Replies

I'm writting this with mixed emotions. I'm now six months out with "No Evidence of Disease" and a 50% prognosis. Anyone who has spent some time with cancer knows that 1) blanket statements about effective treatments can't be made. In the same way that there are diffent causes, there are different cures. 2)Since there is no one type of cancer and they all act/react differently it complicates the research. 3) Cancer treatments (even for one as rare as mine) are based on extensive, documented medical treatment studies. In fact it can be regarded a almost coldly analytical (appropriate for such a coldly efficient disease). Having said all that, It is assanine to assume that a disease as malevolent as this one is being perpetuated by a conspiracy. Indeed, if one believes that there is a conspiracy to cure cancer, why did the industry cure smallpox? Or why does it bother to make such powerfull antibiotics to cure common infections? Why not just make us buy more and more weak and worthless ones? In fact I can show you an example of why the industry is acting in a completely logical and efficient way. One can easily look at the commonality of the cancer type (how often it occures) and the amount of drugs in development and/or money being spent on it's cure. This logical distribution of effort, reflects the patern you would expect for an industry working on solutions for a given problem. Cancer treatment today is far superior to what it was ten years ago, and infinitely better than it was twenty years ago. IT STILL SUCKS, but that is sometimes the way life goes. Since EVERYONE is at risk to get cancer it is stupid to assume that some well paid scientist or CEO is purposely squashing a cure. If you all ask my nicely, mabey I'll explain why chemotherapy has to be so harsh in order to tackle one of the most coldly efficient killers we commonly face.