[Retric]

> Some of them work and work very well.

Bull. People get better randomly, but pattern matching makes this really hard to accept. After all, you best get your lucky hat before the big game just like 100,000 other people.

As to caner, day one they are going to tell you your odds of survival long term and they are never 100%. https://xkcd.com/931/

[edwhitesell]

>> Some of them work and work very well. > Bull. People get better randomly

I completely agree. I also know that some treatments work for some people.

> but pattern matching makes this really hard to accept.

I'm stating that a patient needs to find what works for them. Sometimes that's surgery, chemo, radiation, all of the above or no treatment at all.

I've known friends & family members improve, or not, on some/all of the above. The point is that everyone is different. People react differently to identical treatments. That's why some people develop diseases and others don't in the first place.

> As to caner, day one they are going to tell you your odds of survival long term and they are never 100%.

The only thing 100% is NOT surviving. How you come to your end is your choice. Some people chose to do that on their own terms, with their own treatments that may provide better quality, and/or quantity, of life. You don't have to make that choice, but you can't tell someone else not to.

[Retric]

Flip a coin H/T. Call it H ends up T. We really want to say T was a better choice. But, before the flip they are identical options.

Do chemo* and die in 2 months. That may seem like a bad choice. However, you don't know the outcome and can only guess at the odds.

Saying ahead of time you don't think the odds are worth it is one choice. But, you can't look at the outcome and then say the choice was wrong it must be in the context of uncertainty.

As to alternatives that's doing nothing while playing make believe. But hey, some times doing nothing works.

*Chemo, retro virus, wonder drug, or something with actual odds of working.