Thanks, Rick. Some further thoughts. You can reply if interested or just leave 'em hanging, no worries. Cancer cures are to oncology experts like computers are to IT specialists like me: every layman thinks they understand them well enough to pontificate on complex issues they just don't know enough about to carry on a meaningful conversation. Doesn't stop them all from having strong opinions ;-)
Why wouldn't the excision have been done? The statement is that (loosely) all other methods have been exhausted. Are you saying that all these patients were deemed incurable because of metastasis, that cure of the primary hadn't been attempted because of the advanced stage at detection? [Edit: just saw your second post, sorry!]
Should the reo prove effective even only in injectable non-metastised cancer, that already would be a major improvement over surgery, I'd think. An approach with a lesser impact on the patient, not having to go digging around, with all the attendant concerns of surgical removal. Recognizing, of course, there's a looooong way to go to prove that efficacy still.
Thanks for the bio link; a fascinating, amazing, life.
Regards
WUWT |
