<blockquote>Quote<br><hr> <i>Originally posted by 65rosessamurai</i>
Unfortunately, your view HAS contradicted someone!... I personally believe that your general statement needs correcting, because it seems to me your point of veiw lacks additional facts! <hr></blockquote>
It's clearly a philosophical, not a factual issue when I argue "atypical CF" outcomes shouldn't be tossed in with those of <i>typical</i> CF.
By the clinical definition of the disease, of course it's all CF; but by how it affects people, it may as well be two different illnesses. (The same applies, I feel, to cases of CF which manifest primarily in the liver, primarily in the lungs, or with other side effects. I don't see how a man dying of liver failure, but able to breathe normally, and a man whose liver appears normal dying of lung issues, have the "same" disease.)
By the way, I am not classing those who barely made it to adulthood (largely due to over-the-counter drugs like cough syrup), and then were diagnosed, with those who appear not to experience any major complications of CF at all.
I reject the "lifespan" calculations put out by the likes of the CF Foundation as cooked statistics. In my view, there is no such thing as a definitive statistic, but meaningful ones can take the form "X% of people born in Y are still alive" (and obviously, the "statistic" would be ever-changing).
I feel it is TOTALLY inappropriate to cite the expected lifespan of people who are just being born, and quite it as if it would apply to those whose lungs have been ravaged by 20, 30 years of CF that didn't have access to cutting-edge treatments.
As an aside, I don't appreciate your labelling my views as pessimistic. You don't know me, have read far fewer of my words than you may suppose, and--from my experience--it is a very reliable indicator of naivete when someone is quick to do that.
Many of the world's problems stem from our inability to give others the benefit of the doubt, and rush to judgment. I firmly believe that, when words can "be taken a thousand ways," this is often an indictment of the reader--much like the Rorschach ink blot can look like a million different things, none of which are really there.
<blockquote>Quote<br><hr><i>Originally posted by Grendel</i>
I would love to wear a t-shirt that says on one side: "CANCER is for wimps", and on the other it would read, "Try having Cystic Fibrosis, ... the only easy day was yesterday!" Or, ? Try having Cystic Fibrosis, we could eat Cancer for Lunch and still be hungary.? <hr></blockquote>
You may want to suggest that at <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.TShirtHell.com">http://www.TShirtHell.com</a> (very, very wrong--but often hilarious--website).
I don't necessarily agree. The fact that cancer can recur makes it as insidious as CF, even if it's "cured" (remember that, after a transplant, our lung disease can recur too... despite seeming like a cure at the time). Chemotherapy is the equivalent of our highly toxic antibiotics, their pain--difficult to manage, even with narcotics--is like our extreme CF arthritis pain, and so on. Mounds of complications exist for both, some of which are like full illnesses in and of themselves...
The general rule that cancer hits older people isn't even a fact, as it can affect kids, just the same. I think, if you consider it deeply, CF, cancer and AIDS (among others) are diseases that suck about equally. Where one sucks less, it has other aspects that suck more, making up for it.
Cepaciagal,
You wouldn't happen to be from a minor planet near Betelgeuse, would you? I'm usually skeptical of that kind of stuff, but your handling of so many problems makes me wonder.
