Jump to content



Recommended Posts

Hi all.Am I reading this wrong or does it contadict itself? However,despite the fact screening procedures for lung cancer do not reduce the number of lung cancer deaths some screening procedures are effective at detecting lung cancer at earlier stages leading to a better chance of a cure. I have read this in a couple of differant web sites including this one and to me it seems to double talk itself. Or am I missreading it? Also I was wondering if people that have went thru chemo if their veins ever go back to normal. Seems i still have a hard time giving blood anymore ever since the chemo shrunk up my veins. Again thank you all very much for your time and for being here. May God bless and watch over us all. Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely right, it does contradict itself. Better chance of cure seems to me that it would lower deaths, right? Hmmmm... If I have to choose ONE part of the sentence, I'll stick with the second part about a better chance of cure...

Take care!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


There is a way it could not be a contradiction. You could have the same number of deaths and the same number of survivors, but more of the survivors would reach a cure status. So the scans would have more of the survivors reach a cure and fewer people would be living with cancer. This may not effect the number of deaths.

Stay positive, :)


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how I think it goes:

They find the LC very early. They treat it early. It recurs 5 years later and the person dies a l year agter that. The LC survival time is six years.

They don't find the LC early. In fact they don't find it for 5 1/2 years. The person dies six months later. The survival time is six months.

Early detection leads to longer survival, but not less deaths as both eventually died from the LC. The underlying premis is that once you have LC that is probably what they believe you are going to die from whether it is 2 years or 20 years later.

At least that's the way I read the study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is confusing and sometimes I think they like US confused. I've tried to figure it out for years, and I still can't make heads nor tails out of it.

I have to say though that I am confused that your allowed to give blood??? I was told once we become a cancer patient and once we undergo chemo, we are no long able to give blood. The fear of tainted blood or cancer cells in the blood is why they say we can't do it anymore.

Or maybe your talking about your blood work??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my case, the vein they used for my chemo treatments is fine. The one they used for drawing blood about 1,000 times ( :lol: ) has become harder to find. I think after a while a vein sort of shuts down from overuse. As for donating blood, I used to donate all the time prior to cancer. I was told that I could donate after 3 years of no chemo. If you still want to donate, you could check with the Red Cross to find out if you can. I know donated blood saved my life more than once. It is a wonderful thing to do. Double check about donating.

Joanie ((()))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.