ET-SF

PS Another misstep… I posted this in reply to your accommodating response, not your more impatient one later.  Sorry…. I'm just exhausted…

PS Another misstep… I posted this in reply to your accommodating response, not your more impatient one later.  Sorry…. I'm just exhausted…

PS Another misstep… I posted this in reply to your accommodating response, not your more impatient one later.  Sorry…. I'm just exhausted…

I'm sorry, Morris.  I'm ready to impale myself on a sword this morning for you and Celeste.  Is that what you want?

I have neither confirmed nor denied a thing, nor elaborated, nor restated uninformed opinions, because I'm JUST. TRYING. TO. RESTORE. SOME. CALM.  It's pointless to discuss anything with an angry person bent on winning and asserting dominance. 

I do not disrespect or discount the contributions of volunteers.  I do not discount or disrespect the research that they have made possible.  ET has become a player in this whole thing, and I certainly don't disrespect or discount HER!  Quite the opposite. 

Are there gaps in my knowledge?  Yes!  Isn't that painfully obvious in this thread?  Do you think anyone would conclude otherwise?

What I wrote was based on many discussions and digging in attempt to pick a trial in the limited time window we had.  I did not find the ipi vs. placebo double blind phase III study.  Just didn't.  That study does show benefit.

I never said T-VEC was a "typical" vaccine.  I said it functions as a "novel" vaccine.  It does, does it not?

And there is actually some good work behind the Polynoma vaccine.  I never said I thought it was a blockbuster drug/treatment.  I expect it will be of measured benefit, just like I expect the keytruda would be of measured benefit in this application.  I do wonder whether people here have studied the primary literature on the vaccine.

If someone is wrong about something, does that necessitate a personal attack to discredit the person and destroy them at a time when they are very fragile?  Or is it perhaps better to say, "not so… have a look at this study?"  Academics are capable of launching some pretty gut-wrenching attacks on the works of others, but I don't think I've ever heard one academic argue, "Well, you're just an idiot."

I have learned something from this exchange, besides that there is value to adjuvant immunotherapy for resected stage III (something I never doubted, but just questioned the magnitude of the benefit).  I've learned that discussing any life-and-death issue involves walking on eggshells, and people will get offended by any mis-step.  They will come after you very angrily and sometimes try to rip you apart.  That is not the type of support ET and I need right now.  I need to stay focused.  So I will lurk.  I will not post or participate in any way.  Consider me gone — a ghost.  You have exorcised this list of the evil scientists, having punished me even more strongly than a research immunologist (!!) who was roundly chastised for having used an unpopular (there's that word again) adjuvant therapy.

Now back to our regularly scheduled flood waters…

I'm sorry, Morris.  I'm ready to impale myself on a sword this morning for you and Celeste.  Is that what you want?

I have neither confirmed nor denied a thing, nor elaborated, nor restated uninformed opinions, because I'm JUST. TRYING. TO. RESTORE. SOME. CALM.  It's pointless to discuss anything with an angry person bent on winning and asserting dominance. 

I do not disrespect or discount the contributions of volunteers.  I do not discount or disrespect the research that they have made possible.  ET has become a player in this whole thing, and I certainly don't disrespect or discount HER!  Quite the opposite. 

Are there gaps in my knowledge?  Yes!  Isn't that painfully obvious in this thread?  Do you think anyone would conclude otherwise?

What I wrote was based on many discussions and digging in attempt to pick a trial in the limited time window we had.  I did not find the ipi vs. placebo double blind phase III study.  Just didn't.  That study does show benefit.

I never said T-VEC was a "typical" vaccine.  I said it functions as a "novel" vaccine.  It does, does it not?

And there is actually some good work behind the Polynoma vaccine.  I never said I thought it was a blockbuster drug/treatment.  I expect it will be of measured benefit, just like I expect the keytruda would be of measured benefit in this application.  I do wonder whether people here have studied the primary literature on the vaccine.

If someone is wrong about something, does that necessitate a personal attack to discredit the person and destroy them at a time when they are very fragile?  Or is it perhaps better to say, "not so… have a look at this study?"  Academics are capable of launching some pretty gut-wrenching attacks on the works of others, but I don't think I've ever heard one academic argue, "Well, you're just an idiot."

I have learned something from this exchange, besides that there is value to adjuvant immunotherapy for resected stage III (something I never doubted, but just questioned the magnitude of the benefit).  I've learned that discussing any life-and-death issue involves walking on eggshells, and people will get offended by any mis-step.  They will come after you very angrily and sometimes try to rip you apart.  That is not the type of support ET and I need right now.  I need to stay focused.  So I will lurk.  I will not post or participate in any way.  Consider me gone — a ghost.  You have exorcised this list of the evil scientists, having punished me even more strongly than a research immunologist (!!) who was roundly chastised for having used an unpopular (there's that word again) adjuvant therapy.

Now back to our regularly scheduled flood waters…

I'm sorry, Morris.  I'm ready to impale myself on a sword this morning for you and Celeste.  Is that what you want?

I have neither confirmed nor denied a thing, nor elaborated, nor restated uninformed opinions, because I'm JUST. TRYING. TO. RESTORE. SOME. CALM.  It's pointless to discuss anything with an angry person bent on winning and asserting dominance. 

I do not disrespect or discount the contributions of volunteers.  I do not discount or disrespect the research that they have made possible.  ET has become a player in this whole thing, and I certainly don't disrespect or discount HER!  Quite the opposite. 

Are there gaps in my knowledge?  Yes!  Isn't that painfully obvious in this thread?  Do you think anyone would conclude otherwise?

What I wrote was based on many discussions and digging in attempt to pick a trial in the limited time window we had.  I did not find the ipi vs. placebo double blind phase III study.  Just didn't.  That study does show benefit.

I never said T-VEC was a "typical" vaccine.  I said it functions as a "novel" vaccine.  It does, does it not?

And there is actually some good work behind the Polynoma vaccine.  I never said I thought it was a blockbuster drug/treatment.  I expect it will be of measured benefit, just like I expect the keytruda would be of measured benefit in this application.  I do wonder whether people here have studied the primary literature on the vaccine.

If someone is wrong about something, does that necessitate a personal attack to discredit the person and destroy them at a time when they are very fragile?  Or is it perhaps better to say, "not so… have a look at this study?"  Academics are capable of launching some pretty gut-wrenching attacks on the works of others, but I don't think I've ever heard one academic argue, "Well, you're just an idiot."

I have learned something from this exchange, besides that there is value to adjuvant immunotherapy for resected stage III (something I never doubted, but just questioned the magnitude of the benefit).  I've learned that discussing any life-and-death issue involves walking on eggshells, and people will get offended by any mis-step.  They will come after you very angrily and sometimes try to rip you apart.  That is not the type of support ET and I need right now.  I need to stay focused.  So I will lurk.  I will not post or participate in any way.  Consider me gone — a ghost.  You have exorcised this list of the evil scientists, having punished me even more strongly than a research immunologist (!!) who was roundly chastised for having used an unpopular (there's that word again) adjuvant therapy.

Now back to our regularly scheduled flood waters…

Ya know… I'm not a Christian, but I think that Jesus guy was pretty smart about at least one thing:  Turn the other cheek!  Just don't engage with this sort of stuff.  So let's start over, shall we?  Here's my attempt to meet palpable hostility with civility:

What sort of a scientist am I?  I'm a comparative sensory physiologist.  (Yes, I have a Ph.D. and peer-reviewed publications, taught some, did research, retired too early.)  I am not an immunologist.  If you had to draw a big circle around my weakest area of understanding in the biological sciences, it would probably be molecular biology in general, with the exception of the pharmacodynamics of certain psychoactive medications, and even there, my knowledge is dated.  Does my background help me to understand melanoma or its treatment?  Only somewhat.  Scientists do mostly speak the same language, often with different accents deriving from differing cultures.  So trust me that this has been a huge learning curve, piled on top of raw emotions and fighting the daily battles of treatment and mobilization for our war against melanoma, not to mention the usual daily trials such as beating back hurricane flood waters. 

Have I learned all there is to know so far?  No.  And neither have you, judging from comments you have made here.  We could both benefit from civil discussion — sharing what we know.  You might have more to share.  You've been in this game longer than we.

What I can't do is to fight with people.  I can't deal with people who misread and misinterpret what I write, spin their misinterpretations in the most negative possible context, and then, and attack me like a pit bull.  Melanoma is already a horrible enough enemy; I don't need another.  I'm physically and emotionally exhausted.  I came here to learn and to share.  This has to be an active process for me.  There are ways for us to engage in constructive dialog, and we might both benefit (yes, even you).  However, I can't take the sort of savaging I just experienced from you.  Not now.

So please be respectful.  Do not dismiss my role in all of this in the same way as you seem to feel (incorrectly) that I've dismissed the past contributions of experimental treatment volunteers like my ET. (I really dislike the expression "ratties.")  And also please do not dismiss our relationship as just a friendship.  Perhaps we can proceed forward with mutual trust and respect?

Ya know… I'm not a Christian, but I think that Jesus guy was pretty smart about at least one thing:  Turn the other cheek!  Just don't engage with this sort of stuff.  So let's start over, shall we?  Here's my attempt to meet palpable hostility with civility:

What sort of a scientist am I?  I'm a comparative sensory physiologist.  (Yes, I have a Ph.D. and peer-reviewed publications, taught some, did research, retired too early.)  I am not an immunologist.  If you had to draw a big circle around my weakest area of understanding in the biological sciences, it would probably be molecular biology in general, with the exception of the pharmacodynamics of certain psychoactive medications, and even there, my knowledge is dated.  Does my background help me to understand melanoma or its treatment?  Only somewhat.  Scientists do mostly speak the same language, often with different accents deriving from differing cultures.  So trust me that this has been a huge learning curve, piled on top of raw emotions and fighting the daily battles of treatment and mobilization for our war against melanoma, not to mention the usual daily trials such as beating back hurricane flood waters. 

Have I learned all there is to know so far?  No.  And neither have you, judging from comments you have made here.  We could both benefit from civil discussion — sharing what we know.  You might have more to share.  You've been in this game longer than we.

What I can't do is to fight with people.  I can't deal with people who misread and misinterpret what I write, spin their misinterpretations in the most negative possible context, and then, and attack me like a pit bull.  Melanoma is already a horrible enough enemy; I don't need another.  I'm physically and emotionally exhausted.  I came here to learn and to share.  This has to be an active process for me.  There are ways for us to engage in constructive dialog, and we might both benefit (yes, even you).  However, I can't take the sort of savaging I just experienced from you.  Not now.

So please be respectful.  Do not dismiss my role in all of this in the same way as you seem to feel (incorrectly) that I've dismissed the past contributions of experimental treatment volunteers like my ET. (I really dislike the expression "ratties.")  And also please do not dismiss our relationship as just a friendship.  Perhaps we can proceed forward with mutual trust and respect?

Ya know… I'm not a Christian, but I think that Jesus guy was pretty smart about at least one thing:  Turn the other cheek!  Just don't engage with this sort of stuff.  So let's start over, shall we?  Here's my attempt to meet palpable hostility with civility:

What sort of a scientist am I?  I'm a comparative sensory physiologist.  (Yes, I have a Ph.D. and peer-reviewed publications, taught some, did research, retired too early.)  I am not an immunologist.  If you had to draw a big circle around my weakest area of understanding in the biological sciences, it would probably be molecular biology in general, with the exception of the pharmacodynamics of certain psychoactive medications, and even there, my knowledge is dated.  Does my background help me to understand melanoma or its treatment?  Only somewhat.  Scientists do mostly speak the same language, often with different accents deriving from differing cultures.  So trust me that this has been a huge learning curve, piled on top of raw emotions and fighting the daily battles of treatment and mobilization for our war against melanoma, not to mention the usual daily trials such as beating back hurricane flood waters. 

Have I learned all there is to know so far?  No.  And neither have you, judging from comments you have made here.  We could both benefit from civil discussion — sharing what we know.  You might have more to share.  You've been in this game longer than we.

What I can't do is to fight with people.  I can't deal with people who misread and misinterpret what I write, spin their misinterpretations in the most negative possible context, and then, and attack me like a pit bull.  Melanoma is already a horrible enough enemy; I don't need another.  I'm physically and emotionally exhausted.  I came here to learn and to share.  This has to be an active process for me.  There are ways for us to engage in constructive dialog, and we might both benefit (yes, even you).  However, I can't take the sort of savaging I just experienced from you.  Not now.

So please be respectful.  Do not dismiss my role in all of this in the same way as you seem to feel (incorrectly) that I've dismissed the past contributions of experimental treatment volunteers like my ET. (I really dislike the expression "ratties.")  And also please do not dismiss our relationship as just a friendship.  Perhaps we can proceed forward with mutual trust and respect?

And finally, you take this dig at me: "Some of us are here actually doing it….not reading about it for others."  I frankly find that condescending and extremely unsupportive.

I am here because the woman I love with all my heart has cancer.  YOU BET I am going to read about this disease and its treatment for her with every ounce of my ability!  Her disease is my disease.  If she suffers, I suffer too.  If she dies, I fear most of me will die with her.  Sure, she has a lot more skin in the game (another expression, sorry), but I'm in this with her as much as I can be.  I am her partner in every sense — and her caregiver.  So if I can use my scientific background to digest research papers at a different level than she can, you can BET I'm going to do that for her.  I will use whatever I can to help her with her disease. 

So please do not dismiss my role as partner and caregiver in this manner.  You have been at this for 5+ years, and I congratulate you for being a fighter and survivor.  We have been at this since August 12 and are desperately climbing a very steep learning curve.  If you have knowledge to share with us, please share it (as you have done).  But please leave the attitude behind.  My goal — her goal — is one thing only.  It is to fight this disease and win.

And finally, you take this dig at me: "Some of us are here actually doing it….not reading about it for others."  I frankly find that condescending and extremely unsupportive.

I am here because the woman I love with all my heart has cancer.  YOU BET I am going to read about this disease and its treatment for her with every ounce of my ability!  Her disease is my disease.  If she suffers, I suffer too.  If she dies, I fear most of me will die with her.  Sure, she has a lot more skin in the game (another expression, sorry), but I'm in this with her as much as I can be.  I am her partner in every sense — and her caregiver.  So if I can use my scientific background to digest research papers at a different level than she can, you can BET I'm going to do that for her.  I will use whatever I can to help her with her disease. 

So please do not dismiss my role as partner and caregiver in this manner.  You have been at this for 5+ years, and I congratulate you for being a fighter and survivor.  We have been at this since August 12 and are desperately climbing a very steep learning curve.  If you have knowledge to share with us, please share it (as you have done).  But please leave the attitude behind.  My goal — her goal — is one thing only.  It is to fight this disease and win.

And finally, you take this dig at me: "Some of us are here actually doing it….not reading about it for others."  I frankly find that condescending and extremely unsupportive.

I am here because the woman I love with all my heart has cancer.  YOU BET I am going to read about this disease and its treatment for her with every ounce of my ability!  Her disease is my disease.  If she suffers, I suffer too.  If she dies, I fear most of me will die with her.  Sure, she has a lot more skin in the game (another expression, sorry), but I'm in this with her as much as I can be.  I am her partner in every sense — and her caregiver.  So if I can use my scientific background to digest research papers at a different level than she can, you can BET I'm going to do that for her.  I will use whatever I can to help her with her disease. 

So please do not dismiss my role as partner and caregiver in this manner.  You have been at this for 5+ years, and I congratulate you for being a fighter and survivor.  We have been at this since August 12 and are desperately climbing a very steep learning curve.  If you have knowledge to share with us, please share it (as you have done).  But please leave the attitude behind.  My goal — her goal — is one thing only.  It is to fight this disease and win.

On a personal note, I'm sorry that my expressions (e.g. "kettle of fish") have apparently offended you.  That's simply how I talk and write.

On a personal note, I'm sorry that my expressions (e.g. "kettle of fish") have apparently offended you.  That's simply how I talk and write.

On a personal note, I'm sorry that my expressions (e.g. "kettle of fish") have apparently offended you.  That's simply how I talk and write.