Interesting article on how some people forget to die

[NikolaeVarius]

Do you believe he'd be alive today if he went for the chemo/radiation treatment back in 1976?

Do you think his story is the norm?

We come back to the idea of the "bell curve"

 

[JoeyP]

Do you think his story is the norm?

We come back to the idea of the "bell curve"

His story is not the norm. He is one of the bell curve edge cases.

What I'm wondering is how many people in his situation have undergone chemo and radiation, and were worse off because of it? Wouldn't it be great if we had the means to say, "Even though you have cancer, you're one of the lucky few with genes that will take care of it without the need for medical treatment."

 

[surfsatwerk]

well, they like to keep abreast of the situation.

Lulz

 

[olds]

Interesting story.
I've stated here before (and got lambasted for it), I have never known of anyone that actually died OF cancer.
I've known a great many who died from the side effects of the treatment (Chemotherapy & Radiation), but never from the cancer itself.

(Been diagnosed with cancer twice, never treated. Going on 21 & 15 years, still alive!)

My uncle doed from it.
After his first chemo treatment he said f that and stopped all treatment. 6 months later, in a lot of pain he was gone.

 

[OverVolt]

I'm mostly impressed that cancer is somehow reversible. I figured once the cancer genes were turned on, there ws no turning them back off. And even more interesting that the environment can change that gene expression.

One of the KEY points to take away from this is the MASSIVE lifestyle change of going from America to his home country. He didn't just "try super hard cross his little heart pinky swear eat some more broccoli with his pizza" and do the same routine he always did. He straight up hiked it on a plane while he still could and changed his environment dramatically.

Screw the bellcurve, there is always a discrete reason behind most probabilities once you understand what happened. Changing his environment dramatically flipped the cancer genes from "on" to "off." Thats impressive.

If he simply tried to stay in America and replicate his lifestyle back home by sipping wine and gardening he probably would have died as expected. A dramatic environment change seems good for cancer pt's.

 

[JoeyP]

Screw the bellcurve, there is always a discrete reason behind most probabilities once you understand what happened. Changing his environment dramatically flipped the cancer genes from "on" to "off." Thats impressive.

If he simply tried to stay in America and replicate his lifestyle back home by sipping wine and gardening he probably would have died as expected. A dramatic environment change seems good for cancer pt's.

Maybe the diagnosis of cancer puts most people into a mental state where the body's normal defenses are rendered inert because they unconsciously label themselves as victims who have something terrible that can only be treated by The Health Care System.

He might be one of those (rare?) cases where conditions changed in such a way that his body was able to rally whatever was needed to eliminate the cancer. It might have been environment, but I also suspect his mental outlook had a lot to do with it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

His story is not the norm. He is one of the bell curve edge cases.

What I'm wondering is how many people in his situation have undergone chemo and radiation, and were worse off because of it?

A whole lot less then the ones that underwent chemo and was better for it.

Medical science knows that chemotherapy is like trying to hammer a nail with a sledgehammer. But often that sledgehammer is the only tool we have, and it does work often.

Wouldn't it be great if we had the means to say, "Even though you have cancer, you're one of the lucky few with genes that will take care of it without the need for medical treatment."

Unfortunately it is almost certainly not just a genetic trait. If it was we would probably have found it already with all the research we have put into cancer. It is almost certainly an extremism complex confluence of genetics, environment, diet, and just plain luck. Almost certainly impossible to predict.
When you are diagnosed with cancer you are given a list of things that might improve your chance to survive it. Top of that list is low stress lifestyle and healthy diet. These things are not mysteries.

 

[OverVolt]

When you are diagnosed with cancer you are given a list of things that might improve your chance to survive it. Top of that list is low stress lifestyle and healthy diet. These things are not mysteries.

But they don't tell you how. Maybe they should have cancer resorts or something, travel a couple hundred miles and have a more institutionalized, relaxing lifestyle. Totally change your environment from whatever bad habits you had before that led to disease. The way cancer patients stress over what the next CT-scan or MRI will show could play a role too.

It wouldn't have to be very fancy, just a place dedicated to relaxation. Like he did, rest, gardening, eating well. It sounds good in theory but if you stay home you'd never do it.

It would be in addition to regular chemo etc. A place like that would probably get a bad nickname if it barred people from undergoing chemo/radation therapies.

 

[JoeyP]

But they don't tell you how. Maybe they should have cancer resorts or something, travel a couple hundred miles and have a more institutionalized, relaxing lifestyle. Totally change your environment from whatever bad habits you had before that led to disease. The way cancer patients stress over what the next CT-scan or MRI will show could play a role too.

You can do this on your own, just like the guy in the story did. And without limitations, and co-pays, and insurance companies, a lot of mental and financial stress will be reduced (hey, I wonder if those factor into one's health?).

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I'm mostly impressed that cancer is somehow reversible. I figured once the cancer genes were turned on, there ws no turning them back off. And even more interesting that the environment can change that gene expression.

One of the KEY points to take away from this is the MASSIVE lifestyle change of going from America to his home country. He didn't just "try super hard cross his little heart pinky swear eat some more broccoli with his pizza" and do the same routine he always did. He straight up hiked it on a plane while he still could and changed his environment dramatically.

Screw the bellcurve, there is always a discrete reason behind most probabilities once you understand what happened. Changing his environment dramatically flipped the cancer genes from "on" to "off." Thats impressive.

If he simply tried to stay in America and replicate his lifestyle back home by sipping wine and gardening he probably would have died as expected. A dramatic environment change seems good for cancer pt's.

Oh because we have evidence from him staying in America and continuing his normal lifestyle to see what the effects on his cancer would be.

Oh wait, we don't. Are you telling me all your conjecture is based on absolutely no evidence? I think you are.

 

[OverVolt]

Oh because we have evidence from him staying in America and continuing his normal lifestyle to see what the effects on his cancer would be.

Oh wait, we don't. Are you telling me all your conjecture is based on absolutely no evidence? I think you are.

Blegh, its like, stupidly tedious. I'll let it ride. Too big of a text wall.

 

[bignateyk]

Interesting story.
I've stated here before (and got lambasted for it), I have never known of anyone that actually died OF cancer.
I've known a great many who died from the side effects of the treatment (Chemotherapy & Radiation), but never from the cancer itself.

(Been diagnosed with cancer twice, never treated. Going on 21 & 15 years, still alive!)

Ignorning cancer didn't work out too well for Steve Jobs. There are a ton of different kinds of cancer. Some can kill you in 2 months, others can kill you in 15 years. Some your body can fight, given excellent nutrition and health otherwise.

 

[JimKiler]

It could be the sum of all the parts does not equal the whole to explain how he got rid of cancer. The slower lifestyle plus all the benefits of the different foods and drinks he ate could have been enough to fight off the cancer. But researching each food individually may not be enough to see the cancer fighting properties.

 

[OverVolt]

It could be the sum of all the parts does not equal the whole to explain how he got rid of cancer. The slower lifestyle plus all the benefits of the different foods and drinks he ate could have been enough to fight off the cancer. But researching each food individually may not be enough to see the cancer fighting properties.

No evidence! Statistically insignificant!

Well this is much easier.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

No evidence! Statistically insignificant!

Well this is much easier.

Of course, no matter how much shit you throw at the wall, the fact that you have absolutely no evidence to prove any claim means that there is no substance to answer to. There is nothing but fluff that is thrown around without realizing how flawed your belief based hypothesis are.

 

[OverVolt]

Of course, no matter how much shit you throw at the wall, the fact that you have absolutely no evidence to prove any claim means that there is no substance to answer to. There is nothing but fluff that is thrown around without realizing how flawed your belief based hypothesis are.

Lol I had it typed out, its ok, its tedius.

Basically its an observation, not a big deal. The observation is true. He had cancer. He survived the cancer, so the tumor stopped growing. The cancer cells had to have changed their gene expression for that to happen. What he did different than most people in his situation was dramatically change lifestyle/environment.

Quantifying for the sake of quantifying is pointless, science is trapped in it these days. The analysis they are using on the region is just shotgun statistics hoping to hit some correlations on the data they collect. They have no idea what is going on, if its the food, the social structure, the lifestyle, the general environment etc. They have no discrete mechanism, only probabilities.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Lol I had it typed out, its ok, its tedius.

Basically its an observation, not a big deal. The observation is true. He had cancer. He survived the cancer, so the tumor stopped growing. The cancer cells had to have changed their gene expression for that to happen. What he did different than most people in his situation was dramatically change lifestyle/environment.

Quantifying for the sake of quantifying is pointless, science is trapped in it these days. The analysis they are using on the region is just shotgun statistics hoping to hit some correlations on the data they collect. They have no idea what is going on, if its the food, the social structure, the lifestyle, the general environment etc. They have no discrete mechanism, only probabilities.

So, how do you know what he did was dramatically different from what other people did? Do you have statistics? How many people in the world have the same cancer as he does and how many people in the world transition to a healthier enviroment? How many people in the world refuse chemo and then die a horrible death 3 months later even though they tried to make those 3 months the happiest time of their lives?

Science uses analysis and statistics because it works. Everything else is random fluff that means absolutely nothing.

 

[zinfamous]

He was also in his late 60s when diagnosed. "old" cancer /= "young" cancer

survivability among the aged is generally far greater...but when trying to compare such patients, so many factors weigh in: actual cause of death (age), lifestyle and diet, type of treatment, and, of course--the type of cancer.


The cancer genome is or will be approaching 1 thousand "unique genomes." This makes patient-to-patient comparisons of treatment and survivability dubious, at best.


That being said...from my experience, this guy has the right idea. Coming from a medical family and being pro-medicine across the board, and dealing with several cases of cancer and the treatments involved (not just the actual treatment, but the politics and logistics of being treated), I think the best decision is to move to a farm, eat well, and say "fuck it."

Probably live longer....all else being equal, of course.

 

[zinfamous]

Lol I had it typed out, its ok, its tedius.

Basically its an observation, not a big deal. The observation is true. He had cancer. He survived the cancer, so the tumor stopped growing. The cancer cells had to have changed their gene expression for that to happen. What he did different than most people in his situation was dramatically change lifestyle/environment.

Quantifying for the sake of quantifying is pointless, science is trapped in it these days. The analysis they are using on the region is just shotgun statistics hoping to hit some correlations on the data they collect. They have no idea what is going on, if its the food, the social structure, the lifestyle, the general environment etc. They have no discrete mechanism, only probabilities.

expression can change for a number of reasons. I think chief among them is the age of his cells. Tumors grow much, much slower in older patients whose cells divide far less rapidly.

I think this further helps the body fight off such nastiness if using a more natural approach--intended or otherwise.

 

[OverVolt]

How many people in the world have the same cancer as he does and how many people in the world transition to a healthier enviroment?

Uhhh.... most people stay in the same area and just get chemo/radiation therapy... because thats just what we do for cancer.

How many people in the world refuse chemo and then die a horrible death 3 months later even though they tried to make those 3 months the happiest time of their lives?

Alot... and alot of people go through chemo/radiation and die anyway. Pretty sure if I got cancer I would do something similar to the story in the OP. If your crappy body craps out on you, that's really all you've got. Thats just the fact of life. One body, yours, and thats it. Take good care of it. Sometimes surgery is a good idea and has a high survival, other time it doesn't. So it just depends what type you get.

Science uses analysis and statistics because it works. Everything else is random fluff that means absolutely nothing.

Yea science worships statistics now, which is why there are no new novel discoveries or observations. Science has eras of not many discoveries, followed by huge advances, like the 1950's-1970's and a little carry-through to the 1980's. Right now it is totally dead in the water. People will jam out tons of statistics based on data they have no idea where it came from or if the experiment was even done right.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Uhhh.... most people stay in the same area and just get chemo/radiation therapy... because thats just what we do for cancer.

Alot... and alot of people go through chemo/radiation and die anyway. Pretty sure if I got cancer I would do something similar to the story in the OP. If your crappy body craps out on you, that's really all you've got. Thats just the fact of life. One body, yours, and thats it. Take good care of it. Sometimes surgery is a good idea and has a high survival, other time it doesn't. So it just depends what type you get.



Yea science worships statistics now, which is why there are no new novel discoveries or observations. Science has eras of not many discoveries, followed by huge advances, like the 1950's-1970's and a little carry-through to the 1980's. Right now it is totally dead in the water.

So you're continuing to admit you're some sort of hippie that has no idea what they're talking about and continues to claim things he has no evidence for.

 

[OverVolt]

So you're continuing to admit you're some sort of hippie that has no idea what they're talking about and continues to claim things he has no evidence for.

You could start by pointing out where I'm wrong instead of just flailing your hands in the air saying I'm not citing where I learned that most people opt to get chemo/radiation therapy and usually fail to significantly change their lifestyle. Its common sense. I'm not citing common sense. Okay...Maybe you just don't have any common sense? Or you don't trust your own common sense? Not my problem.

You don't need to cite an observation, derp. The case study is right there in the OP. All the information that we have and do not have. Right there. In the OP. He dramatically changed his environment, he survived cancer to age 97.

X->Y

Good starting point for some real research and not the crap that passes for research these days. Like looking at wine consumption of the region plotting it against types of cancer, life expectancy, whatever and trying to get a correlation, like that is going to show anything. They have proven that the people in the region live a long time, like to drink wine, and don't have much cancer...probably. Congratulations.

 

[SP33Demon]

It could be the sum of all the parts does not equal the whole to explain how he got rid of cancer. The slower lifestyle plus all the benefits of the different foods and drinks he ate could have been enough to fight off the cancer. But researching each food individually may not be enough to see the cancer fighting properties.

Ah, but you're also forgetting the social element to the story. Studies have shown that cognitive function is increased more by walking with a friend, and not by yourself.

 

[Mark R]

His story is not the norm. He is one of the bell curve edge cases.

What I'm wondering is how many people in his situation have undergone chemo and radiation, and were worse off because of it? Wouldn't it be great if we had the means to say, "Even though you have cancer, you're one of the lucky few with genes that will take care of it without the need for medical treatment."

There are always, and have always been, misdiagnoses.

40 years ago, lung cancer was diagnosed on X-ray. If it looked like a round lump of tissue where there should be air-filled sponge, it was often called lung cancer. Occasionally, there would be surgery to remove a piece of microscopic examination to confirm the diagnosis. Often times, people were told it was lung cancer and to make peace with the world.

We know now that not everything that looks like lung cancer is lung cancer, and other common conditions can appear in rare ways. Pneumonia is normally a diffuse process, but in children it can be "round" simulating a tumour (but children don't generally get lung cancer, so it isn't called lung cancer). If you read the textbooks, they say that adults don't get "round" pneumonia. However, I've personally seen several cases of adults with "round" abnormalities in the lungs, who a couple of weeks later have come for surgery, but the immediate update CT scan has shown that the "tumour" has disappeared. It's then that it comes out that they'd been coughing up a bit of green blood-stained phlegm and had feeling a bit ill - all symptoms of a mild pneumonia.

Nowadays, people aren't given a diagnosis of cancer unless there has been abnormal tissue removed and examined under the microscope. Even this technology has progressed. 30 years ago, a pathologist would stain the tissue with some crude chemicals and examine the shape of the cells. Today, there are numerous gene-specific or protein-specific "smart probes" and antibody stains which can identify specific genetic markers and biochemical alterations. It's not just subjective measures such as "shape" and "not conforming to tissue boundaries", it's clear-cut, objective and quantitative, molecular evidence. To the point, that given an unspecified bit of tissue showing random and disorganised growth, the molecular analysis can often identify the organ of origin.

However, sometimes, diseases show up in rare ways and defy diagnosis. I once looked after a youngish guy who spontaneously broke his back after sitting down too quickly at a bar. It looked like a tumour had destroyed a vertebral bone. So I sent him to the surgeons to remove a piece. They did, and sent it to a pathologist for analysis. "Normal fractured bone" was the reply. So, I did every test under the sun (to the point that hospital bosses were telling me that they wouldn't authorize the cost) - CT scans, MRI scans, myeloma tests, bone marrow analysis, osteoporosis, vitamin D levels, PET scans, antibodies, tumor biochemistry, HIV, etc. Everything was negative; even after the tests were repeated. So, I asked the surgeons to try again; and this time they removed the whole abnormal vertebral bone and put a metal cage in. The pathologist again said "normal fractured bone", so I sent it for a 2nd opinion from teh country's leading bone pathologist, and then a 3rd opinion from across the atlantic. "No evidence of tumor even on extensive molecular analysis" was the unanimous verdict.

In the end, everyone scratched their heads and couldn't come up with a diagnosis, but after a few weeks of having every orifice probed numerous times and losing so much blood to tests that he was bordering on needing transfusion. He went home. Until 3 months later when he turned up critically ill with kidney failure and a severe, rare infection normally only seen in end-stage AIDS. Only then did test show up the abnormality; it was myeloma. A cancer of the bone marrow which destroys bones, poisons the kidneys and weakens the immune system. This was one of the first conditions that had been considered when he first turned up; every possible test for it had been done several times, and the pathologists specifically asked to look and analyse for it. However, it was only time that brought the answer.

 

[pelov]

So the article is about a guy with cancer and goes on to include people with lengthy life expectancies?

Does anyone find it odd that these people with longer lives also tend to be from within the same community? island? culture/religion? Or that these people often bear children with people within the same community?

The average house fly's life expectancy has been bumped up by near 50% over the course of only 2-3 generations in laboratory settings. What this has to do with cancer and misdiagnoses, I suspect only the author knows.

If you want your children to live longer, find a woman who's grandparents come from Osaka or have reached their 90s