Lance Armstrong
Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2002 6:37 am
Shannon wrote:
Is "his cancer" cured? Only time would tell; does it come back, etc.
Is "he" cured? That depends... Like other "named diseases", cancer does
not arise in a vacuum, or from a state of otherwise impeccable good health!
So, what were those *other* imbalances? Did the chemo etc. cure them?
(Doubtful...) And a question I'd be fascinated to hear, what *else* might
he have done to help himself thru the cancer, or what might others have done
for him? Would be interesting to know...
He has been free of cancer for at least 5 years. How long do we have to wait
until we can say that there has been a cure.
He was presumably months from certain death if he had delayed treatment much
longer. Most people with the same level of the disease do not survive, much
less go on to be the best athlete of his sport.
It is my impression that chemo tends to weaken those who undergo the
treatment, but in his case he appears to have come out of it stronger...he
has virtually no peer in his sport.
I am just trying to get an understanding of "cure". Eventually we all die,
so no "cure" is permanent. But how long does an improvement have to continue
until we can call it a satisfactory cure. In the case of Lance, he has
survived much longer than he could have otherwise expected to. His quality
of life has improved immensely--he has gone from a rather brash self-centered
individual to become a more centered person, "family" man and benefactor to
cancer patients, not to mention his physical capabilities.
Thanks for your comments.
Jim Gregorich
Is "his cancer" cured? Only time would tell; does it come back, etc.
Is "he" cured? That depends... Like other "named diseases", cancer does
not arise in a vacuum, or from a state of otherwise impeccable good health!
So, what were those *other* imbalances? Did the chemo etc. cure them?
(Doubtful...) And a question I'd be fascinated to hear, what *else* might
he have done to help himself thru the cancer, or what might others have done
for him? Would be interesting to know...
He has been free of cancer for at least 5 years. How long do we have to wait
until we can say that there has been a cure.
He was presumably months from certain death if he had delayed treatment much
longer. Most people with the same level of the disease do not survive, much
less go on to be the best athlete of his sport.
It is my impression that chemo tends to weaken those who undergo the
treatment, but in his case he appears to have come out of it stronger...he
has virtually no peer in his sport.
I am just trying to get an understanding of "cure". Eventually we all die,
so no "cure" is permanent. But how long does an improvement have to continue
until we can call it a satisfactory cure. In the case of Lance, he has
survived much longer than he could have otherwise expected to. His quality
of life has improved immensely--he has gone from a rather brash self-centered
individual to become a more centered person, "family" man and benefactor to
cancer patients, not to mention his physical capabilities.
Thanks for your comments.
Jim Gregorich