To be candid; fuck this narrative. Nobody "Beats" cancer based on sheer will. Same scenario as those that did not "Fight hard enough". It's a disease. It does not care about your wants, and needs.
I agree, this is a common narrative, that does a disservice for people that actually are consumed by the disease in the expected timeframe as if they weren't willing to fight it with sheer will.
I knew a guy who was diagnosed with stomach cancer at 27 years old. Never had a health problem in his life, he didn't even know how insurance worked yet. It was late stage and he was given 6 months to live. He was recently engaged before that and they moved their wedding up to 3 months away in order to have it before he passed. But he was gone from us just 6 weeks after the original diagnosis. He fought like hell to survive. He had every reason to. He was diligent with everything the doctors told him and he was gone within weeks despite being given months.
Cancer is horrible and it is unpredictable by its very nature. Cancer is literally at its definition a collection of unpredictable mutated cells. Thats why it is so hard for doctors to estimate or predict. It is unpredictable. Sometimes the unpredictability works in your favor and sometimes it works against you. But cancer cells do not listen to willpower, despite the common narrative. The reality is it is good and bad luck that often determines your fate.
As a secondary anecdote. I have a friend who's mom had skin cancer, a small patch the size of a dime on her hip. Skin cancer is generally incredibly survivable and low risk (in the world of cancers). She had it removed as a simple procedure and thought she was fine. 3 months later she started having periods of confusion or getting lost doing simple things like going to the store for milk, she would end up gone for the hours and hours forgetting why she even left the house and ending up on the other side of town. It turns out it spread to her brain and she died just 10 days after that first episode. Cancer is brutal.
> He was diligent with everything the doctors told him
I know I am going to be hated for this comment, but... Given my own experience with the medical system, I can't resist and state the (for me) obvious: Maybe that was the reason for him to pass so early...
(To put my comment in context, I was abused for a medical experiment by a high ranking doctor at the age of 7, and am 100% blind since then.)
I expected nothing else but downvotes. It is pretty representative for the times that peopel can not stand viewpoints which do not align with their own.
And no, I am not going to post my personal medical history on HN in detail. My short description of the incident is already personal enough. Besides, what would that help? Everyone picks their own convenient opinion these days, all that can come out of this is that people publicly will doubt my personal experience, which is not useful for anyone.
My takeaway from that article are these important criticisms:
- Correlation is not causation: A medical error, followed by a death does not implies medical error caused death
- The study that claim is based (BMJ analysis), suggest that 62% of US hospital deaths are caused by medical errors. Which seems hard to believe, especially having similar studies instead suggesting a 3.6% in UK, 4.6% in Norway, and 5% in a meta study
- Experts do not agree which facts are medical errors
Most (All?) other claims were about high uncertainty. Small Ns and possible biases in the samples, many obvious and others even irrelevant criticisms
---
There's still a lot of uncertainty, even in the criticisms.
I think they could have easily made estimations with the UK, Norway and meta study hospital data to have a minimum estimate of medical errors to counter BMJ analysis with a more reasonable number.
We really should calculate more and talk less (I am already sinning with this comment --_(=/)_--)
I am aware how dangerous it is to completely and utterly give oneself up to the medical system. Those without experience dont want to believe this for the sake of their own feeling of comfort and safety.
> And no, I am not going to post my personal medical history on HN
I understand. I hope my request to learn more came across as polite to you. The reason for asking was to understand more about the motivations and beliefs / experiences behind your comment.
> Everyone picks their own convenient opinion these days, all that can come out of this is that people publicly will doubt my personal experience, which is not useful for anyone.
I like to think HN is a forum where this is less likely, or where poor responses are flagged or downvoted, but of course I've seen it here too, and I understand your caution.
I believe the comment you are replying to is sincere.
Not everyone is “picking their own convenient opinion”. There are good people in this world that just want the best for others. I think that may be the case here.
Every type of cancer is different. I think that if you're young enough and lucky enough to have avoided close dealings with terminal cancer, you might be fooled into thinking that the are all kinds of new treatments that can cure you if you get diagnosed. But what you eventually realise is that every cancer is different. Some are treatable, and others are an extremely aggressive and don't respond to anything. My sister's ovarian cancer made itself known in March, was officially diagnosed in early April and she was gone by September. It did not slow down for anything. On the other hand an old boss of mine was diagnosed with terminal colon cancer and lived 4 years, eventually choosing to end his treatment because he'd just be dragging out a final two painful weeks into 6 painful months. And then there are the lucky ones that get a lump removed and never hear from it again.
Parent was not saying that Kevin Mitnick made himself better with sheer will, rather that he was enabled by his personality and wealth to obtain experimental and/or risky treatments that turned out to improve his condition.
The thing is even that is speculative. You cannot know that these treatments specifically worked better. These are things we can only assess via statistics on more than a single patient.
I.E. x% more patient survive after n years while using this or this treatment. And same treatment could increase odds of dying sooner from other decease out of scope with the research years later.
The way I read u/ecohen16's telling is that Mitnick first beat apathy and bureaucracy just to have a shot at mitigating a disease, thereby postponed the inevitable.
I've lived it. Late 80s, I had a terminal diagnosis. Lucky me, my doc found a clinical trial, and fought like hell to get my HMO to pay. Justification was for org to use me to learn about emerging treatment (stem cell transplant is current variation).
A few years ago, my buddy got a terminal diagnosis. Apparent chronic sports related injury turned out to be a late stage tumor, which had spread. Prognosis was 3 - 6 months. None of his care providers were interested in escalating, only talking about palliative care and hospice. He did exactly as Mitnick. Managed to get enrolled in a clinical trial using immunotherapy for his precise diagnosis. Timing wise, a few weeks either way and he'd be dead. Dumb luck.
I can give a few more examples. (And 100s of counter examples.)
Do patients beat cancer?
Of course not. Among the survivors I know, disease (like cancer) is part of life and you deal with it. Or not.
But, some times, if we're really stubborn, and have sufficient resources and support and dumb luck, we can do things to live a little bit longer.
> that did not "Fight hard enough"
Sometimes the patient, family, and especially the care providers don't fight hard enough. For all sorts of reasons. Probably because awareness of mortality made humans neurotic and we're all just winging it. Probably because everything is russian dolls of triage.
Any way, it's just a metaphor. Chose the one that works for you.
Just like I refuse to victim blame/shame, I'm not going to judge another person's coping mechanisms.
People with a lot of money can "fight," at least in terms of throwing everything medical science has to offer at it. I suspect that's where the narrative originated, then took on the mythos that it was somehow sheer will.
Meanwhile, the rest of us ride on pure luck as we watch cancer destroy our loved ones. They gave my dad a month with a glial blastoma. He lasted about 6, most of which the dad I knew was not present for. Tbfh, I feel like he would have rather gone quick, not enduring the twisted shit we watched him go through.
Whether it would be too late to do anything after getting the diagnosis is another question. Studies that look at sun exposure over time and mortality (e.g. Lindqvist's studies) show that it takes decades of sun exposure to lower the mortality risk by this amount.
Any doctor will tell you that mentality is incredibly important in fighting (yes, fighting) diseases.
It is well known that your psychological state influences the immune system a lot, and even from anecdata, you can see that people rapidly deteriorate when they give up. It is not a coincidence all these terms are used.
Can all cancers be beaten by sheer will? Of course not.
>It is well known that your psychological state influences the immune system a lot, and even from anecdata, you can see that people rapidly deteriorate when they give up. It is not a coincidence all these terms are used.
Brief naturalistic stressors (such as exams) tended to suppress cellular immunity while preserving humoral immunity. Chronic stressors were associated with suppression of both cellular and humoral measures
The more a stressor deviated from those parameters by becoming more chronic, however, the more components of the immune system were affected in a potentially detrimental way.
wrong. this would be correct if doctors gave you perfect instructions as a rule. but doctors dont care about maximizing the probability of good health or long lifespan. they only care whether your outcomes are up to the standard defined by the medical establishment and the expectations of laypeople. as long as your doctor meets those standards, they wont be sued, lose their practice, be fined or suffer an insult to their high status. so often there are better treatments and overlooked treatments that got lost in that incentive scheme. patients who are proactive and singleminded will definitely do better with all illnesses including cancer. never understood this until i saw both my parents through cancer. but by far the biggest advantage is to have advocates, family with you at all times, especially in the hospital.
Let's put it that way, the will is never sheer. Looks like the will pushed Kevin to deal with it and relentlessly look for solutions (and put his money to use) instead of succumbing to it. If so, then in the end obviously it's his will that helped him score a win against cancer.
We just say these types of things because it makes us feel better. And that's OK. I don't think anyone accuses someone who dies of "not fighting hard enough".
