Farrah's story...

[Red 46]

I chose to not watch the show. I am 5 years out from my own battle with cancer. My heart goes out to Farrah and Ryan O'neal. The care givers are as much a casualty of this cruel disease as the one infected. Everyone on this forum will be effected in some way by this terrible disease in their lifetime. It doesn't care if you are a movies star or just someone struggling to make a living.

post by beeniesmom

While we have seen some success with the conventional treatment now available namely chemo and radiation the survival rate of some cancers have not improved in the last 40 years. I am of the opinion that if a cure is found it will come from outside of our present medical community. Cancer is big business. Billions are made every year from our antiquated methods. If a magic pill was found tomorrow it would never see the light of day. We have lobbyist in Washington working every day just to maintain the status quo. This is my biased opinion but I feel it is a valid one.

You are absolutely right! Cancer is being cured in Europe and Asia, but here it is such a huge business, that no matter how much money is thrown at so-called cures... chemo and radiation are still going to be the only options available. It would be hard to do, but I think Farrah and Patrick Swayze both should have gone to the media and said, "SEE! These treatments they give everyone, do NOT work!"

Red 46

[aTailOf2Kitties]

all cancers are different. Some are more easily treated than others. Depends on the person, and how soon you are diagnosed. Look how many men survive prostate cancer now. My dad had it, got surgery and is totally fine. The cure rate for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) is near 90% whereas it was under 10% just 30 years ago. You can't generalize such a widespread disease. Just because they are all "cancer" does not mean they are all treated the same.

[Medusa]

all cancers are different. Some are more easily treated than others. Depends on the person, and how soon you are diagnosed.

I pray this is true. My good friend who lives in England was diagnosed w/the same type of cancer that Farrah Fawcett has. She was living in the U.S. at the time, had 3 chemo and radiation treatments and stopped them because she couldn't stand it. She went the alternative route and so far is cancer free after one brief recurrence. Another friend who just recently passed from pancreatic cancer also underwent chemo and the drs. told him that it was the chemo that was killing him so he stopped it, too, and lived a quality life for a year and a half afterwards. I missed the first half of FF's special but when I see what she went through, I feel so badly for her. Yet she's grateful for life so it isn't for me to judge but it's doubtful that I could endure the treatments that she has. For me the cure is often worse than the disease.

[pomtzu]

I watched the FF story and kind of wish I hadn't. It was enlightening, but very depressing and I was in tears at the end when her son was allowed to visit. I don't believe she even knew he was there.

I really believe that survival rate depends on how early it is detected and how aggressive the treatment. It seems that she just didn't get an aggressive approach early on. Perhaps if she had the surgery first, then she would have stood more of a chance.

Cancer survival rates have come a long way, but I believe they could be better with all the technology available today. My best friend's mother had a mastectomy back in the early 1960's when she was in her 50's, and lived to the ripe old age of 95. However my father died within 4 months of being diagnosed with colon cancer back in the early 1970's. Was it just that one of these cancers was found very early. and the other not found till it had progresses too far - why do some survive and others not - is it the course of treatment or lack thereof? Difficult to say I suppose.

I really believe that the U.S. should allow people with cancer to undergo unapproved or experimental treatment within the U.S. if thy so desire. What have they got to lose?? Maybe if FF had been allowed to do this, instead of running back and forth to Germany so many times, it might have given her more time and energy to fight this battle on the homefront, instead of wasting precious time and energy traveling out of the country. But of course - that's something no one will ever know for sure.

[Lady's Human]

and we spend billions on war and the stupid space program....

As far as the "stupid space program" goes....

Had an MRI? Thank NASA.

CT scan? NASA

Remote monitors in hospital rooms? NASA

The computer you're typing on (and pretty much anything that has to do with miniaturized circuitry)? NASA again.

The problem with the "stupid space program" isn't that we spend too much money on it, we don't spend ENOUGH on it. Robert Heinlein had an excellent essay published in the 1970's on the topic, and at the time of the essay NASA's budget worked out to about $.05 per day, per taxpayer. For that return I'll triple my contribution at a minimum.

We're far too timid with NASA. We had the tech tree to be on Mars two decades ago. Instead, now we rely on China to launch our commercial satellites.

Billions on wars? That one I can't argue. Would that the Kellog-Briand pact had born fruit..........

[kokopup]

As far as the "stupid space program" goes....

Had an MRI? Thank NASA.

CT scan? NASA

Remote monitors in hospital rooms? NASA

The computer you're typing on (and pretty much anything that has to do with miniaturized circuitry)? NASA again.

The problem with the "stupid space program" isn't that we spend too much money on it, we don't spend ENOUGH on it. Robert Heinlein had an excellent essay published in the 1970's on the topic, and at the time of the essay NASA's budget worked out to about $.05 per day, per taxpayer. For that return I'll triple my contribution at a minimum.

We're far too timid with NASA. We had the tech tree to be on Mars two decades ago. Instead, now we rely on China to launch our commercial satellites.

I agree that NASA expenditures have put far more back into our economy than it takes. I worked for NASA from 1964 till 1969 and the beloved PC we have come to depend on was born out of the program. Maybe if NASA had been given the budget to find a cure one would have already been found. At least they know how to approach a problem.

I agree that some cancers have had progress in cure rates and the sooner cancer is detected the higher survival rates will be. I do see other cancers that are unchanged because the cure methods have not improved. The side effects from Chemo and Radiation on Head and Neck cancer is VERY life changing.

[RICHARD]

re NASA?

Growing up and hearing the word 'computer' I never thought I'd own one for use in my home. I do not remember the exact quote about the comps in the APOLLO/Lunar Landers, but the power of the systems on board was pretty pathetic compared to what a cheap laptop does today.
Those guys were flying thru space, guided by what amounted to a cheap TIMEX watch and a Cracker Jack compass.

Some of the med experiments, like separating chemicals/substances in zero g's show promise in developing meds for use in curing/prevention/predicting diseases.

The U.S. space program has always been maligned as a waste of money and time.

We just have to look past the astronaut ice cream, velcro, Tang and the adult diapers used to drive across country when you fall in love!

[Grace]

I really believe that survival rate depends on how early it is detected and how aggressive the treatment. . . . why do some survive and others not - is it the course of treatment or lack thereof? Difficult to say I suppose.

How early it is diagnosed - how old is the patient - is there a genetic component (think BRCA gene). All of these factor in. And it's not only cancer. 10 people can be diagnosed with TB, and the outcome might be different for all of them.