Difference between revisions of "Talk:1928: Seven Years"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 19: Line 19:
  
 
I love the phrasing "Panel 17: The sky has been brightened." I'm just commenting to preserve it from edits. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.52|198.41.230.52]] 13:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 
I love the phrasing "Panel 17: The sky has been brightened." I'm just commenting to preserve it from edits. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.230.52|198.41.230.52]] 13:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 
I feel it important to point out to anyone who may be looking at here and thinking about dealing with cancer...
 
Chemotherapy and Radiology, '''Don't do it!'''. These were the best that science had about 20 years ago, but we've come much further since then. Immuno-oncology is less intensive, cheaper, and much more effective. Most of the developed world has quit using radiology and chemotherapy (which works by the very imprecise method of 'kill everything, good and bad, and hopefully kill more of the bad than the good'. Immuno-oncology works by creating specialized and personalized medicines that train your white blood cells to seek out and destroy the particular cancer cells, leaving all your good cells in tact and leaving you an immunity to that particular cancer. This knowledge won't be that much use to most of the developed world, but if you live in the U.S., it could save your life. (A few certain large companies who will go unnamed have been lobbying to prevent entry of new cancer solutions as they see chemo and radiotherapy as a cash cow and don't want their income stifled.)  --[[User:Joshupetersen|Joshupetersen]] ([[User talk:Joshupetersen|talk]]) 18:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 
::As someone who works in medical research, I find the previous comment damaging. It is very close to a conspiracy theory. The names chemotherapy and radiation haven't changed, but the methods have. The side-effects are still decreasing dramatically, as they should. It is true that immunotherapie is the new kid on the block and shows a lot of promise, but it is currently very limited in what types of cancer it can treat, and it costs twice the national debt to treat someone. I don't know too much about the situation in the US, but generally I would say the fear for litigation ensures the use of modern implementation of old techniques. Ever think of ultrasound? It is ancient, but it is still a valuable tool. (Also, remember CEO's of Big Pharma also deal with cancer in their families, and they also get chemo and radiation.)[[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.113|172.68.142.113]] 08:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 
:::To be fair, if you're taking cancer treatment advice from the comments of explainxkcd, you probably don't deserve better than Joshupetersen's conspiracy theories.
 
  
 
I don't want to take away anything from this very moving comic, but he does realize there's an eclipse or two <i>every</i> year, somewhere on the planet? Does the fear of cancer somehow limit them from ever leaving the US?
 
I don't want to take away anything from this very moving comic, but he does realize there's an eclipse or two <i>every</i> year, somewhere on the planet? Does the fear of cancer somehow limit them from ever leaving the US?

Latest revision as of 10:39, 7 February 2022


no... I'm not crying... Zazathebot (talk)

Liar 172.68.34.34 20:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


(162.158.58.105 23:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Do we know her name? Dogman15 (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Should we remove the transcript incomplete mark? I know it's early, but I don't think it can be any better. 162.158.166.233 02:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Is someone cutting onions here? I am almost close to tears soon.Boeing-787lover 08:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is my face leaking??? --Nialpxe, 2017. (Arguments welcome)

Yay life!

I love the phrasing "Panel 17: The sky has been brightened." I'm just commenting to preserve it from edits. 198.41.230.52 13:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to take away anything from this very moving comic, but he does realize there's an eclipse or two every year, somewhere on the planet? Does the fear of cancer somehow limit them from ever leaving the US?

Do you realize that most people can't afford to travel to the other end of the world just to watch a particular eclipse for 5-7 minutes? 141.101.77.68 09:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

God that's beatiful. 162.158.91.17 20:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

First off this is fantastic. As someone in the same situation, at the same part of the timeline, this rings so honest and true. The tree scene ... brilliant. Walking among beings for who a human lifespan is insignificant. Second. a hearty, contemptuous, giant F you to Joshupetersen. I can't stand conspiratorial know it alls like you. You think people in this situation don't know every single treatment that is out there? Every single immunotherapy drug in Cuba, every single clinical trial being run out of some backwater lab in China? There is no big pharma conspiracy. There is however a conspiracy called "evolution," which after several million years of practice ensures that cancer is one of the wiliest, most resilient killers out there. 172.68.47.30 22:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Kaeleku

The way you speak about evolution suggest cancer is some kind of infectious organism which evolved to kill effectively. It isn't and it isn't infectious at all. Even the kind of cancers caused by infections are not DIRECT result of infections. Cancer is basically failure of normal cell functionality, abnormal growth of your own cells which your self-repair mechanisms failed to prevent, and evolution is the reason why it's rare to have cancer before the age when it's natural to have children.
I *think* that Devil facial tumour disease may be a counterexample.162.158.63.196 14:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Nevertheless, there is no reason for conspiracy: large companies are just slower to adapt to changes. Radiology and chemotherapy are tested, immuno-oncology is new, not well tested and may not work on all kinds of cancer. And regarding how aggressive those old methods are, think about dentistry, which instead of curing anything limits itself to effectively amputation and replacement by artificial prosthesis. -- Hkmaly (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The wrongest thing to do in this regard is to think of "cancer" as one disease. Yes, the suffering aspect of various forms can be similar and it is sometimes useful to lump them together when making broad policy decisions. But just about every organ and cell type presents a unique challenge, which is best dealt with differently. Some cancers are extremely chemo- and radiosensitive, others are rather resistant. The same is true for novel and experimental treatment methods. Do your own research by all means, but if your oncologist strongly recommends one treatment option, consider that they are weighing previous outcomes of available treatment methods before making the suggestion. --Nialpxe, 2017. (Arguments welcome)

I feel it important to point out to anyone who may be looking at here and thinking about dealing with cancer... talk with your trusted health care professional who knows your case, and is not only well aware of but well practiced in modern medicine. 162.158.74.9 23:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

...solar eclipses visible from North America... Americans!162.158.165.16 04:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

According to 881: Probability, she had about 79% chance of surviving this far. 162.158.238.191 09:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

In 931: Lanes his friends asks if they are "out of the woods". Maybe that's what panel 9 is all about? They are still in danger and therefor "into the woods"?

Two years, here. Really meaningful, this one. Thanks.