As I lay dying: Final op-ed from LA Times journalist Laurie Beckland
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: As I lay dying: Final op-ed from LA Times journalist Laurie Beckland
#2Excerpt:
We now know that breast cancer is not one disease. What works for one person might not for another: There is no one “cure.” We are each, in effect, one-person clinical trials. Yet the knowledge generated from those trials will die with us because there is no comprehensive database of metastatic breast cancer patients, their characteristics and what treatments did and didn't help them.
In the Big Data-era, this void is criminal. Consider what Wall Street does. Even the tiniest companies can see how much stock they sell, compare themselves to cohorts, review history, predict trends. Why can't we create such a database for cancer patients, so we can all learn from patient experiences and make more educated decisions on what treatments will extend and improve lives?
Re: As I lay dying: Final op-ed from LA Times journalist Laurie Beckland
#3Crushingly important article on the reality of deadly breast cancer. The delta between public perception of the disease and the reality is stark.
Re: As I lay dying: Final op-ed from LA Times journalist Laurie Beckland
#4Excerpt: We now know that breast cancer is not one disease. What works for one person might not for another: There is no one “cure.” We are each, in effect, one-person clinical trials. Yet the knowledge generated from those trials will die with us because there is no comprehensive database of metastatic breast cancer patients, their characteristics and what treatments did and didn't help them. In the Big Data-era, th…
Such work has begun: http://www.flatiron.com
Re: As I lay dying: Final op-ed from LA Times journalist Laurie Beckland
#5 Quite sad yet more women will die of heart disease than breast cancer.
Although I do like her request:
>Promise me, I told my friends and family, that you'll never say that I died after “fighting a courageous battle with breast cancer.” This tired, trite line dishonors the dead and the dying by suggesting that we, the victims, are responsible for our deaths or that the fight we were in was ever fair.
And the slamming of that marketing machine Susan G. Komen which has become a monster that congratulates itself, sues people and trademarks the colour pink; I'm sure that's important to their machine.
Re: As I lay dying: Final op-ed from LA Times journalist Laurie Beckland
#6what a great testament to her life and to its worth
Re: As I lay dying: Final op-ed from LA Times journalist Laurie Beckland
#7I hate to say this (& will be downvoted), but our obsession with reductionist thinking blinds us to the actual causes of cancer. Just like unit tests blind the programmer from how the system works.
From a holistic perspective, cancer is caused by an acidic, low oxygen environment or "stagnant energy". Emotional well being, energy work, & massage therapy has also been anecdotally reported by practitioners to cause cancer to remiss.
Now before you criticize me for "lack of studies", please understand that studies do a poor job in complex environments. Just like it's been elusive to study programmer effectiveness due to high variability of conditions, the human body living in a specific environment, with specific habits is highly complex & variable. It's foolish to assume that we can account for all of the variables when we don't know what we are missing.
About the bias, I can only say that these are anecdotal accounts. Some things seem to make sense, such as a health in environment, emotions, diet, physical body, spirituality, etc. would contribute to the body acting in healthier ways. A purely reductionist philosophy will not accept such factors unless these attributes can be isolated. However, how can such a complex system with unknown unknowns be tested?
---
Edit: I know, I committed blasphemy by criticizing a purely reductionist technique. Go ahead and downvote me due to your religious (or financially sponsored) conviction ;-)
I'm happy to debate as well...
---
Edit2: Given I'm already at -4, I doubt anybody will be willing to answer such a basic question. Oh well, lol. I'm disappointed...
Re: As I lay dying: Final op-ed from LA Times journalist Laurie Beckland
#8Excerpt: We now know that breast cancer is not one disease. What works for one person might not for another: There is no one “cure.” We are each, in effect, one-person clinical trials. Yet the knowledge generated from those trials will die with us because there is no comprehensive database of metastatic breast cancer patients, their characteristics and what treatments did and didn't help them. In the Big Data-era, th…
Does cancer occur in healthy ecosystems? Maybe big data & reductionism is an incomplete approach...
On the flip side, such techniques will make some people a lot of money, so ignore or downvote my concerns...
Re: As I lay dying: Final op-ed from LA Times journalist Laurie Beckland
#9I hate to say this (& will be downvoted), but our obsession with reductionist thinking blinds us to the actual causes of cancer. Just like unit tests blind the programmer from how the system works. From a holistic perspective, cancer is caused by an acidic, low oxygen environment or "stagnant energy". Emotional well being, energy work, & massage therapy has also been anecdotally reported by practitioners to cause can…
Most likely you are getting downvoted for casting about a line of unscientific quackery. General hacker objections to this have _nothing_ to do with "religious (or financially sponsored)" bias, nor groupthink, unless you consider the scientific method groupthink.
Re: As I lay dying: Final op-ed from LA Times journalist Laurie Beckland
#10I hate to say this (& will be downvoted), but our obsession with reductionist thinking blinds us to the actual causes of cancer. Just like unit tests blind the programmer from how the system works. From a holistic perspective, cancer is caused by an acidic, low oxygen environment or "stagnant energy". Emotional well being, energy work, & massage therapy has also been anecdotally reported by practitioners to cause can…
Most likely you are getting downvoted for casting about a line of unscientific quackery. General hacker objections to this have _nothing_ to do with "religious (or financially sponsored)" bias, nor groupthink, unless you consider the scientific method groupthink.
Are you talking about the scientific method or the marketing of the institution of corporate Science, which increasingly looks like a religion?
As far as "quackery", that sounds analogous to "blasphemy". Some techniques work & some don't. Some techniques are not in the financial interests of mainstream industries to be studied.
Another issue is, who can afford to create a "valid" peer-reviewed article? It seems like you need a lot of money to do so now days. Who has the money?
---
Edit: But again, such concerns are not critically thought about due to groupthink (i.e. a reductionist, evidence-driven philosophy).
It's like manipulation & gamesmanship of the market is inconceivable...How naive.