(January 21, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Drich Wrote:(January 21, 2015 at 11:44 am)dyresand Wrote: Sorry but there was a 75% chance to live its basically murder, so no she shouldn't have died for nothing.
Those numbers are crap.
One they do not give out cancer surviablity rates out like that. they plot them over a period of time with a reoccourance ratio. Like a 90% survivablity rate of 5 years with a 10% liklyhood of reoccourance. Those should have been the numbers she was given with acute lymphoblastic leukemia if she is under 15 and it is not bad. Because she was given a 75% (the rate of survivablity 50 years ago) chance it means the author of that slanted story wanted to omit she had a very high chance of getting it again when she was older which meant a lot more pain and a lot less surviveablity rate/ratio.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/t...onal/page1
You think the long-term survival rate is not longer now than it was 50 years ago, Doctor (I presume?)?
(January 21, 2015 at 12:28 pm)Drich Wrote: acute lymphoblastic leukemia was something I was looking at a few months back. Treatment is not good.
Neither is dying.
(January 21, 2015 at 12:28 pm)Drich Wrote: They nuke your bone marrow and that means you have no amune system, (among a bunch of other blood related problems) so you have to live in a cancer ward till you recover (months.) Months of extreme pain and sickness may be too much if your just putting it off till later where there is only more pain and sickness..
So you think trading years for months is the smart bet, Doctor?
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
