A Brief Update
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Gaidheal on 26 Jan 2010 15:02 On Jan 26, 11:45 am, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > RGD: So this can be understood as very good news > > TOG: Indeed. Best of luck. Oh. *that* message. You stole that message too, and turned it to aggrandize *yourself*, through your wife's *boss*! > Wrong again, psycho. <G> Egomaniac.
From: Twibil on 26 Jan 2010 15:02 On Jan 26, 11:42 am, Gaidheal <breoganmacbr...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Differ though we all do -sometimes radically- nearly all of us here > > share compassion for other Reekyites in their times of trouble. And > > we celebrate vicariously in a small way when they win a fall against > > life, as well. > > You're an idiot, you know that, Twitbull? Sure. But I'm not the guy (?) trying to twist this thread into a personal screed of universal hatred.
From: Twibil on 26 Jan 2010 15:04 On Jan 26, 11:45 am, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > > > RGD: So this can be understood as very good news > > TOG: Indeed. Best of luck. > > Wrong again, psycho. <G> Let's not play his game in this thread, eh? There will be another along tomorrow.
From: Ben Kaufman on 26 Jan 2010 15:04 On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:27:29 -0800 (PST), "Road Glidin' Don" <d.langkd(a)gmail.com> wrote: >As some of you may know, I was diagnosed with cancer a couple of years >ago (or was it three?) and some here were very kind in the concern and >advice they expressed. For that reason, it's probably appropriate >that I post something here on how things stand now. Don't worry, this >ain't gonna be a frequent thing. > >Actually, the thought of posting something here occurred to me after >(finally) writing something to place in the weekly bulletin of our >church (I have been asked repeatedly to do so, but never got around to >it until now). > >So with the context understood, how about if I just re-post here what >I sent for the bulletin? Here it is: > >*** begin *** > >On behalf of myself and family, I wish to express appreciation for >your prayers and the concern shown to me over the past few years, upon >learning of the cancer I was diagnosed with. Having just returned >from a 6 month check-up at the Cross Cancer Clinic, I would also like >to let the congregation know where matters stand, regarding my >condition. > >It is good. The oncologist informed me she now thinks it is no longer >necessary to see her at 6 month intervals; switching to once a year >instead. One of the things she said was, "If I didn't know you had >CLL (Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia), I would not be able to tell, on >the basis of your blood tests." > >This form of leukemia, although slow-growing, is not a type that chemo >therapy is able to eradicate, so the term "in remission" is not used >to describe my state. I am told this is a type of cancer that will >eventually come back. However, when asked about how the term applies, >the doctor also added that my status can be understood as in >remission, for practical purposes. > >Basically, the hope is that it takes a long time (hopefully 5, maybe >even 10 years?) for symptoms to return and require intervention >again. This provides the possibility of more effective treatments >(perhaps even a cure) being developed during that time. Also, because >the treatments have harmful side-effects (e.g. I now take intravenous, >immune-boosting therapy once per month indefinitely), the fewer I >receive over time, the better. > >So this can be understood as very good news; an outcome as good as >could have been hoped for really. We have seen how the Lord hears our >prayers and is gracious to us in our times of need - not only in terms >of the effectiveness of medical care, but also in terms of the >communion of saints that we have been privileged to experience through >you. Thank you all again and my apologies for taking this long to >write something about this for the bulletin. > >*** end *** Mozel Tov, Don! Ben
From: Datesfat Chicks on 26 Jan 2010 15:24
"Bob Myers" <nospamplease(a)address.invalid> wrote in message news:hjnbeq$a8v$1(a)usenet01.boi.hp.com... > TOG(a)Toil wrote: >> On 26 Jan, 12:36, "Vito" <v...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: >>> "Road Glidin' Don" <d.lan...(a)gmail.com> wrote ....| >>>> It is good. >>> >>> Great news! At the rate research is progressing they will almost >>> certainly have a cure by the time you might need it. >> >> The Doctor doesn't think we'll ever eradicate cancer. Too many >> variants, too adaptable. > > I hear that, but instead of "eradicate" in the sense that it > basically never happens, I would really hope that we could > get to the point where the workings of cells are understood > well enough such that a diagnosis of cancer is no more troublesome > than, say, a sprained ankle. In other words, something you're > pretty much assured of getting completely over in fairly short > order. Surely we will be able to find some way to "tell" > cancerous cells to either stop what they're doing or die off. Well, I'm a control systems guy, and a control system with 5 state variables is considered kind of on the complex side. I remember that some "simple" bacteria being studied had at least 930 feedback mechanisms where the chemical environment of the cell affected the way that the genome was transcribed. Understanding the inner workings of cells is a tall order. "Telling" cancerous cells to stop doing what they're doing is also a tall order. Datesfat |