John McCain did not 'lose' his battle with glioblastoma — because cancer is not a war

by Lurker Wed Aug 29, 2018 1:04 pm

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/john-mccain-did-not-lose-his-battle-glioblastoma-because-cancer-ncna904486

A little more than one year has passed since John McCain was diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive form of brain cancer that carries a grim prognosis. On Saturday, only one day after it was announced that the Arizona senator had decided to “discontinue medical treatment,” he passed away.

Since McCain’s diagnosis was revealed, his cancer has been discussed by colleagues, supporters and media outlets in a language rife with military metaphors. This is partly because of the context of McCain’s life — martial terms may seem particularly appropriate for a valiant man who endured more than five years in an unforgiving North Vietnamese prison. As Benjamin Wallace-Wells wrote in the New Yorker, much of his time as a POW was spent “awaiting torture or recovering from it.”

But while McCain left the battlefield many years ago, the rhetoric surrounding his illness was decidedly martial. The Republican was heralded as a “fighter,” a “worthy opponent,” and a “warrior.” He would beat cancer with the same steely determination and courage forged in the crucible that was the Hanoi Hilton. And now in the wake of his death, it is already being written that McCain “lost his battle to cancer,” as CBS New York noted in its headline.

As an oncologist, I have observed how this kind of language has become an ubiquitous part of conversations involving disease.

As an oncologist, I have observed how this kind of language has become an ubiquitous part of conversations involving disease, especially cancer. Indeed, as I have written about before, these are often the words employed by doctors and other healthcare providers themselves. As Gary Reisfield and George Wilson suggested in the Journal of Clinical Oncology: “War has an especially strong focusing quality, and its images of power and aggression serve as strong counterpoints to the powerlessness and passivity often associated with serious illness.”

These metaphors perhaps first entered the popular oncology lexicon in 1971, when President Richard Nixon declared a “war” on cancer, which he described as a “relentless and insidious enemy.” But the bellicose rhetoric, which was intended to galvanize the public and swell the coffers of cancer research, is at best misguided and at worse counterproductive. It forces a patient’s cancer outcome to be viewed solely in terms of victory or defeat, and, most distressingly, dictates the vocabulary that individuals themselves use to understand and speak of their disease.

Though cancer is often regarded as the emperor of all maladies, it is in reality merely one of many equally devastating illnesses. I have seen the effects of crippling and transformative conditions like end-stage heart failure, dementia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), kidney failure and advanced cirrhosis. These conditions dramatically alter the trajectory of a patient’s life, carry poor prognoses, cause anguish for families and require a heightened level of medical and supportive care. Yet patients are not routinely drafted in a war against kidney failure or dementia.

Martial language propagates the dangerous myth that cancer capitulates to patients who possess a dogged resolve and that death is the result of a personal failure.

Further, military metaphors can actually confound a patient’s understanding of his or her cancer. As Xeni Jardin, a writer and cancer survivor, put it in 2017: “Cancer, I soon learned, is my own cells going rogue. Suddenly all the combat language was confusing. Am I the invading army or the battleground? Am I the soldier or a hostage the soldier's trying to liberate? All of the above?”

Most importantly, martial language propagates the dangerous myth that cancer capitulates to patients who possess a dogged resolve and that death is the result of a personal failure to fight hard enough. These intangibles matter little. Research has shown that having a fighting spirit as a psychological coping strategy has little impact on survival in patients with cancer.

Though a willingness to seek treatment and remain compliant with therapy is essential, cancer outcomes are determined by the virulence of the tumor type and the stage at which it is initially diagnosed. It is the limits of our current treatments that inevitably fail patients, not the patients themselves.

Language has consequences in so many aspects of our lives, so it makes sense that the language we use to talk about illness would also matter.

Language has consequences in so many aspects of our lives, so it makes sense that the language we use to talk about illness would also matter. According to linguist Elena Semino, violence metaphors can even be emasculating for patients who feel that their “weapons” are insufficient to fight or that their doctors are the “generals” and they are merely “foot soldiers” without agency.

Tragically, some patients continue to opt for futile treatments and balk at end-of-life care (palliative or hospice care) because of an enduring fear that they'll disappoint family or be perceived as weak. Consistent with this, a study found that aggressive rhetoric and an expectation to “fight” leaves little space for patients to express their fear, shock, or sadness about their diagnosis.

In spite of these potential downsides, metaphors will continue to flourish inside the walls of hospitals and clinics. This is not necessarily a bad thing: Metaphors help physicians make the esoteric world of medical science and research accessible to the uninitiated. And for patients, Reisfield and Wilson remind us, “metaphors can impose order on a suddenly disordered world, helping them to understand, communicate, and thus symbolically control their illness.”

A study found that aggressive rhetoric and an expectation to “fight” leaves little space for patients to express their fear, shock, or sadness about their diagnosis.

In other words, we must remember that language that is inspiring for one person’s disease can be disempowering for someone else. Based on her work, Semino concluded: “We need a ‘menu’ of metaphors... so these can be shared with people, and people can pick the ones they want, as you do at a restaurant.”

Stuart Scott, the late ESPN anchor who died of cancer, once told an audience, “When you die, it does not mean that you lose to cancer. You beat cancer by how you live, why you live, and the manner in which you live.”

Seen from this vantage, John McCain beat cancer admirably.

Jalal Baig is a physician and freelance writer. He is currently a hematology/oncology fellow at University of Illinois-Chicago. His work has appeared in The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Atlantic, Slate, Vice, Salon and elsewhere.

by 'Wolfie Wed Aug 29, 2018 2:54 pm

I agree in many ways with the oncologists attitude to the modern day of so many commentators referring to people "battling" against cancer, and against disease in general...

However, this wrong'headed rhetoric isn't seen only with certain medical conditions..

We can also regularly see this adversarial 'us and them' attitude with respect to their descriptions of "farmers battling against droughts", "settlers 'conquering' the wilderness", "horse 'breakers' subjugating their victims", "a 'cyclist 'battling' a headwind".

All the time, we see this notion of the brave, rugged, 'heroic' humans "battling" against the cruel onslaughts of mother nature -- rather than working with and within their environment, going with the flow, and not seeing eveything as a battle to be 'won' or 'lost'.

by Original Quill Wed Aug 29, 2018 4:43 pm

OP wrote:Language has consequences in so many aspects of our lives, so it makes sense that the language we use to talk about illness would also matter. According to linguist Elena Semino, violence metaphors can even be emasculating for patients who feel that their “weapons” are insufficient to fight or that their doctors are the “generals” and they are merely “foot soldiers” without agency.

Connotations travel through any given language by way of metaphor. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (2003). As a child, we learn that ice cream is good, and that the taste is called 'sweet'. Later in life, we watch a bicycle kick score in a football match, and call it 'sweet'. We mean, essentially, that the pleasure of watching that maneuver is akin to the delicious taste of ice cream we experienced when we were younger.

War is a huge metaphor in the English language. Things hard to achieve, we call a 'struggle'. The battle against a disease, or poverty, or ignorance, are examples of the war metaphor. We use sub-metaphors based upon war: it was a 'shot across the bow'.

It's important, because metaphors frame how we think about something. A debate might be characterized as: battle lines were drawn. However, another way of putting it might be to stress the difficulty, without the adversarial connotation: storm clouds gathered. One casting prepares the reader for an adversarial contest, the other merely for heavy weather.

The metaphors we use define the 'mood' of the facts we convey. As John Dewey, father of psychology, taught, we don't live inside reason, but inside of scripts and stereotypes. Dewey, John, How we Think (1910). We see facts in living motion, not as static photographs. The metaphors by which we cast the facts, declare our feelings about them.

by Syl Wed Aug 29, 2018 4:53 pm

I hate it when people say someone has lost their battle with cancer, or even won their battle.
Its not a win/lose situation, and it's wrong to herald someone a fighter or a loser when they die of any disease. Some things are just out of our hands.

by eddie Wed Aug 29, 2018 5:51 pm

It’s just an expression. Who cares?

Perhaps the oncologist in this article should concentrate less on what words we use (who gives an actual shit?) and concentrates more on wondering why we are still no nearer to curing cancer and why the fuck we arent using canniboids as a means to treat it.

by Syl Wed Aug 29, 2018 5:57 pm

eddie wrote:It’s just an expression. Who cares?

Perhaps the oncologist in this article should concentrate less on what words we use (who gives an actual shit?) and concentrates more on wondering why we are still no nearer to curing cancer and why the fuck we arent using canniboids as a means to treat it.

I think it does matter.....having cancer must be horrendous, hearing people refer to it as a battle you can win or lose (which puts the onus of you) must make it worse ...imo.

by Guest Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:07 pm

It is a battle for many people and its one they seek to win or in many cases they will die. To claim otherwise shows that person does not know what they are talking about

And yes they are closer to curing cancer

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6103647/Is-Michael-proof-doctors-FINALLY-secret-weapon-beat-cancer.html

by Original Quill Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:10 pm

eddie wrote:It’s just an expression. Who cares?

Perhaps the oncologist in this article should concentrate less on what words we use (who gives an actual shit?) and concentrates more on wondering why we are still no nearer to curing cancer and why the fuck we arent using canniboids as a means to treat it.

That's the tradition, conservative view, eds: "It's just an expression." We've only recently begun to self-reflect on how we determine our own moods and feelings by the language we use.

All you have to do is see an incident of 'road rage' to understand why we care. Driving on the freeway can be a 'battle' or a 'symphony', depending on the way we look at it.

by Syl Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:22 pm

Didge wrote:It is a battle for many people and its one they seek to win or in many cases they will die. To claim otherwise shows that person does not know what they are talking about

And yes they are closer to curing cancer

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6103647/Is-Michael-proof-doctors-FINALLY-secret-weapon-beat-cancer.html

Its a disease....depending on how soon the cancer is spotted, how serious it is and which treatment is offered are the defining factors of whether a person will survive it or not.
Big brave men will die of it weak minded wimps may not....there is no battle.

by Guest Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:29 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:It is a battle for many people and its one they seek to win or in many cases they will die. To claim otherwise shows that person does not know what they are talking about

And yes they are closer to curing cancer

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6103647/Is-Michael-proof-doctors-FINALLY-secret-weapon-beat-cancer.html

Its a disease....depending on how soon the cancer is spotted, how serious it is and which treatment is offered are the defining factors of whether a person will survive it or not.
Big brave men will die of it weak minded wimps may not....there is no battle.

Really?

What a crock of shit and shows how again badly you have zero understanding

So you think people should simple not conern themselves when they have cancer and hope for the best with treatment?

You think that is all it is?

You think the body has nothing to do with combating cancer?

Do me a favour and reach out to a cancer charity blog and speak what you have said here and see what replies you get

by Vintage Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:57 pm

It is a battle, a battle to survive and if possible overcome the disease, your body with its immune response ie fighting to 1. recognise the rogue cells (in cancer because they are your own)
2. to overcome them and destroy them. 3. helped by drugs and therapies (the weapons)
What else would you call it?

by Guest Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:01 pm

Vintage wrote:It is a battle, a battle to survive and if possible overcome the disease, your body with its immune response ie fighting to 1. recognise the rogue cells (in cancer because they are your own)
2. to overcome them and destroy them. 3. helped by drugs and therapies (the weapons)
What else would you call it?

Well said and 100% agree

Which is why the best cure is around helping the immune system reognise native and non-native cells that can harm us.

The immune system already fights in the background to help defend our bodies from harm

Hene the previous link I posted

by Syl Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:09 pm

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:

Its a disease....depending on how soon the cancer is spotted, how serious it is and which treatment is offered are the defining factors of whether a person will survive it or not.
Big brave men will die of it weak minded wimps may not....there is no battle.

Really?

What a crock of shit and shows how again badly you have zero understanding

So you think people should simple not conern themselves when they have cancer and hope for the best with treatment?

You think that is all it is?

You think the body has nothing to do with combating cancer?

Do me a favour and reach out to a cancer charity blog and speak what you have said here and see what replies you get

Do you really think you are the only one with understanding of how different people view cancer....or any potential terminal illness?
Of course people will concern themselves, obviously they want the best outcome....who said otherwise?

My opinion....which is what it is, an opinion, is that when someone hears they can fight and win or not have the strength or the option of overcoming cancer....to hear people say they are losing the battle would be anything but beneficial.
You think as they lie on their death bed it would be comforting for them to know they have LOST? get real.

by Guest Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:14 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:

Really?

What a crock of shit and shows how again badly you have zero understanding

So you think people should simple not conern themselves when they have cancer and hope for the best with treatment?

You think that is all it is?

You think the body has nothing to do with combating cancer?

Do me a favour and reach out to a cancer charity blog and speak what you have said here and see what replies you get

Do you really think you are the only one with understanding of how different people view cancer....or any potential terminal illness?
Of course people will concern themselves, obviously they want the best outcome....who said otherwise?

My opinion....which is what it is, an opinion, is that when someone hears they can fight and win or not have the strength or the option of overcoming cancer....to hear people say they are losing the battle would be anything but beneficial.
You think as they lie on their death bed it would be comforting for them to know they have LOST? get real.

Well for one you simple do not understand basic biology. Where we have an immune syste that fights daily for us against foreign invaders..

Never claimed anything on me only knowing but for you to atually listen to many people going through this.

They have the ability to fight and need to with some cancer treatments. As these also weaken their immune system

You keep thinking what you like

If on my death bed. I know I will have lost the battle and have no issue with someone speaking matter of fact about this. As my body would have lost the battle.

by Syl Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:15 pm

Vintage wrote:It is a battle, a battle to survive and if possible overcome the disease, your body with its immune response ie fighting to 1. recognise the rogue cells (in cancer because they are your own)
2. to overcome them and destroy them. 3. helped by drugs and therapies (the weapons)
What else would you call it?

I would call it the luck of the draw....some people live through cancer some dont, and that imo is the important thing
One can seek out the best of care and have hope, they can surround themselves with loving family and live what life they have to the best of their abilities...but if nothing works are they to lie on their deathbed and feel they have lost?

Thats a horrible thought to take with you.

by Syl Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:17 pm

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:

Do you really think you are the only one with understanding of how different people view cancer....or any potential terminal illness?
Of course people will concern themselves, obviously they want the best outcome....who said otherwise?

My opinion....which is what it is, an opinion, is that when someone hears they can fight and win or not have the strength or the option of overcoming cancer....to hear people say they are losing the battle would be anything but beneficial.
You think as they lie on their death bed it would be comforting for them to know they have LOST? get real.

Well for one you simple do not understand basic biology. Where we have an immune syste that fights daily for us against foreign invaders..

Never claimed anything on me only knowing but for you to atually listen to many people going through this.

They have the ability to fight and need to with some cancer treatments. As these also weaken their immune system

You keep thinking what you like

If on my death bed. I know I will have lost the battle and have no issue with someone speaking matter of fact about this. As my body would have lost the battle.

And that is your opinion to which you are entitled to think.
Just dont constantly talk down to others when their opinion differs from yours.

by Guest Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:19 pm

Syl wrote:
Vintage wrote:It is a battle, a battle to survive and if possible overcome the disease, your body with its immune response ie fighting to 1. recognise the rogue cells (in cancer because they are your own)
2. to overcome them and destroy them. 3. helped by drugs and therapies (the weapons)
What else would you call it?

I would call it the luck of the draw....some people live through cancer some dont, and that imo is the important thing
One can seek out the best of care and have hope, they can surround themselves with loving family and live what life they have to the best of their abilities...but if nothing works are they to lie on their deathbed and feel they have lost?

Thats a horrible thought to take with you.

Its a fact that the body has lost the battle

Why is that so wrong to say?

It does not mean you still cannot enjoy your last days, even though they have lost the battle. I am not afraid of death and would not be a sore loser, if my body lost the battle

I really do not see why you are making such an issue over a fact

by Guest Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:20 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:

Well for one you simple do not understand basic biology. Where we have an immune syste that fights daily for us against foreign invaders..

Never claimed anything on me only knowing but for you to atually listen to many people going through this.

They have the ability to fight and need to with some cancer treatments. As these also weaken their immune system

You keep thinking what you like

If on my death bed. I know I will have lost the battle and have no issue with someone speaking matter of fact about this. As my body would have lost the battle.

And that is your opinion to which you are entitled to think.
Just dont constantly talk down to others when their opinion differs from yours.

Well maybe they should learn some basic biology before making silly points

by Syl Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:25 pm

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:

I would call it the luck of the draw....some people live through cancer some dont, and that imo is the important thing
One can seek out the best of care and have hope, they can surround themselves with loving family and live what life they have to the best of their abilities...but if nothing works are they to lie on their deathbed and feel they have lost?

Thats a horrible thought to take with you.

Its a fact that the body has lost the battle

Why is that so wrong to say?

It does not mean you still cannot enjoy your last days, even though they have lost the battle. I am not afraid of death and would not be a sore loser, if my body lost the battle

I really do not see why you are making such an issue over a fact

The issue is mainly with you talking down to people as if you, and only you, are the font of all knowledge. Rolling Eyes

Many people are not afraid of death, me included, but when I go I wont go thinking I have lost...I will go knowing I have lived life to the best of my ability. We all die sooner or later.....no winning or losing will enter the equation.

by Guest Wed Aug 29, 2018 7:29 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:

Its a fact that the body has lost the battle

Why is that so wrong to say?

It does not mean you still cannot enjoy your last days, even though they have lost the battle. I am not afraid of death and would not be a sore loser, if my body lost the battle

I really do not see why you are making such an issue over a fact

The issue is mainly with you talking down to people as if you, and only you, are the font of all knowledge.

Maybe you should stop and think why it may have annoyed me?

Being as my Niece had been fighting her cancer and my own situation?

by Vintage Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:10 pm

I'm not afraid if death itself I am afraid of the manner of my death though. Having seen so many people who have fought cancer to the very end by which time they can do nothing but surrender, there's nothing left to fight with and you can see they have been in a battle as if it were a physical battle with another person.

by eddie Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:19 pm

See? It’s a stupid article that has got people arguing over whether it’s a fucking “battle” or not.

Cancer is a piece of shit. So is this article.
Waste of time.

Who cares whether someone refers to it as a battle or a banana.

It’s just a word.

And people who are fighting against a disease always feel as though they’re fighting so let them call it what they want.

by Original Quill Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:37 pm

Vintage wrote:What else would you call it?

There are lots of metaphors that one could use. It could be an experience. A ride. A journey. An adventure. I think the article was going for something that didn't make out the afflicted person to be a failure...as in, he failed in his battle with cancer:

NBC News wrote:In other words, we must remember that language that is inspiring for one person’s disease can be disempowering for someone else.

The 'battle' metaphor raises improbable and even disappointing possibilities. And in the end, the person might have approached his illness most heroically, only to be labeled a 'loser'. It's the connotation that someone must be worthy, and someone else must be unworthy...that the article is criticizing.

by Original Quill Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:38 pm

eddie wrote:See? It’s a stupid article that has got people arguing over whether it’s a fucking “battle” or not.

Cancer is a piece of shit. So is this article.
Waste of time.

Who cares whether someone refers to it as a battle or a banana.

It’s just a word.

And people who are fighting against a disease always feel as though they’re fighting so let them call it what they want.

Well, the battle metaphor is hardly inspiring, is it? Who wants to lose a battle, and be labeled a 'loser'?

by Vintage Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:45 pm

Well, you lose your life don't you, from disease or accident, what you once had you lose. It isn't your fault that you lose, there's no shame.

by Syl Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:34 am

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:

The issue is mainly with you talking down to people as if you, and only you, are the font of all knowledge.

Maybe you should stop and think why it may have annoyed me?

Being as my Niece had been fighting her cancer and my own situation?

I have sympathy for anyone battling cancer and i obviously wish you and yours good health, but thats still no reason to talk down to people if their opinion differs from yours.

We all have our own experiences in life that colours our views, no right or wrong, just different ways of seeing things.
I have always disliked the way people describe beating cancer, as if they are stronger than the ones who die....nope, they were luckier, or had better treatment, or a less serious form of cancer.
Thats just my opinion, it doesnt lessen yours.

by veya_victaous Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:44 am

Syl wrote:
Vintage wrote:It is a battle, a battle to survive and if possible overcome the disease, your body with its immune response ie fighting to 1. recognise the rogue cells (in cancer because they are your own)
2. to overcome them and destroy them. 3. helped by drugs and therapies (the weapons)
What else would you call it?

I would call it the luck of the draw....some people live through cancer some dont, and that imo is the important thing
One can seek out the best of care and have hope, they can surround themselves with loving family and live what life they have to the best of their abilities...but if nothing works are they to lie on their deathbed and feel they have lost?

Thats a horrible thought to take with you.

I agree with Syl.

we can call it a battle, but really how hard you fight wont save you, if you've had the worst of luck.

by Guest Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:57 am

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:

Maybe you should stop and think why it may have annoyed me?

Being as my Niece had been fighting her cancer and my own situation?
I have sympathy for anyone battling cancer and i obviously wish you and yours good health, but thats still no reason to talk down to people if their opinion differs from yours.

We all have our own experiences in life that colours our views, no right or wrong, just different ways of seeing things.
I have always disliked the way people describe beating cancer, as if they are stronger than the ones who die....nope, they were luckier, or had better treatment, or a less serious form of cancer.
Thats just my opinion, it doesnt lessen yours.

I think your opinion is utterly stupid and to me comes from some absurd PC mentality.

To me your iews do not understand biology and are coming at this from some fluffy duffy position

If you do not like that

Tough

by Guest Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:58 am

Vintage wrote:Well, you lose your life don't you, from disease or accident, what you once had you lose. It isn't your fault that you lose, there's no shame.

Exactly, as the body loses the battle to live

by Guest Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:15 am

Original Quill wrote:
Vintage wrote:What else would you call it?

There are lots of metaphors that one could use. It could be an experience. A ride. A journey. An adventure. I think the article was going for something that didn't make out the afflicted person to be a failure...as in, he failed in his battle with cancer:

NBC News wrote:In other words, we must remember that language that is inspiring for one person’s disease can be disempowering for someone else.

The 'battle' metaphor raises improbable and even disappointing possibilities. And in the end, the person might have approached his illness most heroically, only to be labeled a 'loser'. It's the connotation that someone must be worthy, and someone else must be unworthy...that the article is criticizing.

In any situation where somebody has died, wherre their body has been unable to fight the illness. Have they ever been labelled a loser?

Seriously?

Its a simple biologial fact that if our bodies did not have the effetive immune system that battles foreign invaders. Your body would die.

Its got nothing to do with being worthy or unworthy, again which is just PC bullshit being invoked here. As has anyone reffered to John as a loser or unworthy becuse his body lost the fight against cancer?

The answer is obviously no, hence the absurdity of the article and how yet again the left want to make people speak a certain way. I mean nobody is saying that someone cannot describe this experience, as a ride. A journey. An adventure, but the left again with PC bullshit. Thinks its wrong to say battle or fight and invoke as seen bullshit as you did around this then making the person be seen as either worthy or unworthy.

Yet again this is simple bullshit that is coing from the left

by Original Quill Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:11 am

Didge wrote:In any situation where somebody has died, wherre their body has been unable to fight the illness. Have they ever been labelled a loser?

Only when it's framed according to a 'win-lose' metaphor. The "Battle" metaphor implies a "loser."

You hit the nail on the head there, didge.

by Guest Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:03 am

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:In any situation where somebody has died, wherre their body has been unable to fight the illness. Have they ever been labelled a loser?

Only when it's framed according to a 'win-lose' metaphor. The "Battle" metaphor implies a "loser."

You hit the nail on the head there, didge.

In other words nobody thinks this when people die, apart from you

You mean only the left would think so, aka meaning you

In other words you are the problem and not the words here

I see you failed to answer the question

quelle surprise

by 'Wolfie Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:36 am

eddie wrote:It’s just an expression. Who cares?

Perhaps the oncologist in this article should concentrate less on what words we use (who gives an actual shit?) and concentrates more on wondering why we are still no nearer to curing cancer and why the fuck we arent using canniboids as a means to treat it.

Cannabinoids don't necessarily "treat" the cancers, per se...

They can often ameliorate the symptoms -- that is already well known..

There is zero evidence in the O/P to give any idea, either way, of that oncologist's personal position on the efficacy of using cannabinoids in the treatment of various cancers.

Then again, eddie, you have often claimed on here to know more about medicine than the medico's, more about nutrition than any nutritionists, and more about farming than farmers..

by Vintage Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:22 am

When people speak about someone who has lost the battle with something like cancer they do not see it as a shameful thing, that they didn't try hard enough, quite the opposite in fact, people speak about how courageous a person was and how hard they fought to stay alive and be with their loved ones.

by HoratioTarr Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:02 am

The cure lies in the body itself. Our bodies are designed to heal themselves.

by eddie Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:22 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
eddie wrote:It’s just an expression. Who cares?

Perhaps the oncologist in this article should concentrate less on what words we use (who gives an actual shit?) and concentrates more on wondering why we are still no nearer to curing cancer and why the fuck we arent using canniboids as a means to treat it.

Cannabinoids don't necessarily "treat" the cancers, per se...

They can often ameliorate the symptoms -- that is already well known..

There is zero evidence in the O/P to give any idea, either way, of that oncologist's personal position on the efficacy of using cannabinoids in the treatment of various cancers.

Then again, eddie, you have often claimed on here to know more about medicine than the medico's, more about nutrition than any nutritionists, and more about farming than farmers..

You’re an “old-thinker”. You have set ideas and are immovable on any opinion, far more so than most others on here, also, you can’t stand being wrong and often run off when you know you are. You rarely answer a question aimed at you.

Put all that together - will be the reason that you rarely find anyone debating with you.

Especially me. So I hardly register your opinion anyway. Sorry.

Also, added to that, you are completely devoid of any emotion except anger. I find you strange.

by eddie Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:56 am

Anyway, this guy beat his cancer and is now bitching about whether or not he likes the word “battle” or “fighter”.
Fucking hell.

Bore off and enjoy your life, mate. Rolling Eyes

by Syl Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:12 pm

eddie wrote:Anyway, this guy beat his cancer and is now bitching about whether or not he likes the word “battle” or “fighter”.
Fucking hell.

Bore off and enjoy your life, mate.

Well I agree with that 100%.
I imagine if you have faced death in any way, be it from an illness or any other life threatening situation...you would be just so grateful to be alive the correct word choices would be irrelevant.

by nicko Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:55 pm

I beat my Cancer, well, at least 90% of it. I didn't Battle it or fight it. My Surgeon did the Battling and Fighting, I'M not fighting it now, I just think, fuck you, please yourself !

by Original Quill Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:17 pm

Didge wrote:In other words nobody thinks this when people die, apart from you

I didn't write the article. I merely recognize the theme from studies in Cognitive Linguistics. See, for example, Ronald W. Langacker, The Foundations of Cognitive Grammer, vols. I & II (1999).

by Original Quill Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:30 pm

Didge wrote:You mean only the left would think so, aka meaning you

Cognitive linguistics is a discipline taught in Universities:

Wkik wrote:Cognitive linguistics (CL) is an interdisciplinary branch of linguistics, combining knowledge and research from both psychology and linguistics. It describes how language interacts with cognition, how language forms our thoughts, and the evolution of language parallel with the change in the common mindset across time.

It has no political bias, save for the extreme right view that any education is harmful. For more on right-wing anti-education movement, see Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels on burning books: https://www.reference.com/history/did-hitler-burn-books-558437ffd773cac2

Did they not teach cognitive linguistics at Tijuana Tech?

by Guest Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:28 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:In other words nobody thinks this when people die, apart from you

I didn't write the article. I merely recognize the theme from studies in Cognitive Linguistics. See, for example, Ronald W. Langacker, The Foundations of Cognitive Grammer, vols. I & II (1999).

You merely exposed why you are an idiot and I will explain why. I see you have also engaged being a tit mode coing out with claptrap with Cognitive linguistics. Its your usual attempt to play your "get out of a hole card"

The body daily has an immune system is made up of multitude of defense mechanisms that take on foreign threats to the body.

With cancer, which is generally a mutation of cells where now the immune system annot reognise these cells that have gone rogue. Exactly like we have convert Islamic and Muslim terrorists in the West. (The same comparrison can be applied to any home grown terrorist whether political or religious). They have gone rogue and are now a threat to the people. But just like cancereous cells are hard to detect for the immune system. So is the same for our real life immune system. This is made up of multiple systes also. Where they also struggle to identify these rogue cells in our society.

So what is the best thing to take on thie rogue cells. Well our intelligence services, break terrorist codes, intelligence gathering infiltrate and have others help identify who these rogues are. With our immune system. It also needs help to identify that these cells have turned Rogue and they require the help of sciene to break the genetic code of the cancereous cells.

Once they do through immunotherapy the immune system is now alerted to the danger and destroys the rogue cells. Just as we do when we arrest or shoot terrorists. We take them down when we identify them.

Now in both cases this is an ongoing battle or battle yet to occur for people, but here is the crunch and why leftist PC like you, are idiots.

As you are suggesting that using a battle anology. According to you, a person who loses a battle against cancer has to be a loser.

Do you apply the same warped and dumb logic to victims of terrorism?

Are they losers to you?

You see how your anology has fallen apart at the seems and why you do not have to apply a view of people being losers if their body loses the battle against cancer ?

In any situations people lose their lives fighting for their lives against an attaker. Nobody classes them as a loser do they?
Nobody classes soldiers that go into battle and die as losers do they? I can provide you countless examples here and each time where people lose the battle to live. Nobody classes them as losers, except only extremists,murderers, terrorists etc.... will think the victims are losers.

Go figure

Hence cancer is a battle our bodies have to win or we die. The same with uncovering terrorists plots and attakers. Its a battle we have to win or people die.

by 'Wolfie Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:42 pm

eddie wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Cannabinoids don't necessarily "treat" the cancers, per se...

They can often ameliorate the symptoms -- that is already well known..

There is zero evidence in the O/P to give any idea, either way, of that oncologist's personal position on the efficacy of using cannabinoids in the treatment of various cancers.

Then again, eddie, you have often claimed on here to know more about medicine than the medico's, more about nutrition than any nutritionists, and more about farming than farmers..

You’re an “old-thinker”. You have set ideas and are immovable on any opinion, far more so than most others on here, also, you can’t stand being wrong and often run off when you know you are. You rarely answer a question aimed at you.

Put all that together - will be the reason that you rarely find anyone debating with you.

Especially me. So I hardly register your opinion anyway. Sorry.

Also, added to that, you are completely devoid of any emotion except anger. I find you strange.

You find me "strange" -- yet you're the one being so ignorant and narrow-minded here, eddie...

I'm not the one making angry and wrong-headed statements on this thread..

You attack that onologist outright, rather than actually discuss the topic.

You're sounding more and more like HoratioTroll and Sly by the week, as your nastiness and bullshit quotient grow more and more each day. Time for you to take a reality check, yourself, maybe ?

by Original Quill Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:56 pm

Didge wrote:Do you apply the same warped and dumb logic to victims of terrorism?

Are they losers to you?

You don't consider them suffers? Really? Apparently, you have mastered the art of 'alternate facts'.

Terrorist victims are battle casualties. Unfortunately, for the rest of us the truth can't be avoided.

by Guest Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:01 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Do you apply the same warped and dumb logic to victims of terrorism?

Are they losers to you?

You don't consider them losers? Apparently, you have mastered the art of 'alternate facts'.

Unfortunately, for the rest of us the truth can't be avoided.

lol blatantly avoided my facts and now avoids answering my points and questions

Rest of you?

You thus consider someone fighting for their life and being murdered a loser

wow

You thus consider victims of terrorism losers

Thank you for clarifying that you are indeed an extremist

Run along little boy, grown ups are debating here

by Original Quill Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:17 pm

Didge wrote:ol blatantly avoided my facts and now avoids answering my points and question

Your facts miss the point. Macho you...you deny any kind of psychology, particularly cognitive linguistics. You call it an "analogy". Is the earth's curvature also an analogy? Is gravity an analogy? If I blow your head off with a .45, are you only analogously dead?

I told you that you are unable to process ideas. You don't even know the difference between an analogy and real phenomena. My wonder is, how did you even get near a university?

by Guest Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:22 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:ol blatantly avoided my facts and now avoids answering my points and question

Your facts miss the point. Macho you...you deny any kind of psychology, particularly cognitive linguistics. You call it an "analogy". Is the earth's curvature also an analogy? Is gravity an analogy? If I blow your head off with a .45, are you only analogously dead?

I told you that you are unable to process ideas. You don't even know the difference between an analogy and real phenomena. My wonder is, how did you even get near a university?

Here we go yet more misdirecting drivel

I am able to process that the extreme left class victims of terrorism as losers

My anology left you stumped and unable to respond to a single point. Other than admit you class victims as losers

Can you see anyone else in agreeent with you on your warped point?

Like I said you are quintessentially PC indeed and very warped

by Syl Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:28 pm

Cancer is just a horrible illness like so many others, for years people were afraid to actually say the word, it would be referred to as the Big C.

We dont say we beat a stroke or a brain tumour, we didn't win or lose a battle with polio or pneumonia or any other serious illness or disease.
Cancer is no different.....maybe fear makes some people talk about it differently.

by Original Quill Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:32 pm

Didge wrote:You thus consider someone fighting for their life and being murdered a loser

I just told you, I didn't write the article.

The author says that one who is a battle victim is in a battle, while one who has contracted a disease is afflicted with a disease. He argues that to cast one with a disease as a battle victim is to declare him a loser when he dies.

That is an insult to disabled and diseased people everywhere. But, you're good an insults, aren't you?

by Guest Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:33 pm

Syl wrote:Cancer is just a horrible illness like so many others, for years people were afraid to actually say the word, it would be referred to as the Big C.

We dont say we beat a stroke or a brain tumour, we didn't win or lose a battle with polio or pneumonia or any other serious illness or disease.
Cancer is no different.....maybe fear makes some people talk about it differently.

Nonsense yet again.A stroke is where some of the body systems have failed and often people battle to recover from this.

You just do not understand the human body and if it were not for people who have had their bodies battle and defeat deadly deseases. How on earth do you think we would have then develope vaccines for them?

What do you think immunotherapy does?

by Sponsored content