199 replies to this topic

[Chris Fenton]

How did you discuss it exactly?

I discussed what had happened, how the lad had collapsed while playing football and that despite everyone's best efforts he had died. The really hard part was that know one knew what the cause of death was. It ended up being more a discussion about how the pupil in our year group was feeling and that he would be off school for a while.

[Jim Ohara]

These days the "he's in heaven and you'll see him again" responses are particularly unsatisfying. In fact, honestly, I don't think they ever really satisfied, did they?

Think back when you were a kid and a relative died - like a grandparent - even as a kid, it felt really damn final to me. I was really sure I'd never ever be seeing them again and it sooooo sucked badly.

But whenever an adult would say something like "granddad's in heaven and you'll see him again," even as a kid, I knew they really meant "talking about this makes me really uncomfortable and I wish you wouldn't ask me what happens when you die anymore."

They're kids. They don't always have the emotional maturity or complex rational to understand gone forever. Sure some do, but kids believe in Santa and throw a hissy fit if you make them eat vegetables. My friend Emma died last year, leaving her two sons aged 7 and 5. Do you think telling them 'your Mom is dead and she's ceased to exist now - you'll never meet her or speak to her again' would be a useful thing to say? People don't hide death - they just use methods to deal with it depending on who they are and how much they're effected.

Some people don't need a religious foundation to deal with death or loss, and that's great. Some people do - it's their right to live how they want.

[Johnny Henning]

My point really is that I've never really felt the adults really believed what they were telling us kids whenever we talked about death. That what they really were saying was "I'm seriously uncomfortable and don't want to talk about it" which in the end made it scarier.

Most children can tell what an adult really means, even nonverbally, no matter what they say. So if you aren't gonna be ready to have an actual conversation on their level then you'll end up talking down to them. You might feel better since they won't ask any more questions, but for me, I just inherited the same discomfort and inability to deal with death.

I mean, honestly, which is better - just telling a child the truth or what you really feel, or saying whatever you think will make them feel better when you're really not sure or just don't want to talk about it? For me, every little kid I've met has actually been smarter than me. Not as far as knowledge, but as far as intelligence - their ability to see things and understand things quickly.

[Arjan Dirkse]

I never believed in God or Heaven, but for a long time I really wanted to because I was scared of the finality of death. My dad, an atheist, would tell me that the dead live on in their children and loved ones, but that was really unsatisfying in the face of my fear. Eventually, I got to the point where I mostly accepted death because it happens to everyone, and is natural. It's also an impetus to make the life you have count, which I don't think would work for many 4-year-olds, but maybe if you frame death as a celebration of the deceased's accomplishments they'll want to get to that point, too.

That "the dead live on in their children and loved ones" explanation does make a lot of sense to me, maybe it's one of those things you realize only once you see a new generation being born and growing up. This personal existence of mine doesn't really mean anything to me. It may sound morbid or odd to some, but I wouldn't care if I don't wake up tomorrow at all. That does not mean I want to die, after all life is there to be lived.

The only possible experience is the experience of life, that is after all pretty much how we define experience. Experience of death is something which doesn't exist, and therefore does not need to be feared. Personal existence is also an oxymoron. Existence does not rely on only one person. If it ceases to be in one person, there is still existence and experience in others. In a sense that means I believe in reincarnation; the division between me and other beings is only illusory.

[Ogul]

We all die of something in the end. The chances of getting cancer in 'developing' Malaysia is 1 in 4. In the UK it is 1 in 3. That isn't because the UK is bad at treating cancer it's because we all die of something and they prevented a lot of the other stuff we can manage.

Have they ever done comparative studies within ranges? Like instead of "of the people who died eventually. . .", just compare "of people who die by age 20," "of people who die by age 30," etc. on up. Are there any more 80 year olds dying of cancer in the UK than 80 year olds dying of cancer in Malaysia? Are more 25 year olds dying in the UK than 25 year olds in Malaysia? Who knows?

Most children can tell what an adult really means, even nonverbally, no matter what they say. So if you aren't gonna be ready to have an actual conversation on their level then you'll end up talking down to them. You might feel better since they won't ask any more questions, but for me, I just inherited the same discomfort and inability to deal with death.

I mean, honestly, which is better - just telling a child the truth or what you really feel, or saying whatever you think will make them feel better when you're really not sure or just don't want to talk about it? For me, every little kid I've met has actually been smarter than me. Not as far as knowledge, but as far as intelligence - their ability to see things and understand things quickly.

I lost my first grandparent at six, but I don't think it bothered me much. I could tell that my mom was sad, and that made me a bit sad, but I didn't really know him all that well, I think I understood the situation though. I lost my other set of grandparents during my teen years, they went a year apart, and those hit a little harder because I was older and I'd visited them more often, but they didn't really floor me at the time, it was more just a bunch of little sadnesses over the years since, when I remembered something about them. My last grandma is still alive, she's got some pretty bad dementia though, and we never really got along because she's old and from Tennessee, but she did try over the past few years.

[garjones]

Have they ever done comparative studies within ranges? Like instead of "of the people who died eventually. . .", just compare "of people who die by age 20," "of people who die by age 30," etc. on up. Are there any more 80 year olds dying of cancer in the UK than 80 year olds dying of cancer in Malaysia? Are more 25 year olds dying in the UK than 25 year olds in Malaysia? Who knows?

Not specifically between Malaysia and the UK but yes they have done studies between developing and developed countries, it's only natural that if you see those numbers you'd investigate what miracle cuts cancer by 25% in the poorer country. The same pattern emerges and it is primarily down to living longer.

It's not the sole reason but it's such a large part of it that when they compare cancer rates they have to remove age from the equation:

WCRF state that the highest rates have been noted in 'high-income countries' and put this down to a variety of reasons; "This is likely to be partly because high-income countries are better at diagnosing and recording new cases of cancer. But a large part of the reason is also that high-income countries tend to have higher levels of obesity and alcohol consumption, and lower levels of physical activity."
The latest figures are adjusted, taking age into account to allow a comparison with the world's population. This is done because cancer is more common in older people, and countries with an ageing population thus tend to have higher rates.

[Johnny Henning]

Not exactly on the same topic, but at the same time, in England you have nationalized health and that's combined with earlier detection methods so the cancer rate rises not only because other diseases are treated and treatable but also because cancer can be detected earlier and more people are getting screened due to the health system.

I often wonder if early detection for some cancers can go too far. In that it's possible the immune system could handle some cancers without treatment, but the treatment itself wrecks the immune system in the process of killing the cancer at an early stage.

[David Meadows]

I often wonder if early detection for some cancers can go too far. In that it's possible the immune system could handle some cancers without treatment, but the treatment itself wrecks the immune system in the process of killing the cancer at an early stage.

There's a lot of concern about this in the "alternative" cancer treatment community, where the emphasis is on bolstering your own immune system rather than having treatment that effectively destroys your body in the process of (temporarily) stopping the cancer.

But I don't think "conventional" medical opinion agrees with the idea. Though conventional medicine has a vested interest in selling you expensive treatments, so you have to wonder...

[Ogul]

From what I understand, the entire point of cancer is that your immune system is worthless against it. You could have the most robust immune system in the world and it would simply ignore cancer completely, because that's how cancer works.

[David Meadows]

From what I understand, the entire point of cancer is that your immune system is worthless against it. You could have the most robust immune system in the world and it would simply ignore cancer completely, because that's how cancer works.

From what I understand (and obviously I'm no expert, I'm going on what a friend who actually has cancer tells me) that's not true. There's a theory that lymphocytes naturally eliminate cancerous cells before they can become established, for example.

[Ogul]

From what I understand (and obviously I'm no expert, I'm going on what a friend who actually has cancer tells me) that's not true. There's a theory that lymphocytes naturally eliminate cancerous cells before they can become established, for example.

Well, "cancer" isn't actually one thing, there are all sorts of types and causes, but for the most part it's tissues that the body recognizes as one of it's own growing crazy and out of control. The immune system doesn't care about them. Some are connected to infectious diseases, and presumably if the immune system kills the disease before the cancer can take hold then you wouldn't get cancer, but I think once it gets to the stqage where "cancer" can be found in any way and attempts would be made to treat it as "cancer", that ship has long since sailed. It's like how they have a vaccine that reduces the risk of getting cervical cancer because it kills a carrier virus, bu if you injected a gallon of the stuff into a woman who already had cervical cancer it wouldn't touch the cancer at all.

I do remember watching a show about how they were developing "markers" that could be implanted in the human body that would actually target cancer cells for destruction by anti-bodies though. It would be like a virus that was made to seek out cancerous tissue and then "tag" it so that our own immune systems could recognize it.

[Lucian Von Dooom]

I can't even sit through the bullied bus monitor video. What a bunch of fucking losers. I would smash those little fucks. And way to go Reddit for coming to the rescue. They've raised over $200,000 + a vacation for her. Faith in humanity restored.

The community website Reddit has once again shown the altruistic nature of strangers by raising over $200,000 for a 68-year old bus monitor who was verbally assaulted on a bus by children on video.

The video, shot on a cell phone, shows Karen Klein sitting alone on a school bus, being verbally assaulted by children who repeatedly call her fat, sweaty, and ugly.

They hurl insults at the elderly woman for the length of the video – approximately 10 minutes. The video went viral and as of June 21, had been viewed more than 1.6 million times.



Read it on Global News: Global Edmonton | Reddit raises over $200,000 for bullied bus monitor in New York

[Jim Ohara]

A few assholes on the bus, thousands of good people willing to help out. I like that ratio - the vast majority humanity is pretty decent.

[stephanie familiar]

I can't even sit through the bullied bus monitor video. What a bunch of fucking losers. I would smash those little fucks. And way to go Reddit for coming to the rescue. They've raised over $200,000 + a vacation for her. Faith in humanity restored.

what despicable children. i hope someone kicks the shit out of them. and that she has a wonderful vacation.

[stephanie familiar]

Jerry Sandusky convicted of 45 counts of child sex abuse

[Johnny Henning]

There's a lot of concern about this in the "alternative" cancer treatment community, where the emphasis is on bolstering your own immune system rather than having treatment that effectively destroys your body in the process of (temporarily) stopping the cancer.

But I don't think "conventional" medical opinion agrees with the idea. Though conventional medicine has a vested interest in selling you expensive treatments, so you have to wonder...

I'm not all that supportive of most "alternative" cancer treatments in general since it seems quite likely many of them are the result of quackery, but I do have to wonder if conventional medicine is a bit hindered by economic interests, especially in pharma.

In a short span of time, around the past two years, I've had five people, friends and family, diagnosed with thyroid problems. In each case, the treatment was simply to remove the thyroid and take synthetic thyroid medicine FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.

Apparently, from what I've read and what they tell me, thyroid conditions are on the rise and often go undiagnosed, but it doesn't seem like there is any sort of push toward prevention since they are so easily handled via removal of the gland and medication for life. Whereas, not being a doctor, it seems like that should be the last resort as far as health is concerned.


WARNING: BLOODY GRAPHIC SPECIAL EFFECTS IN THE VIDEO



Not sure if this has been posted already, but this is an add for the 10:10 campaign that encourages everyone to cut their personal carbon emissions by 10% - and I'm not just talking about flatulence. However, if I didn't know this was supporting that campaign, I'd think this video would be making exactly the opposite point. That the 10:10 campaign is nothing more than subtle social bullying where it is more important to join the crowd and not dissent rather than actually do anything substantial.

As it stands now, though, it's just a bit creepy.

[Ogul]

I'm not all that supportive of most "alternative" cancer treatments in general since it seems quite likely many of them are the result of quackery, but I do have to wonder if conventional medicine is a bit hindered by economic interests, especially in pharma.

In a short span of time, around the past two years, I've had five people, friends and family, diagnosed with thyroid problems. In each case, the treatment was simply to remove the thyroid and take synthetic thyroid medicine FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.

Apparently, from what I've read and what they tell me, thyroid conditions are on the rise and often go undiagnosed, but it doesn't seem like there is any sort of push toward prevention since they are so easily handled via removal of the gland and medication for life. Whereas, not being a doctor, it seems like that should be the last resort as far as health is concerned.

It's possible that pharma plays some role in all of that, but I doubt they are actively suppressing better treatments, so much as it is that there are only so many research dollars to go around, and less "solved" problems take higher priority. I'm sure if there were some massive thyroid charity that was collecting money and giving it to doctors researching better options, they'd find some. That's what the NiH and grants to universities are for, but for the past few years those have been massively cut back. The other thing to remember about big bad pharma is that whatever problem they pose, the "alternative" is no better. The dietary supplements business is a $200+ billion dollar industry, and since most of that isn't covered by health care plans, more of that likely comes out of people's pockets than they pay for actual drugs that actually do something. Many of the companies that produce these various vitamins and supplements are, themselves, owned by "big phrama" anyways. Big Phrama would like nothing better than for alternative medicines to take over, because they get more money from them, with MUCH lower costs, since they don't actually have to test them to see if they do anything.

[Todd Gross]

Jerry Sandusky convicted of 45 counts of child sex abuse

I was quite happy to hear that last night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Will]

I was as well. Fuck him. I hope his life is absolutely terrifying and horrible.

[Miqque Loveland]

What a pleasant advert! Sure does make me want to be environmentally responsible. This WAS a bunch of clips from opposing organizations, right?

On the cancer thing,it has become obvious that cancers start when there is some some of growth switch in the cells turned on or off by genes, sometimes by environmental agents (second-hand smoke, smog, toxins, etc,) and sometimes seemingl spontaneous.

Tim, I understand what you're saying. Most of it has to do with the pharmaceuticals used in treatment and aftercare. That R&D is tremendously difficult, expensive and time-consuming (like a decade between invention and approval). To add to the problem, often there are "cocktails" (a combination of two or more medications) used to attack tumors, or prevent recurrence. When I was in treatment the bigdrugs (chemotherapeutic agents) were Dactinomycin™ (actinomycin-D) and cysplatin. T-cells were not even known. Now, cysplatin is part of some cocktails for specific tumors, while actinomycin-D has been classed a biohazard that should not come in contact with humans. (Nice to know, after they ran a couple gallons of it through me.) I thought at the time, when working with my doctors (doing research - I was in medical libraries much more often than exam rooms) that the key to the whole riddle of cancers was the Human Genome Project. We need to be able to both map and define the status of genes. Did something change? Which ones? Can we flip these alleles back to the Off position? And that is expensive to the point where all current medicines look like they cost pennies. Which brings up the problem of what one funds first. Advances were moving along,and here come the global recession. We tend to spend what we have to cure the current sufferers. Then comes trying what preventative measures we can, and long after that drug research and finally genetic research. There have been advances. My mother's breast cancer recurred three times. The first took a course of chemotherapy (which I believe led to her strokes which led to her death). The second and third were treated by a single administration of some chemotherapeutic agent, which knocked the tumors right out. That's true progress. True progress paid for by taxes (thank you, fellow taxpayers, for giving myself and my mother additional years of life). Next step is obviously treating the cancer then following up with medications that prevent further recurrence.

Lots of science fiction authors, particularly Isaac Asimov, have discussed these scenarios. One common factor is major changes in lifestyle and environment. Food will become boring and we will be doing a lot more travel by foot. That is a generational change, and attempting to speed up the process is pushing the river; going faster than we should as a society (as such changes cause real damage to individuals with so-far unproven science).

Remember the lesson of Job. Job was a righteous man, and he did absolutely nothing to deserve or cause his tragedy and misfortunes. Rather, Job was reduced to poverty and his family killed to prove he did nothing sinful. Today's "sins" - smoking, eating fatty foods and sugar, unprotected sex, etc. - may be contributory, but are not the cause. The cause is misbehaving genomes. We cannot blame the victim - that's the worst sin of all. Yet Job had to sit through 38-or-so chapters of his "friends" - and even his wife - blaminghim on every level possible and urging Job to "repent". Hard to repent for a sin one did not commit. Was my cancer triggered by the intense Los Angeles smog? By my parents and relatives keeping their homes full of cigarette smoke? Or, like so many other malfunctions, spontaneous in my rebellious body?

We must accept the questions are of great value, and that the answers may take a while.

On a related note, there is absolutely zero medicine can do to fight virii. Virus research is rare,pitifully funded, and yet every human is hit by a virus sickness a couple of times a year. Why has not at least a chunk of research money gone into virus research? We know there is billions earned in selling things to treat virus symptoms, but not one clue as to combatting the virus itself. This one, to me, is a no-brainer. Why cure something that makes so many so much money. Go ahead; worship Mammon.

Medicine has a long, long way to go to even be considered adequate!