Rude and Unsupportive Posts.

1234689

Replies

  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    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
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    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
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    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
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    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
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    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
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    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
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    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
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    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
    Akimajuktuq Posts: 3,037 Member
    goodthingaboutscience.jpg

    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
    thhay Posts: 11
    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!! :)
  • BrainyBurro
    BrainyBurro Posts: 6,129 Member
    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!! :)

    Point_missed.gif
  • mynewlife10
    mynewlife10 Posts: 52
    Just because someone doesn't agree doesn't make them rude or unsupportive. It's all in the delivery of the message, some times.

    What works for one may not work for another; it doesn't make it wrong. It just makes it what it is. If someone says detoxing works for them, and they are healthy more power to them. We don't have to agree to be considered supportive. They are points of views - and, personally, I prefer not to have anyone shoving their opinions down my throat and pointing fingers. And, I won't do it to them either.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    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!! :)
    The OP was not asking a question. The OP was making a statement about threads that appear over and over asking about these methods of weight loss/detox/cleansing/whatever.

    Now maybe you are a rejoin and were here long enough before to see these threads or maybe you're new. But I've seen the threads the OP is talking about. They are asking for people's thoughts. That is SOLICITED advice.

    Thanks for playing.
  • MireyGal76
    MireyGal76 Posts: 7,334 Member
    I was very close to someone who was diagnosed with testicular cancer. At time of diagnosis, it was fully contained within the testicle. The doctor advocated removal of the testicle, and was pretty confident no follow up treatment would be required (it was caught very early on).

    The individual, and his family, did not want to believe it was cancer, and chose not to get it treated. They sought out naturopathy, faith healing, you name it... anything but medical intervention. I struggled with this course of action and expressed that repeatedly. I was told I was not being supportive, and if things went awry, that my lack of support would be a contributing factor.

    Fast forward almost three years, and the testicle was the size of a canteloupe, the person had repeated fevers, and red dots on their body. At this point, he chose to return to the medical route (and I firmly believe that this decision was triggered by my continued unsupport). The testicle was removed, and the hernia he got carrying it around was repaired. He was then told the cancer had spread to the lymph nodes, AND there was another ball of cancer the size of a pop can that was wedged between his kidney and liver (causing poor functioning of both - hence the red spots).

    Chemo was followed, and miraculously, the person survived and has now been declared as cancer free.

    This person was very convinced in their course of action. That it was right. The naturopath indicated they had an infection and supported them. His family supported them. All that support almost caused that person to lose his life.


    I am a lot more vocal in my unsupport now.

    ETA : fixed some errors
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    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.
    But if you read the Forbes article, it says he waited nine months between diagnosis and conventional treatment and attempted a "cure" through diet and exercise.

    Nine months in the world of cancer treatment is a lifetime.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    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.

    He waited almost a year to receive treatment, actually. Instead he tried some sort of new age diet.
  • BrainyBurro
    BrainyBurro Posts: 6,129 Member
    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.

    here's the point...

    if you want to argue "healthy" food, then go ahead. know that you are going to get some pushback for a couple of reasons. it's not directed at you, it's directed at the terminology. but when that happens, don't go storming off complaining about how this site isn't supportive. because if you (and i mean generically *you*) can demand support for your ideas, then so can those who oppose them. you both would have equal claim for unqualified "support". which is why complaining about not being supported is such a silly claim in my view. that's all i was trying to say with my OP. i was illustrating how this "support" that people demand is really a 2-way street. if one side of one argument can get away with demanding it, then every side of every argument should be able to get away with demanding it... in which case it becomes worthless.
  • arghbowl
    arghbowl Posts: 1,179 Member
    I take pride in being an unsupportive *kitten*.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    I was very close to someone who was diagnosed with testicular cancer. At time of diagnosis, it was fully contained within the testicle. The doctor advocated removal of the testicle, and was pretty confident no follow up treatment would be required (it was caught very early on).

    The individual, and his family, did not want to believe it was cancer, and chose not to get it treated. They sought out naturopathy, faith healing, you name it... anything but medical intervention. I struggled with this course of action and expressed that repeatedly. I was told I was not being supportive, and if things went awry, that my lack of support would be a contributing factor.

    Fast forward almost three years, and the testicle was the size of a canteloupe, the person had repeated fevers, and red dots on their body. At this point, they chose to return to the medical route (and I firmly believe that this decision was triggered by my continued unsupport). The testicle was removed, and the hernia he got carrying it around was repaired. He was then told the cancer had spread to the lymph nodes, AND there was another ball of cancer the size of a pop can that was wedged between their kidney and liver (causing poor functioning of both - hence the red spots).

    Chemo was followed, and miraculously, the person survived and has now been declared as cancer free.

    This person was very convinced in their course of action. That it was right. The naturopath indicated they had an infection and supported them. Their family supported them. All that support almost caused that person to lose his life.


    I am a lot more vocal in my unsupport now.

    ETA : fixed some errors
    He is VERY lucky.

    A friend of mine from high school caught a "cold" when he was 20 and it wouldn't go away. Went to the doc and found out he'd had testicular cancer that had spread to his lungs and it was too late to save him. :-(

    On the other hand, another friend of mine knew he had a family history of it, made sure he checked himself (ha ha, I know) regularly and when he did find a tumor, got treatment immediately and has just this year been declared cancer-free. He has a little boy and a little girl on the way. :-)

    I'm glad your friend got lucky. Hopefully he can share his story and convince others to go the right way with treatment.
  • Myhaloslipped
    Myhaloslipped Posts: 4,317 Member
    I take pride in being an unsupportive *kitten*.

    I see what you did there. ;)
  • lizziebeth1028
    lizziebeth1028 Posts: 3,602 Member
    That's life. Not everyone is always going to be on the same page as you....and they shouldn't have to be. We are all entitled to have our own beliefs. And if you try to shove your own beliefs down someone else's throat you may not like the response you get.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    That's life. Not everyone is always going to be on the same page as you....and they shouldn't have to be. We are all entitled to have our own beliefs. And if you try to shove your own beliefs down someone else's throat you may not like the response you get.
    Yes. How dare you refute someone's belief with actual science and try to shove that science down that person's throat.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    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.

    here's the point...

    if you want to argue "healthy" food, then go ahead. know that you are going to get some pushback for a couple of reasons. it's not directed at you, it's directed at the terminology. but when that happens, don't go storming off complaining about how this site isn't supportive. because if you (and i mean generically *you*) can demand support for your ideas, then so can those who oppose them. you both would have equal claim for unqualified "support". which is why complaining about not being supported is such a silly claim in my view. that's all i was trying to say with my OP. i was illustrating how this "support" that people demand is really a 2-way street. if one side of one argument can get away with demanding it, then every side of every argument should be able to get away with demanding it... in which case it becomes worthless.
    It's not directed at the terminology. We've even said the terminology is dumb. And yes, it really IS a two way street. Wonder when you will come to realize it?:smile:
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    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.
    But if you read the Forbes article, it says he waited nine months between diagnosis and conventional treatment and attempted a "cure" through diet and exercise.

    Nine months in the world of cancer treatment is a lifetime.
    And I've read that in his case (the slow moving rare form) it wouldn't have changed the outcome. who know if it would. What happened happened.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    And I've read that in his case (the slow moving rare form) it wouldn't have changed the outcome. who know if it would. What happened happened.

    We'll never know. But cancer often defies what it's supposed to do, so I personally wouldn't chance it. He did. He very well might have had the same outcome. He might have beaten it, too.

    If diet and exercise cured cancer, people wouldn't have died of it 100 or 500 years ago.
  • Myhaloslipped
    Myhaloslipped Posts: 4,317 Member
    That's life. Not everyone is always going to be on the same page as you....and they shouldn't have to be. We are all entitled to have our own beliefs. And if you try to shove your own beliefs down someone else's throat you may not like the response you get.
    Yes. How dare you refute someone's belief with actual science and try to shove that science down that person's throat.

    Lol this reminds me of when I was watching "Idiocracy" last night, and the narrator was explaining why society became so dumbed down in the future. I kept thinking to myself, "it's happening!" Not referring to the other poster as an idiot, btw. But I love this sarcasm. :)
  • Hildy_J
    Hildy_J Posts: 1,050 Member
    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.

    Dramatic, much? Relax. I think it's a little patronising all this: 'We're saving you from yourselves', 'We're stopping you jumping off a cliff'. It belies a superior and arrogant attitude, imo, like people aren't capable of making their own decisions. Respect other people's choices, man.

    If you feel the need to argue issues, join a debating society, study law, become politically active... or act as an advocate for someone who REALLY needs it?

    Peace out. :glasses:
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    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 think it's a little patronising all this: 'We're saving you from yourselves', 'We're stopping you jumping off a cliff'. It belies a superior and arrogant attitude, imo, like people aren't capable of making their own decisions. Respect other people's choices, man.

    If you feel the need to argue issues, join a debating society, study law, become politically active... or act as an advocate for someone who REALLY needs it?

    Peace out. :glasses:

    I cannot figure out why you think it's a good idea to support anorexia. You always come out of the woodwork to defend people who want to starve themselves skinny.
  • Mia_RagazzaTosta
    Mia_RagazzaTosta Posts: 4,885 Member
    Shizz just got real.
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    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!

    Thanks for the well wishes Sabine. I said what I did, because according to the Forbes article, he did no treatment for 9 months! 'Alternative' methods and changing his diet could not have possibly been effective, and he himself came to realize it eventually. My saying that doesn't mean I am 'second guessing' his treatment. I am pointing out that he effectually did NOTHING about his cancer for 9 months. That's not smart.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories