It's more than semantics. The reason is that we cannot declare a cure until we fully understand cancer's genesis. And we don't.
> ... but that's not the same thing as saying you can't be cured.
That's exactly what it means -- no one is ever "cured" of cancer. All cancer victims remain at higher recurrence risk than those who have never had cancer.
>That's exactly what it means -- no one is ever "cured" of cancer. All cancer victims remain at higher recurrence risk than those who have never had cancer.
That's simply not true, with one caveat[1]. As a population, of course, it's true. Of course because you can't know whether or not you're cured you can't dismiss the possibility your cancer will return. But that doesn't mean it's actually a possibility in your specific case. If you happen to be one of those lucky people who had a cancer that didn't metastasize, and they got all of it (every last malignant cell), you are not going relapse. There's nothing to relapse.
That's why I say this is semantics. You're talking about what we know and what we have to assume for the purposes of treatment. I'm talking about what is, even if we don't know it.
[1] The caveat being that chemotherapy increases the risk you'll develop a cancer you would not otherwise have developed. But not the same cancer - a new one. So you can't correctly call it a relapse.
> But that doesn't mean it's actually a possibility in your specific case.
We're not discussing whether a particular person -- or any person -- is cured. We're discussing whether we can know this -- you know, like in science? If I say Bigfoot is out there hiding, you may reply, "There's no evidence" and for a scientist with a scientific outlook, that ends the conversation. Only a nonscientist would argue about something that isn't a matter of evidence, of empirical observation.
> That's why I say this is semantics.
It is not semantics, unless you think the fact that Bigfoot's existence cannot be disproven constitutes evidence that it exists.
> I'm talking about what is, even if we don't know it.
Ah -- my apologies -- I didn't realize we were discussion religion. Thanks for the heads-up.
Oncologists don't operate on the basis of faith and belief. That's why (s)he (at least, a professional oncologist) will never say that someone is cured of cancer. Neither will a scientist.
>We're not discussing whether a particular person -- or any person -- is cured.
That's what I was discussing.
>Ah -- my apologies -- I didn't realize we were discussion religion. Thanks for the heads-up.
What an idiotic thing to say. We're not talking about quantum mechanics here. Just because your oncologist doesn't realize you've been cured doesn't mean that's not the case.
>Oncologists don't operate on the basis of faith and belief. That's why (s)he (at least, a professional oncologist) will never say that someone is cured of cancer. Neither will a scientist.
Again, they won't say it because they don't know. Let me break something to you as gently as I can: Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't true. The idea that some number of people are cured of cancer every year isn't controversial at all, even among oncologists and scientists.
> Just because your oncologist doesn't realize you've been cured doesn't mean that's not the case.
You're posing a metaphysical argument. Science is limited to what we can establish with evidence.
> Just because you don't know something doesn't mean it isn't true.
And my describing your argument as religious was idiotic? Check you logic. Asserting the truth of things for which there is no evidence is by definition religious.
> The idea that some number of people are cured of cancer every year isn't controversial at all, even among oncologists and scientists.
Absolute nonsense. Scientists require evidence, and there is no evidence. The reason? We don't understand cancer. Even a person who dies 50 years later of unrelated causes after having had cancer is still officially in remission.
To claim a cure, we would need to know the cause to which the cure applies. Then we would need to prove the cure worked. We don't know these things about cancer -- out methods treat symptoms, not causes.
Your claim is like playing Russian Roulette while claiming the gun is actually unloaded -- until it turns out not to be. It's not science, it not evidence, it's superstition.
Apropos, a cancer treatment center was recently taken to task for claiming a higher success rate than their competitors, on the ground that they were only accepting younger, healthier people, so their claims were tainted by sampling error -- but the reason for the debate was not because that center didn't produce cures (no one can do that), but that they they were making remission claims on slippery grounds.
Reading your posts, I see you just don't get science, and modern medicine is evidence-based, i.e. as scientific as possible. This is why oncologists don't commit professional suicide by claiming that anyone is ever cured of cancer.
"So can we ever really talk about a cancer cure? In general, the answer is no."
"When talking to your doctor about your prognosis (the course and outcome of your disease), be sure to find out exactly what he/she is talking about. If they use the term cure, ask if they really mean remission. If they use the term remission, ask if it’s complete or partial. And if they do talk about remission, ask about the rates at 5, 10 or 20 years. This will help give you an idea of the odds of cancer recurrence within your lifetime."
>To claim a cure, we would need to know the cause to which the cure applies. Then we would need to prove the cure worked. We don't know these things about cancer -- out methods treat symptoms, not causes.
Oh? We're treating symptoms? So your contention is if I remove (by some artifice) every cancer cell from someone's body they may still relapse? Really? That's an extraordinary claim for which I have a hard time believing you'd find any support at all in the medical community.
You're still evading the point. What the oncologist tells a particular person about his prognosis is completely irrelevant to my point.
Let me set up a thought experiment for you. Let's say I have three cups an some number of balls between zero and three. When your back is turned I may or may not put a ball under any or all of the cups. Then you turn back around.
Of course you don't know if the cups have balls under them. Your argument is because you don't know whether or not a cup has a ball under it, then it doesn't. I assert that a cup can have a ball under it even if you don't know the ball is there, and you claim I've invented a religion.
> So your contention is if I remove (by some artifice) every cancer cell from someone's body they may still relapse?
Yes, if the person has a predisposition to cancer. The evidence? They got cancer in the first place. The counterargument would have to be that they were born with cancerous cells in place, waiting to be activated. But if cancer doesn't depend on cells, but a genetic factor, then yes -- even if you remove every cancerous cell, the person can relapse. And there is plenty of evidence for genetic factors. I emphasize this doesn't mean we know which factors, or how they work, only that we can see a correlation with genetics.
And correlations without known cause-effect relationships make poor science.
> That's an extraordinary claim for which I have a hard time believing you'd find any support at all in the medical community.
You aren't bothering to read what I've posted. Shall I post more quotes that prove my point, or are you willing to learn this topic on your own?
"Cancer patients often mistake cancer remission as a cure, but this is not so. Remission is the period of time when the treatment is effective and the cancer is under control. There are two types of remission--partial and complete. The time frame can vary from weeks to even years, depending on the type of treatment and the stage of the cancer."
"The whole “never being cured” thing is tough to swallow when you’re first diagnosed ... Sure, we may have to take these medicines for the rest of our lives, but if they’re keeping us alive and not harming us, who cares?"
>Yes, if the person has a predisposition to cancer. The evidence? They got cancer in the first place.
It's odd you can make that assumption and then breezily mention the correlation/causality problem in the very next paragraph. Just because a person gets cancer there's not necessarily any reason to believe they're predisposed to it. We know a wide range of environmental factors cause genetic damage.
>You aren't bothering to read what I've posted.
I can tell based on the snippets you're posting they're not relevant to the conversation. You keep making the same tangential point over and over. Yes, okay, I understand an oncologist won't ever tell you your cancer is cured.
> You keep making the same tangential point over and over.
So the scientific standing of cancer research is "tangential"? Your claim has been that scientists know that people are sometimes cured of cancer. This is false -- only religious zealots believe that. Scientists know better.
> Just because a person gets cancer there's not necessarily any reason to believe they're predisposed to it.
Dubious for an individual, true for a population. But I can see there's no point to this -- you don't have the required scientific background or appreciation for statistics.
