Stem cell treatment for Parkinson's causes cancer?

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: NeoV
"your clueless" just isn't something a person with an advanced degree ever types.....ever

I was thinking the same thing. However, it's not definitive proof. Maybe he was tired after long day in surgery?

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

This is just flagrantly factually wrong as stated. For instance, Lung Cancer which is a type of cancer with a higher fatality rate than most other varieties still has a 70% survival rate.

Lung cancer has 60% overall death rate 1 year following diagnosis, 80% dead within 2 years of diagnosis. Overall 5 year death rate from lung cancer is >85%.

Your clueless.

at 5 years following diagnosis, about half of all folks with cancer are dead
at 10 years following diagnosis, about half of all folks with Parkinson's are dead.

take your pick.

Taking my pick between stop smoking to not get lung cancer or dying with parkinson in 10 years?
I'll pick the former.

Lung cancer is preventable. Parkinson's is not.
80-85% of lung cancer is attributed to smoking alone, 10% asbestos/rock miners/coal tars occupation, and the remaining due to a combination of radiation, diet, and genetics.

You don't want lung cancer? Well stop smoking.
Can you list the preventive measures of Parkinson's?

I also love how you're using lung cancer to generalize the whole group of cancers.
So much for you being a "heartsurgeon" or an MD.

I have known people who never smoked a day in their lives and died from lung cancer. It may have been second hand, or radon.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: NeoV
"your clueless" just isn't something a person with an advanced degree ever types.....ever

I was thinking the same thing. However, it's not definitive proof. Maybe he was tired after long day in surgery?

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

This is just flagrantly factually wrong as stated. For instance, Lung Cancer which is a type of cancer with a higher fatality rate than most other varieties still has a 70% survival rate.

Lung cancer has 60% overall death rate 1 year following diagnosis, 80% dead within 2 years of diagnosis. Overall 5 year death rate from lung cancer is >85%.

Your clueless.

at 5 years following diagnosis, about half of all folks with cancer are dead
at 10 years following diagnosis, about half of all folks with Parkinson's are dead.

take your pick.

Taking my pick between stop smoking to not get lung cancer or dying with parkinson in 10 years?
I'll pick the former.

Lung cancer is preventable. Parkinson's is not.
80-85% of lung cancer is attributed to smoking alone, 10% asbestos/rock miners/coal tars occupation, and the remaining due to a combination of radiation, diet, and genetics.

You don't want lung cancer? Well stop smoking.
Can you list the preventive measures of Parkinson's?

I also love how you're using lung cancer to generalize the whole group of cancers.
So much for you being a "heartsurgeon" or an MD.

I have known people who never smoked a day in their lives and died from lung cancer. It may have been second hand, or radon.

It could've been nothing... sometimes cancers just happen. All it takes is two or more mutations in the wrong genes at the right place. Smoking accelerates the process tremendously, but isn't necessary for lung cancer to develop.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: NeoV
"your clueless" just isn't something a person with an advanced degree ever types.....ever

That has always been one of the main reasons I find it hard to believe he's a doctor. His spelling and grammar are at something like a 5th-grade level.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: NeoV
"your clueless" just isn't something a person with an advanced degree ever types.....ever

That has always been one of the main reasons I find it hard to believe he's a doctor. His spelling and grammar are at something like a 5th-grade level.

I remember him posting a picture supposedly of him, holding up a Bush Won card in the OR over one of his supposed 'patients'. Sounds like something he would do if he were, in fact, a surgeon. However, having dealt with physicians for sometime now, I have never met one even close to being as inarticulate and illiterate for that matter, as this 'heartsurgeon' is. He googles his 'knowledge' and you can tell, he knows very little about the human body and the disease process. So I vote shens.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

This is just flagrantly factually wrong as stated. For instance, Lung Cancer which is a type of cancer with a higher fatality rate than most other varieties still has a 70% survival rate.

Lung cancer has 60% overall death rate 1 year following diagnosis, 80% dead within 2 years of diagnosis. Overall 5 year death rate from lung cancer is >85%.

Your clueless.

at 5 years following diagnosis, about half of all folks with cancer are dead
at 10 years following diagnosis, about half of all folks with Parkinson's are dead.

take your pick.

Taking my pick between stop smoking to not get lung cancer or dying with parkinson in 10 years?
I'll pick the former.

Lung cancer is preventable. Parkinson's is not.
80-85% of lung cancer is attributed to smoking alone, 10% asbestos/rock miners/coal tars occupation, and the remaining due to a combination of radiation, diet, and genetics.

You don't want lung cancer? Well stop smoking.
Can you list the preventive measures of Parkinson's?

I also love how you're using lung cancer to generalize the whole group of cancers.
So much for you being a "heartsurgeon" or an MD.

I have known people who never smoked a day in their lives and died from lung cancer. It may have been second hand, or radon.

Second-hand smoke falls in the category of smoking as well. Could it be that they breathe fumes second hand by attending night clubs, house parties, etc...?
Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than first-hand smoke, so it wouldn't suprise me one bit.

Radon falls under radiation.
Could be genetics/diet also.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: NeoV
"your clueless" just isn't something a person with an advanced degree ever types.....ever

Yep. QFT.

 

[Arkaign]

I hate to see a thread turn into "Burn X at the stake" .. but I think HS fairly deserves it. I don't care whether someone is a rightwing troll, a leftwing troll, etc ..

But to just be a straight-up lying ignorant sack of crap pretending to be a doctor.. Hmm, that kind of turns any thread that he posts in into flametasia.

 

[Gibsons]

He could simply post and tell us if we're supposed to believe he has an M.D. or not. I'm just as skeptical as everyone else seems to be, though.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
at 5 years following diagnosis, about half of all folks with cancer are dead
at 10 years following diagnosis, about half of all folks with Parkinson's are dead.

take your pick.

You're simply wrong and I'm extremely suspicious of your medical qualifications like everyone else is at this point. By the way, given how old some people can be when diagnosed with cancer, someone who is diagnosed with cancer but dies of something completely different doesn't exactly count as dying of cancer.

Specifically to give you concretrete statistics, the overall cancer survival rates from 1996 to 2002 in the US was 66.1%. This number is going to somewhat lower than it should actually be today though given cancer treatment and diagnosis procedures are improving all the time.
http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2003/results_merged/topic_survival.pdf

Note that the survival chances are higher when individuals have regular access to medical care, part of the issue that keeps death rates as high as they current are is due to very late diagnosises from people who don't seek regular medical care.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Gibsons
He could simply post and tell us if we're supposed to believe he has an M.D. or not. I'm just as skeptical as everyone else seems to be, though.

He has been a member here for a long time (though he has left theatrically twice, the second time creating a leaving-in-a-blaze-of-glory FU thread to say goodbye). The short answer to your question is that, yes, we are supposed to believe he has an M.D., and that he is, in his own words, not only a heart surgeon, but a "brilliant one." Why such a brilliant surgeon doesn't know the difference between "you're" and "your" is anybody's guess.

 

[Pens1566]

Must be a "brilliant" heart surgeon to have all kinds of time to post here.