<p>Thinks that you said s t f u… an abbreviation of a rather offensive command. ;)</p>
<p>oh…learn something new everyday! Sleep well, LTS!</p>
<p>Thanks for the puzzle of the day. The f u part I understand. Have to think about what the st stands for.</p>
<p>Karen,
“st”=“shut the…”</p>
<p>It makes perfect sense. Sometimes to get a night full of rest, one has to yell that over to the next door neighbors.</p>
<p>paying3, thanks for lightening up that awkward little series…made me laugh.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Teacher</a> shows shear support for survivors – Page 1 – Times Union - Albany NY](<a href=“http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=664045&category=RENSSELAER&BCCode=&newsdate=2/16/2008]Teacher”>http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=664045&category=RENSSELAER&BCCode=&newsdate=2/16/2008)</p>
<p>(Among other things, this called to mind the earlier references in this thread [#1345, 1349] to the famous O. Henry story “The Gift of the Magi.”)</p>
<p>paying3…lol</p>
<p>LTS: sending 
to start your day!</p>
<p>Re Locks of Love; I believe they actually try to donate natural hair wigs to people suffering from alopecia, not so much chemotherapy-induced hair loss, since the long term hope is that chemo patients do get their hair back. Still a great cause (as a girl, I would be psychologically devastated to have permanent hair loss) and making a lot of difference to the recipients!</p>
<p>Muffy333:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Locks</a> of Love](<a href=“http://www.locksoflove.org/causes.html]Locks”>http://www.locksoflove.org/causes.html)</p>
<p>epistrophy, yes, I agree that LofL does provide a great service to some chemo patients who have long term loss, I just hear it described a lot as being “for people who have cancer”. I have a close relative who basically lost all her hair as a teenager but did not have cancer - no real diagnosis but the psychological impact was horrible. It is very uplifting to anyone with hair loss to get one of the LofL wigs and very generous of all who donate.</p>
<p>Don’t mean to hijack thread, just to provide an update My MIL visited oncologist, and (contrary to the info I posted earlier) has been told that her lung cancer is at Stage 1, and is operable. Will be treated (at least at the beginning) with surgery and radiation. I asked about diagnosis of type of LC, but she doesn’t know; it is still very overwhelming with all the information she is receiving. Luckily my sis-in-law attended this appointment as an independent eye.<br>
Back to LatetoSchool; I hope you are feeling MUCH better today. All sorts of flues and colds are going around here - and many seem to last at least a week. All my best to you on this rainy Saturday! :)</p>
<p>such wonderful news, anxiousmom!</p>
<p>Here’s an article on trained “cancer coaches” that help people navigate treatment options. I thought you might find it interesting, LTS.</p>
<p>[Cancer</a> ‘coaches’ sway treatment choices - Yahoo! News](<a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080216/ap_on_he_me/cancer_coaches]Cancer”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080216/ap_on_he_me/cancer_coaches)</p>
<p>Glad to hear the more positive news, anxiousmom! All of you are in my thoughts and prayers.</p>
<p>Anxiousmom, that’s very encouraging news, I am so happy to hear that surgery is an option. This is almost certainly then NOT small cell, otherwise I doubt surgery would be on the table. And, as far as I am concerned, there is no hijacking here, this thread is for anyone in the CC community who is experiencing a health challenge or who has a relation in that situation, so hijacking doesn’t really apply here. </p>
<p>Tobia_e, thank you for that, it does make interesting reading, and, it also makes me so angry I cannot see straight, as many of these things often do…</p>
<p>In the first place, small cell lung cancer treatment doesn’t have “options”. There is first of all the horrible staging process, either “limited” or “extensive”. The difference can be translated to mean “potentially curable” vs. “die, smoker”. (My current oncologist hates this system, and hates that I have been treated as “extensive” all along vs. with curative intent - he says it’s wrong to consider someone with a small amount of cancer and one met site the same as someone who as cancer all throughout their body.) But either way, in the United States, there’s one chemo for the standard of care, and one chemo for second line, and then there are chemotherapies that have response rates of <17%. Basically, there have been no improvements or new drugs for small cell lung cancer in the last 20 to 30 years. So those of us with small cell don’t need help navigating treatment options because there are no options. Where we need help is quickly identifying those oncologists who are very, very good at what they do, and who are willing to consider out of the box options, cancer cocktails, etc. The standard of care for small cell = 95% of the patients die. </p>
<p>It isn’t that researches etc. haven’t tried. But they’re limited by funding. In spite of the fact that lung cancer kills more women (many of them never-smokers) per year in the U.S. than breast, cervical, and ovarian cancer combined, lung cancer gets about $1.00 to every $14,00 - $25.00 in research money that breast, ovarian, etc. cancer receives. Part of the reason for this is the smoking stigma, but, the other part is that lung cancer patients tend to be older, sicker, and generally less able to form coalitions, advocate for themselves, etc. Last, part of it is marketing, too. I spoke to the five year survivor in Texas; when he started a lung cancer support group at his local hospital, he was given a room in the basement, folding chairs. No support at all from the hospital outside of the use of the dismal room, and he was ignored by its administration. Comparatively, the breast cancer support group was greeted with a ribbon cutting ceremony, complimentary refreshments, hospital officials, a fully furnished meeting room in the new wing of the hospital, etc. </p>
<p>But the cruelty doesn’t end there and I am starting to think it never ends at all. I recently read (and I think I posted this before) where oncologists will make judgement calls about the degree and quality of support patients may have, and, if they are perceived to not have sufficient support at home, their chemotherapy dosages may be reduced, so that there is lessor risk that they do not eat enough, etc. Consequently (at least partially) the death rate is higher among the economically challenged groups.</p>
<p>Lung cancer needs research funding, and it needs to somehow get separated from the smoking stigma.</p>
<p>LTS: a very important and sobering post.</p>
<p>Please tell us, what can/should we do with this information?</p>
<p>Mafool, I really don’t know. I am struggling with that myself. I can yell all day long that never-smokers and former-smokers still get lung cancer and no one knows why, just like no one knows why 70% of lifelong smokers never get any cancers at all, and it won’t matter. I could also yell and scream that no one deserves lung cancer even if they smoked but that won’t get any sympathy. I could say shut down big tobacco, but, then, look at the harm done to others by tobacco compared to alcohol use and abuse: you’d have to go after ALL industries that produce a product with the potential to cause health issues. </p>
<p>I really don’t know what to do. I thought that perhaps elected the right politicians into office might be a strong start. I don’t think that there is going to be any easy way to get people excited about finding a cure for lung cancer, but, if enough funding is providing for research into other cancers, perhaps lung cancer might benefit by extension.</p>
<p>The ACS is cold on the topic of lung cancer (“die, smoker” mentality - EVERY small cell survivor I have spoken to says so - and - in all of my inquiries and research, they have been absolutely useless to me - but I’d bet they’re a godsend if you have breast cancer), and, the single lung cancer advocacy group I know of in Washington doesn’t spend its money properly, so I don’t recommend sending them any money. </p>
<p>The largest overwhelming issue is that there are so many other types of cancer that are far more marketable and provoke significantly more sympathy and empathy, and not without good reason - think of childhood cancers. Or cancers such as Randy Pausch’s - you have a father of three very small children at risk - obviously, there is far greater motivation to save the Randy Pausch’s of the world compared to saving the (perceived) 60 or 70 year old chain smoker.</p>
<p>LTS, I’m sorry that article upset you… certainly not my intent! I just thought it shed interesting light on how it can be difficult to navigate the differences between medical opinions, data, and formal and informal case studies–all the more overwelhming, I would imagination, when there is, sadly, no highly effective standard treatment line.</p>
<p>I’m also sorry that you have to face the “die, smoker” mentality–I can’t imagine how crushing that must be. 
Neversmokers especially but even smokers DO NOT “deserve” to get this disease–no one “deserves” cancer, and no should be so coldly “written off,” so to speak.</p>
<p>My sincerest apologies if I upset you…</p>
<p>anxiousmom,
That is encouraging news for your MIL! Did she change docs or did they not get the scans read correctly in the beginning?</p>
<p>Tobia, please do not apologize, you did not upset me. I have been dealing with this since September 14. Naturally it must be very difficult to navigate a maize of options when one, ah, actually HAS options: I wouldn’t know. But there is no need to apologize and it is actually good for me to stay angry about this, therefore, it’s good to post this information. </p>
<p>Plus, it may be very useful and helpful to others who are lurking: I believe this thread should serve as a resource to ANYONE dealing with a cancer diagnosis and you posted an excellent, interesting article. </p>
<p>In my experience, and in the experience of the long term survivors, those of us who are perceived to have a self-inflicted disease are treated very differently from those who have a “no-fault” disease such as breast cancer, etc. by some in the medical community and certainly by a large section of the communities of interest. I am constantly asked by medical staff how long I smoked/when did I quit/do I still smoke etc., and when I explain “never” I’m not believed. </p>
<p>November was supposedly national lung cancer month; I couldn’t find a single activity or fundraiser devoted to it in either Washington or Miami. But, a local group did slip an invite under my office door, a fundraiser for prostate cancer (has about a 90% cure rate). Imagine my frustration…</p>