their actual experience. There are definitely cancer types which used to be fatal but can now be cured with therapy in the majority of patients, such as advanced germ cell tumours. Google it.
  - tsotha 12y ago
    I didn't mean his disease. I meant cancer treatment in general. When I said he was lucky I meant he was lucky given his diagnosis. And yes, I'm aware there are curable cancers. Hell, there are skin cancers that have never been particularly dangerous. But the number of types that used to be deadly that we can now cure is a drop in the bucket. Like I said - four months. In the vast majority of cases we can keep you alive for a few months longer. Otherwise it may as well be 1970.
    - wdewind 12y ago
      > Like I said - four months. In the vast majority of cases we can keep you alive for a few months longer. Can you cite this? I suspect it's an average, and thus not very useful. (Ie: some people are living a lot longer, enough to drive the overall average up 4 months, not most people are living 4 months longer).
      - tsotha 12y ago
        It's from this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography/dp/1439170916 http://www.amazon.com/The-Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography/dp/... Highly recommended reading, BTW, though it's a bit depressing. For the average to go up only four months either we're doing really well against a tiny percentage of cancers or we're doing generally a tiny bit better against most cancers. Or some combination of the two. Either way you look at it that's an indication of lack of progress.
- refurb 12y ago
  I doubt it has anything to do with treatment. Hold on there. There have been several major advances in the treatment of cancer. Take a look at the leukemias. CML used to be a death sentence. Now, you can take Gleevec and you'll eventually die, but it won't be because of the cancer anymore. That drug turned a rapidly fatal cancer into a chronic, treatable condition.
  - tsotha 12y ago
    Sure, there are a handful of cancers we've actually made substantial progress on. Out of thousands. For the most part we've fine-tuned chemo regimens such that you life a bit longer and don't suffer as much. Well, the suffering is postponed, anyhow.

This is because of effective treatment. I was dx'ed with "fatal" cancer just over 10 years ago... Modern medicine FTW.

by aosmith 12y ago

This is because of effective treatment. I was dx'ed with "fatal" cancer just over 10 years ago... Modern medicine FTW.

I doubt it has anything to do with treatment. On average we've been able to add a whopping four months to longevity since the '70s, and even that's questionable since we have better diagnostic equipment. You were really, really lucky. A drop in cancer deaths is probably related to two things: a drop in smoking, and an increase in obesity that's killing people before they can get cancer.

Gatsky 12y ago
Sorry but how can you doubt anything when you have no idea of the details of this person's disease? I think it is a bit off colour for you to impose your ideas on their actual experience. There are definitely cancer types which used to be fatal but can now be cured with therapy in the majority of patients, such as advanced germ cell tumours. Google it.
- tsotha 12y ago
  I didn't mean his disease. I meant cancer treatment in general. When I said he was lucky I meant he was lucky given his diagnosis. And yes, I'm aware there are curable cancers. Hell, there are skin cancers that have never been particularly dangerous. But the number of types that used to be deadly that we can now cure is a drop in the bucket. Like I said - four months. In the vast majority of cases we can keep you alive for a few months longer. Otherwise it may as well be 1970.
  - wdewind 12y ago
    > Like I said - four months. In the vast majority of cases we can keep you alive for a few months longer. Can you cite this? I suspect it's an average, and thus not very useful. (Ie: some people are living a lot longer, enough to drive the overall average up 4 months, not most people are living 4 months longer).
    - tsotha 12y ago
      It's from this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography/dp/1439170916 http://www.amazon.com/The-Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography/dp/... Highly recommended reading, BTW, though it's a bit depressing. For the average to go up only four months either we're doing really well against a tiny percentage of cancers or we're doing generally a tiny bit better against most cancers. Or some combination of the two. Either way you look at it that's an indication of lack of progress.
refurb 12y ago
I doubt it has anything to do with treatment. Hold on there. There have been several major advances in the treatment of cancer. Take a look at the leukemias. CML used to be a death sentence. Now, you can take Gleevec and you'll eventually die, but it won't be because of the cancer anymore. That drug turned a rapidly fatal cancer into a chronic, treatable condition.
- tsotha 12y ago
  Sure, there are a handful of cancers we've actually made substantial progress on. Out of thousands. For the most part we've fine-tuned chemo regimens such that you life a bit longer and don't suffer as much. Well, the suffering is postponed, anyhow.