Editorial: Breast Cancer, and Answering a Critic
Dean
I saw yesterday morning that a rather famous newscaster named Robin Roberts has breast cancer. I find this somewhat ironic since we're featuring the series on the cancer industry this week, and because a male acquaintance who's very close to me is currently undergoing a breast cancer scare---for himself.
These days I can't get online as much as I used to, but a comment to the Miklos/Baird series that was left the other day deserves a public answer:
Dean, I worked in the cancer field...Your mind is as closed on this as you accuse the medical research industry of being. You think we are all ghouls motivated by our paychecks alone and that we would gladly suffer the ill to die rather than cure them because otherwise we are out of jobs. Or maybe you don't believe that, but you are still giving Miklos the time of day and front page access to your blog to endorse his views of same.
This is over-the-top. It's certainly not what I believe. I'll give Miklos and Baird the opportunity to respond for themselves. But let me tell you what I think:
Few if any Oncologists (cancer doctors) can be blamed for failures of the research industry. They can only go by what the research establishment tells them. Indeed, going against that research establishment would open them up to lawsuits and other serious professional problems. Nurses and other cancer caretakers are even less to blame. The only people who can be accused of failure are professional cancer researchers, and even their blame is limited. Especially young researchers.
Still: failure is failure, and it's our money and our lives that are on the line.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Answering The Critics
- The Hope
- Not Finished...
- The Earliest Stages of Cancer
- Editorial: Breast Cancer, and Answering a Critic
- Drug Resistance & the Return of Cancer, and, New Frontier or Yet Another Unfulfilled Promise?...
- Cancer Cures and Blockbuster Drugs: Who Can Handle the Truth?
- Cancer Patients, Lost in a Maze of Uneven Care
- Handling the Truth About Cancer Research
???
Maybe I'm not seeing the forest for the trees, but I don't quite understand the criticism of this article series. If anything this series highlights the complexity of the "disease" called "cancer."
Part of the problem may be semantics. There doesn't seem to be one "cancer." Even the term "breast cancer" is probably a misnomer since there are different subtypes that behave differently depending on which cells they are. But I'm not a specialist so quickly find myself out on a limb on one of those "trees" I mentioned in the last paragraph.
I also don't find you (or Miklos et al) claiming that there's a "cancer conspiracy" where researchers and drug companies are keeping a cure from the public. I think criticism is warranted. W
I've got a brilliant man's ashes nearby who died of esophageal cancer with mets to the bones. The Wife just dodged a bullet after finding a lump where no lump should be. The "C" word still strikes as much terror today as it did when Nixon declared war on it 37 years ago.
Good job, Dean.
Dean, I worked in the cancer field...Your mind is as closed on this as you accuse the medical research industry of being. You think we are all ghouls motivated by our paychecks alone and that we would gladly suffer the ill to die rather than cure them because otherwise we are out of jobs. Or maybe you don't believe that, but you are still giving Miklos the time of day and front page access to your blog to endorse his views of same.
The "critic" doesn't address Miklos and Baird's points about:
1. Limitations on gene mutation theory
2. Limitations on drug efficacy
3. Huge overriding problems with metastases
It's not a critique at all.
JFTR, there is no "cancer conspiracy."
Barnes
I'm not the issue. Drs. Miklos and Baird hare raised the issue of faulty cancer research. You can either address what they are saying or not.
Yes, Miklos and Baird have have persuaded me that they are mostly correct. But so what?
If you disagree with Miklos and Baird, say so. If not, then what's the beef?
Barnes
On one hand, we've got professionals who've dedicated their lives to a cause. On the other, we've got heretics. Neither is in an easy position.
From personal experience, being a heretic is not easy.
Sympathy should be the order of the day.
Yours,
Wince
Yes, often it's foolish. Not every heretic is speaking truth to power.
But, I wouldn't even classify Dr. Miklos as a heretic. He's a main stream scientist. Look at his publication record -- Science, PNAS -- all the best journals.
Sympathy should be the order of the day.
Absolutely. And humility.
Even the brilliant Steven Hawking can admit being wrong in Physics
If Hawking can admit error, why can't these overly touchy cancer experts and their acolytes do the same?
Barnes
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.