Rude and Unsupportive Posts.

Sabine_Stroehm

Steve Jobs died for the same reason. he had a good prognosis because his cancer was caught very early, but he decided to try alternative cures for a few years before he came to his senses. by that time, it was too late.

I thought he tried both?

Either way, pancreatic cancer has something like a 2% survival rate after five years. I knew someone who had it, caught VERY early and was declared cured. It came back after a year and killed him within weeks. And he was very aggressive with his treatment.

Jobs probably would have died no matter what.

But breast cancer I think now has a 95% survival rate.

What I understood was that he had a very aggressive form of pancreatic cancer with a minimal survival rate and he tried something new. I'm not sure I wouldn't have done what he did.

My grandmother, who was a doctor, had colon cancer that spread to her liver. She put herself into every new study and treatment that would have her and probably prolonged her life doing so.

I don't see anything wrong with trying new treatments along with old. It's the people who think giving up sugar and eating vegetables is going to cure them that are doomed.

And yes, Jobs would have died either way. In about the same time frame.

Heck, I didn't know you were an oncologist. Not sure you should post online about someone's private medical records though...because you've clearly seen them to make this diagnosis right?

you're a witty lass. I'll give you that.

Your replies regarding Jobs' prognosis are quite.... ironic. I'll go with "witty" as my adjective to describe you.

TR0berts

as the OP of this thread, i still don't feel i'm getting the appropriate amount of support from this community.

SUPPORT ME!

OK. Here you go.

QuietBloom

as the OP of this thread, i still don't feel i'm getting the appropriate amount of support from this community.

SUPPORT ME!

Myhaloslipped

as the OP of this thread, i still don't feel i'm getting the appropriate amount of support from this community.

SUPPORT ME!

I have some new sports bras arriving in the mail tomorrow. The web site described them as "uplifting and supportive." I will send them to you.

beachlover317

-desperation makes people post and seek ridiculous things

-success makes people reply with good ideas & strategies that work

Rarely do the two coincide. What the successful people offer is not what the desperate want.

BrainyBurro

still not feeling supported... how do i go about getting a refund of my signup fee?

thhay

So you're giving unsolicited advice to someone who not only didn't ask for it, but doesn't want it, and you wonder why they are not being supportive?

Someone posting on a message board asking for thoughts and advice is asking for thoughts and advice.

By defnition, that is SOLICITED advice.

You might want to ask for a dictionary for Christmas this year. Or Chanukah. Or your birthday. Whatever you celebrate.

It just so happens that I have a dictionary close by, and while I haven't looked up "unsupportive" just yet, I did look up "rude" and what do you know, there was your picture taking up a whole page. Speaking of unsolicited advice, keep yours to yourself. See what I just did there, I avoided being rude.

Don't ask for my advice and I won't give it to you.

That would be unsolicited advice.

Your first post in this thread was pretty rude. I only responded in kind. :flowerforyou:

I didn't ask for your advice. You've already given me unsolicited advice when you suggested I get a dictionary. And if you have a dictionary that defines what somebody posts on a message board is looking for, then you need a new dictionary. And maybe you should go back and read that OP before make ridiculous assumptions. If you can find anywhere in the OP where it refers to responding to someone asking for advice, please show it to me. Until then, shut it.

rowanwood

still not feeling supported... how do i go about getting a refund of my signup fee?

Checks in the mail, bb. Mine too. Except I'm special and getting double.

Sabine_Stroehm

Do what works for YOU, period! No debate needed.

Then don't ask for opinions, because it negates this. Just a tip.

So choosing a path, and asking for support on that path is always bad? Interesting.

Choosing to jump off a bridge, and asking people to support that this is healthy? Right on. Don't ask a forum to "support" that, because its asinine.

So yes.

Don't.

Wanna eat nothing but flower juice and slugs? Go for it, just don't be shocked when you tell us how lovely it is that there's eye rolling.

That's not what I said. You said that carte blanche. What if someone's idea is fine. And they want support in fulfilling that idea? You've said they shouldnt ask.

Sabine_Stroehm

Steve Jobs died for the same reason. he had a good prognosis because his cancer was caught very early, but he decided to try alternative cures for a few years before he came to his senses. by that time, it was too late.

I thought he tried both?

Either way, pancreatic cancer has something like a 2% survival rate after five years. I knew someone who had it, caught VERY early and was declared cured. It came back after a year and killed him within weeks. And he was very aggressive with his treatment.

Jobs probably would have died no matter what.

But breast cancer I think now has a 95% survival rate.

What I understood was that he had a very aggressive form of pancreatic cancer with a minimal survival rate and he tried something new. I'm not sure I wouldn't have done what he did.

My grandmother, who was a doctor, had colon cancer that spread to her liver. She put herself into every new study and treatment that would have her and probably prolonged her life doing so.

I don't see anything wrong with trying new treatments along with old. It's the people who think giving up sugar and eating vegetables is going to cure them that are doomed.

And yes, Jobs would have died either way. In about the same time frame.

Actually he had neuroendocrine pancreatic cancer. It is HIGHLY treatable. Not at all the type that Patrick Swayze died of (for instance).

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/pancreatic-cancer/news/20110825/faq-steve-jobs-pancreatic-cancer

"The cancer can recur after liver transplant. When it does recur, it carries a pretty poor prognosis and ultimately is the cause of death," Levi says." We are limited in what we can do. The patient is immune suppressed. This usually means the cancer is aggressive, and once it recurs it usually is not curable.""The cancer can recur after liver transplant. When it does recur, it carries a pretty poor prognosis and ultimately is the cause of death," Levi says." We are limited in what we can do. The patient is immune suppressed. This usually means the cancer is aggressive, and once it recurs it usually is not curable."

QuietBloom

Steve Jobs died for the same reason. he had a good prognosis because his cancer was caught very early, but he decided to try alternative cures for a few years before he came to his senses. by that time, it was too late.

I thought he tried both?

Either way, pancreatic cancer has something like a 2% survival rate after five years. I knew someone who had it, caught VERY early and was declared cured. It came back after a year and killed him within weeks. And he was very aggressive with his treatment.

Jobs probably would have died no matter what.

But breast cancer I think now has a 95% survival rate.

the article i linked said he had one of the rare forms that was likely to be curable, especially since they discovered it so early.

Here's a bit more detailed info about it. The five-year survival rate is still quite low: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/isletcell/healthprofessional

55% is quite a high survival rate, actually. And it can even be as high as 61% according to this cancer.org article. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/pancreaticcancer/detailedguide/pancreatic-cancer-survival-rates

Sabine_Stroehm

Steve Jobs died for the same reason. he had a good prognosis because his cancer was caught very early, but he decided to try alternative cures for a few years before he came to his senses. by that time, it was too late.

I thought he tried both?

Either way, pancreatic cancer has something like a 2% survival rate after five years. I knew someone who had it, caught VERY early and was declared cured. It came back after a year and killed him within weeks. And he was very aggressive with his treatment.

Jobs probably would have died no matter what.

But breast cancer I think now has a 95% survival rate.

the article i linked said he had one of the rare forms that was likely to be curable, especially since they discovered it so early.

Here's a bit more detailed info about it. The five-year survival rate is still quite low: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/isletcell/healthprofessional

55% is quite a high survival rate, actually. And it can even be as high as 61% according to this cancer.org article. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/pancreaticcancer/detailedguide/pancreatic-cancer-survival-rates

From what I've read the cancer returned after the liver transplant and that the survival rate then is quite low.... he did many "traditional treatments" and many alternative treatments.
He died. I'd say let's stop second guessing him now.

QuietBloom

Steve Jobs died for the same reason. he had a good prognosis because his cancer was caught very early, but he decided to try alternative cures for a few years before he came to his senses. by that time, it was too late.

I thought he tried both?

Either way, pancreatic cancer has something like a 2% survival rate after five years. I knew someone who had it, caught VERY early and was declared cured. It came back after a year and killed him within weeks. And he was very aggressive with his treatment.

Jobs probably would have died no matter what.

But breast cancer I think now has a 95% survival rate.

What I understood was that he had a very aggressive form of pancreatic cancer with a minimal survival rate and he tried something new. I'm not sure I wouldn't have done what he did.

My grandmother, who was a doctor, had colon cancer that spread to her liver. She put herself into every new study and treatment that would have her and probably prolonged her life doing so.

I don't see anything wrong with trying new treatments along with old. It's the people who think giving up sugar and eating vegetables is going to cure them that are doomed.

And yes, Jobs would have died either way. In about the same time frame.

Actually he had neuroendocrine pancreatic cancer. It is HIGHLY treatable. Not at all the type that Patrick Swayze died of (for instance).

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/pancreatic-cancer/news/20110825/faq-steve-jobs-pancreatic-cancer

"The cancer can recur after liver transplant. When it does recur, it carries a pretty poor prognosis and ultimately is the cause of death," Levi says." We are limited in what we can do. The patient is immune suppressed. This usually means the cancer is aggressive, and once it recurs it usually is not curable.""The cancer can recur after liver transplant. When it does recur, it carries a pretty poor prognosis and ultimately is the cause of death," Levi says." We are limited in what we can do. The patient is immune suppressed. This usually means the cancer is aggressive, and once it recurs it usually is not curable."

Thanks for that. I have a friend who is waiting for a liver transplant right now for the very same reason that Steve had one.

QuietBloom

Steve Jobs died for the same reason. he had a good prognosis because his cancer was caught very early, but he decided to try alternative cures for a few years before he came to his senses. by that time, it was too late.

I thought he tried both?

Either way, pancreatic cancer has something like a 2% survival rate after five years. I knew someone who had it, caught VERY early and was declared cured. It came back after a year and killed him within weeks. And he was very aggressive with his treatment.

Jobs probably would have died no matter what.

But breast cancer I think now has a 95% survival rate.

the article i linked said he had one of the rare forms that was likely to be curable, especially since they discovered it so early.

Here's a bit more detailed info about it. The five-year survival rate is still quite low: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/isletcell/healthprofessional

55% is quite a high survival rate, actually. And it can even be as high as 61% according to this cancer.org article. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/pancreaticcancer/detailedguide/pancreatic-cancer-survival-rates

From what I've read the cancer returned after the liver transplant and that the survival rate then is quite low.... he did many "traditional treatments" and many alternative treatments.
He died. I'd say let's stop second guessing him now.

?? I think you have me confused with someone else.

rml_16

I didn't ask for your advice. You've already given me unsolicited advice when you suggested I get a dictionary. And if you have a dictionary that defines what somebody posts on a message board is looking for, then you need a new dictionary. And maybe you should go back and read that OP before make ridiculous assumptions. If you can find anywhere in the OP where it refers to responding to someone asking for advice, please show it to me. Until then, shut it.

So someone posting, "I want to try this, what do you think?" isn't asking for advice?

Clearly I speak a different English than you speak.

Sabine_Stroehm

Steve Jobs died for the same reason. he had a good prognosis because his cancer was caught very early, but he decided to try alternative cures for a few years before he came to his senses. by that time, it was too late.

I thought he tried both?

Either way, pancreatic cancer has something like a 2% survival rate after five years. I knew someone who had it, caught VERY early and was declared cured. It came back after a year and killed him within weeks. And he was very aggressive with his treatment.

Jobs probably would have died no matter what.

But breast cancer I think now has a 95% survival rate.

the article i linked said he had one of the rare forms that was likely to be curable, especially since they discovered it so early.

Here's a bit more detailed info about it. The five-year survival rate is still quite low: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/isletcell/healthprofessional

55% is quite a high survival rate, actually. And it can even be as high as 61% according to this cancer.org article. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/pancreaticcancer/detailedguide/pancreatic-cancer-survival-rates

From what I've read the cancer returned after the liver transplant and that the survival rate then is quite low.... he did many "traditional treatments" and many alternative treatments.
He died. I'd say let's stop second guessing him now.

?? I think you have me confused with someone else.

just making a general comment. sorry for the confusion. had just read the "he was a smart man who made many stupid decisions" and it stuck in my head as I read the rest of the comments.

Good luck to your friend!

rml_16

55% is quite a high survival rate, actually. And it can even be as high as 61% according to this cancer.org article. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/pancreaticcancer/detailedguide/pancreatic-cancer-survival-rates

Basically, he had a 50/50 chance of getting to the five-year mark. He got there and surpassed it.

But if what that Forbes article states is true (and that's from a biographer, not Jobs, his doctors or his family, so ....), he didn't take the smart road trying to treat cancer with diet. Maybe he would have beat it. But he had an almost equal chance of not. Pancreatic cancer is not something you want.

My grandfather died of it and a woman my granfather lived with after his second wife died, too, and I'm pretty much terrified of it. Obviously, I'm only genetically linked to one of those people, but it's still scary.

Sabine_Stroehm

55% is quite a high survival rate, actually. And it can even be as high as 61% according to this cancer.org article. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/pancreaticcancer/detailedguide/pancreatic-cancer-survival-rates

Basically, he had a 50/50 chance of getting to the five-year mark. He got there and surpassed it.

But if what that Forbes article states is true (and that's from a biographer, not Jobs, his doctors or his family, so ....), he didn't take the smart road trying to treat cancer with diet. Maybe he would have beat it. But he had an almost equal chance of not. Pancreatic cancer is not something you want.

My grandfather died of it and a woman my granfather lived with after his second wife died, too, and I'm pretty much terrified of it. Obviously, I'm only genetically linked to one of those people, but it's still scary.

HE DID TREAT it. And had a liver transplant. AND it returned. And the survival rate when it returns after the liver transplant is not 50/50.
I'm sorry it's so much a part of your life. That's quite stressful.

Akimajuktuq

Best quote ever! I think I have actually burned a good amount of calories from the frustration that comes with trying to beat this into certain people's heads that I know.

Yup, science is ALWAYS totally free of bias, misinterpretation, mistakes, bending the data to fit the hypothesis, conflict of interest, selective reporting, never inadequately peer reviewed before being published... and results in a lab or manipulated data are ALWAYS more meaningful than what happens in real life. LMAO I love it.... (SARCASM in a loud voice.)

I work in science people; anyone who thinks that any study is always the TRUTH and should never be analyzed or questioned on a continual basis is sooooo naive, and WRONG. In fact, that's exactly what science is supposed to be; it's supposed to be challenged continually, not become like a religion that must be believed in at all costs no matter what new information comes into play.

PS. I do NOT juice or detox or cleanse. But I do eat healthy food which receives it's own large measure of ridicule around here.

thhay

i have taken the time (as have many others) to explain why juice cleanses, cleanses, and detoxes are complete nonsense.

they are not grounded in science. they are not accepted by any legitimate medical organization as an acceptable strategy for weight loss. they don't work. in fact, some can be downright dangerous.

instead of being thanked for our efforts, we are often met with scorn and ridicule by the legions of fans of cleanses and detoxes. these people place their "feelings" and "beliefs" and 3rd-hand anecdotes above actual, real science. moreover, they often attribute magical medical properties to these cleanses and detoxes, to the point that i fear that some naive MFP member with a real and serious medical problem may consider foregoing real medical treatments in favor of trying a fraudulent cleanse of detox. for example, some MFP members who support cleanses and detoxes insist that these non-scientific methods can cure cancer (among other things).

so, i am posting this thread because i am truly disappointed that so many MFP members are not being supportive of me (and others) in our efforts to prevent people from doing something stupid to themselves, like a starting a cleanse or detox.

i thought this site was supposed to be supportive. :frown:

Funny, I don't see "I want to try this. What do you think?" in here anywhere. You DO speak a different English than I do!!