Discussion:
Rare cancer misdiagnosed as ankle sprain
(too old to reply)
Adam H. Kerman
2019-10-10 14:39:24 UTC
Permalink
A three-year-old boy died from an incurable cancer - after it was
misdiagnosed as a 'sprained ankle'

https://swns.com/latest-work/logans-legacy-a-three-year-old-boy-died-from-an-incurable-cancer-after-it-was-misdiagnosed-as-a-sprained-ankle/

Note that the article says that the cancer has zero survival rate, but
the kid was given aggressive treatents anyway - six weeks of
radiotherapy.

This nightmare took place from October 2016 to October 2017.
David Carson
2019-10-10 15:31:21 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 14:39:24 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
A three-year-old boy died from an incurable cancer - after it was
misdiagnosed as a 'sprained ankle'
https://swns.com/latest-work/logans-legacy-a-three-year-old-boy-died-from-an-incurable-cancer-after-it-was-misdiagnosed-as-a-sprained-ankle/
Note that the article says that the cancer has zero survival rate, but
the kid was given aggressive treatents anyway - six weeks of
radiotherapy.
Rabies had a zero survival rate until someone invented an aggressive
and drastic treatment that worked. As of 2013, the survival rate with
that treatment was 14 percent.

David Carson
Adam H. Kerman
2019-10-10 19:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Carson
Post by Adam H. Kerman
A three-year-old boy died from an incurable cancer - after it was
misdiagnosed as a 'sprained ankle'
https://swns.com/latest-work/logans-legacy-a-three-year-old-boy-died-from-an-incurable-cancer-after-it-was-misdiagnosed-as-a-sprained-ankle/
Note that the article says that the cancer has zero survival rate, but
the kid was given aggressive treatents anyway - six weeks of
radiotherapy.
Rabies had a zero survival rate until someone invented an aggressive
and drastic treatment that worked. As of 2013, the survival rate with
that treatment was 14 percent.
I'm looking on the Mayo Clinic and CDC Web sites; on neither one do I
find a statement about 14% survival rate after symptoms appear, nor what
the treatment is. There are, of course, lots of recommendations for the
course of treatment with the combination of immune globulin and vaccine
given over two weeks, but that's begun shortly after exposure but before
the disease appears.

So I sure cannot tell if treatment once the disease has set in has
comparable adverse consequences to cancer treatments, nor why you would
raise an unanalogous matter.

Getting back to the article: Ignoring the original misdiagnosis, this
was a three year old child with an incurable disease. The treatment he
received was unethical. Nothing in the article said he was given an
experimental treatment hoping to test a possibly less unsuccessful
protocol.

You've read something into this that just isn't there.
David Carson
2019-10-11 00:15:45 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:27:31 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
So I sure cannot tell if treatment once the disease has set in has
comparable adverse consequences to cancer treatments, nor why you would
raise an unanalogous matter.
It wasn't meant as an analogy.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Getting back to the article: Ignoring the original misdiagnosis, this
was a three year old child with an incurable disease. The treatment he
received was unethical. Nothing in the article said he was given an
experimental treatment hoping to test a possibly less unsuccessful
protocol.
You've read something into this that just isn't there.
Do tell.

Adam, you're one of the more interesting posters here, and I would like to
engage in more discussions with you, but when you take every comment on
your posts as an attack on your position, which you must counter (even
when you admit, as in this case, you didn't grasp my intention), it makes
it difficult for me to want to comment anymore. It's too bad, because I
think we can both learn things from each other, and I willing to learn
from you, but I have my doubts about whether you want to learn anything
from anyone.

David Carson
--
Dead or Alive Data Base
http://www.doadb.com
Adam H. Kerman
2019-10-11 01:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Carson
Post by Adam H. Kerman
So I sure cannot tell if treatment once the disease has set in has
comparable adverse consequences to cancer treatments, nor why you would
raise an unanalogous matter.
It wasn't meant as an analogy.
That was an aside? I did not realize.

Then since I took the time to look at two supposedly knowledgable Web
site, both of which explained the protocol for treating the patient
immediatelhy after exposure but before symptoms appear (which is quite
successful), please tell me what the treatment is after symptoms appear
and the 14% survival rate. I could not find what you read.
Post by David Carson
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Getting back to the article: Ignoring the original misdiagnosis, this
was a three year old child with an incurable disease. The treatment he
received was unethical. Nothing in the article said he was given an
experimental treatment hoping to test a possibly less unsuccessful
protocol.
You've read something into this that just isn't there.
Do tell.
I thought you were making a comment specific to the topic in your
followup. That was an utterly boneheaded assumption on my part for which
I am completely in the wrong.
Post by David Carson
Adam, you're one of the more interesting posters here, and I would like to
engage in more discussions with you, but when you take every comment on
your posts as an attack on your position,
No, I am looking for an argument. My assumptions may be wrong or my case
may be poorly supported. Someone who is more knowledgable may provide
important information. I change my opinion on stuff all the time.
Post by David Carson
which you must counter (even when you admit, as in this case, you didn't
grasp my intention),
It continues to elude me.
Post by David Carson
it makes it difficult for me to want to comment anymore.
You just told me that was an aside. I was kind of hoping for a comment from
someone, even something along the lines of don't criticize parents for an
unreasonable hope with respect to a treatment protocol known not to work.
Post by David Carson
It's too bad, because I
think we can both learn things from each other, and I willing to learn
from you, but I have my doubts about whether you want to learn anything
from anyone.
David Carson
2019-10-11 14:32:38 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 01:34:05 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Carson
Post by Adam H. Kerman
So I sure cannot tell if treatment once the disease has set in has
comparable adverse consequences to cancer treatments, nor why you would
raise an unanalogous matter.
It wasn't meant as an analogy.
That was an aside? I did not realize.
Then since I took the time to look at two supposedly knowledgable Web
site, both of which explained the protocol for treating the patient
immediatelhy after exposure but before symptoms appear (which is quite
successful), please tell me what the treatment is after symptoms appear
and the 14% survival rate. I could not find what you read.
With some hesitation, I will indulge you.

The treatment is called the Milwaukee protocol. It was first used to cure
a rabies victim in 2004. It involves putting the patient into a coma to
halt the progression of the disease. Considering that you don't really
know what's going to happen when you put someone into a coma (the risks
include permanent brain damage), everyone will agree that is a drastic
step. The Wikipedia article on rabies states that this treatment has a
survival rate of 8 percent, but that statistic is from 2009. I read an
extremely well-source article yesterday, which I can't find today, written
in 2013 that claimed it had cured 6 people out of 43 it had been used on.
(I didn't read whether any of the cured suffered brain damage.) The funny
thing is, today, all I'm finding are more recent (post-2013) articles
saying the Milwaukee protocol is a bust and doesn't work. So I don't know
now.

What does this have to do with your article? Nothing. Secret confession: I
didn't read it. When people post the URL of an article they want people to
discuss, I sometimes click on it and sometimes not. If you really more
people to comment on it, post the article itself here, or at least the
relevant excerpts, instead of just giving us a URL. Of course, I'm only
speaking for myself, but I'd imagine that in general, there's a huge drop
off at the point where people have to click - not because the click itself
is onerous, but because there are so many ways people have found to turn
HTML into a nuisance and make the reading the world-wide web such a
generally unpleasant chore.* You already have the text of the article on
your screen. That's leverage that can make it easier for everyone else.

But even without reading the article, I still feel free to comment on the
person's post, if the mood strikes. It did, and in this case, I was
commenting on your use of the phrase "zero survival rate." This phrase
reappeared in your next post as the word "incurable," so it definitely
plays a part in your thinking. All I'm doing by bringing rabies up is
taking some of the power out of those phrases. To quote Batman,
"Everything's impossible until somebody does it." Every disease has a zero
survival rate until someone survives it. Every disease is incurable until
someone invents a cure. And whether the Milwaukee protocol is our best
answer for rabies or not, the fact remains: rabies, which prior to 2004
was universally fatal, no longer has a zero survival rate; it is no longer
considered incurable.

Even without having read your article, I think this matters, and I think
it should matter to you. You've made it pretty clear where you stand on
aggressive cancer therapy. And yes, there are all kinds of medical horror
stories where doctors, not the disease, are the villains. Still, there are
going to be plenty of people - patients, parents, and doctors alike - who
are more inclined to fight against what you would see as hopeless odds,
even at great "quality of life" cost. I don't think any of us get to say
they're wrong to want to do that. Sometimes the doctors may be wrong
because they're motivated by a paycheck more than anything else, but
sometimes they may simply have more of that "fight against the odds" urge.

Again, I'm not writing about this specific case, but about your comments -
I've been picking up something of a "quality of life is always more
important than length of life for everyone in all cases, period" vibe from
you. I hope you would say, "No, I never said that, and it isn't how I
feel" and not "Yep, you pegged it." But we can't always know what the
outcomes will be in either quality of life or length of life. It's always
a gamble to get the treatment, and it's sometimes a gamble to decline it.
A rabies patient and some doctors took a quality-of-life gamble with an
incurable disease in 2004 and it paid off. It's that same hope against all
hope that drives patients, parents, and doctors across the board whenever
the odds look grim, and I think it's a good thing that there are people
who are wired to think that way. I just want to tell you that.

David Carson

*The latest of which is to force me to dismiss a "Wait! Please don't leave
this web site!" popup simply because I want to move the browser window to
a different location on my desktop so as to hide their distracting
animated ads behind the right edge of my monitor.
--
Dead or Alive Data Base
http://www.doadb.com
Adam H. Kerman
2019-10-11 16:15:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Carson
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by David Carson
Post by Adam H. Kerman
So I sure cannot tell if treatment once the disease has set in has
comparable adverse consequences to cancer treatments, nor why you would
raise an unanalogous matter.
It wasn't meant as an analogy.
That was an aside? I did not realize.
Then since I took the time to look at two supposedly knowledgable Web
site, both of which explained the protocol for treating the patient
immediatelhy after exposure but before symptoms appear (which is quite
successful), please tell me what the treatment is after symptoms appear
and the 14% survival rate. I could not find what you read.
With some hesitation, I will indulge you.
Thank yuo
Post by David Carson
What does this have to do with your article? Nothing. Secret confession: I
didn't read it. When people post the URL of an article they want people to
discuss, I sometimes click on it and sometimes not. If you really more
people to comment on it, post the article itself here, or at least the
relevant excerpts, instead of just giving us a URL. . . .
I included a few relevant points from the article, and my own comments.
I try to avoid posting someone else's article in its entirely to Usenet.
Post by David Carson
But even without reading the article, I still feel free to comment on the
person's post, if the mood strikes. It did, and in this case, I was
commenting on your use of the phrase "zero survival rate." This phrase
reappeared in your next post as the word "incurable," so it definitely
plays a part in your thinking.
The article's headline was

A three-year-old boy died from an incurable cancer - after it
was misdiagnosed as a 'sprained ankle"

The article states, "zero per cent survival rate". I left out "per cent".

I didn't write the article.
Post by David Carson
. . .
Again, I'm not writing about this specific case, but about your comments -
I've been picking up something of a "quality of life is always more
important than length of life for everyone in all cases, period" vibe from
you. I hope you would say, "No, I never said that, and it isn't how I
feel" and not "Yep, you pegged it."
I haven't been subtle about my opinion in any way. I feel rather
strongly that the benefits of aggressive treatent should outweigh the risks.
If they don't, then the patient should be in hospice where they
sometimes live as long or longer versus other patients at Stage IV of
whatever cancer they have who are receiving aggressive treatment.

But Alex Trebek is an adult. He can make this choice for himself. A
three year old boy cannot.

I didn't address much of what you wrote, so you had the last word.
Loading...