Musings on Random Musings

[Old Man]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

It's actually pretty easy to spot. If the person in question is human, I figure there's a 3 in 4 chance of damage, stupidity, or some other form of dysfunction. Hope this helps.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

It's actually pretty easy to spot. If the person in question is human' date=' I figure there's a 3 in 4 chance of damage, stupidity, or some other form of dysfunction. Hope this helps.[/quote']

Like I'd listen to someone in your condition.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

Old people, huh?

[archermoo]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

Minor question: would you be willing to have 10 milliliters of your blood (or' date=' perhaps, 10 more, assuming blood draws are already part of your regular medical exams) once a year as part of a disease screening procedure? How about twice a year?[/quote']

 

Depends on what it is for.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

. . .

 

My blood belongs inside me!

 

Other's, I'm not so picky.

[archermoo]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

. . .

 

My blood belongs inside me!

 

Other's, I'm not so picky.

 

Eh, I'm not worried about a blood test. Heck I even donate blood regularly. I'm just curious what Cancer is talking about testing for.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

My guess is the Body Snatchers.

[Cancer]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

Depends on what it is for.

 

Fair enough, though in this case, you're not the target audience.

 

Ovarian cancer kills a bit more than 15,000 women in the US annually. It does not have distinctive symptoms, so it tends not to be diagnosed until it is well advanced. If detected in its early stages, prognosis is good (90+% survive more than 5 years after diagnosis), but when diagnosed in late stages it's rather grim (26% survival at 5 years post-diagnosis) (source). Given no other information, the lifetime risk for a woman is 1 in 70. It tends to be a disease of older (post-menopausal) women, over age 50.

 

Trouble is, detection is a problem, and it's not all that common a disease, so if you were to screen for it, with existing techniques you get rather more than 10 times the number of false positives as detections ... and you still only catch about half of the people who actually have the disease.

 

Anyway, I just read a paper that claims to do much better (95% sensitivity rather than about 50%, 99.4% specificity rather than 98%), but they were taking 10 ml of blood a pop for their tests, which seems like a lot.

 

One of the other problems is that it may be a fast disease. If it typically runs its course from inception to late stage in about 2.5 years ... which is the the regime of the numbers that are out there ... then annual testing really isn't frequent enough to catch a lot of it. But going more frequent is a bigger PITA (where "A" means arm here), and of course it also doubles the number of false positives. And there's a slug of dollars it costs to do the screening, too, though economies of scale might be able to drive that cost down to $25-50 a test.

 

With current techniques the idea of screening has been pretty roundly rejected. The question is: how good must the techniques be for it to become worth it? And: if semiannual 10 ml blood draw testing really is needed, will people be willing to put up with that for a personal 1/70 lifetime risk?

 

I'm not used to thinking about that sort of thing, so I was wondering if anyone here had opinions of any sort.

[archermoo]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

Fair enough, though in this case, you're not the target audience.

 

Ovarian cancer kills a bit more than 15,000 women in the US annually. It does not have distinctive symptoms, so it tends not to be diagnosed until it is well advanced. If detected in its early stages, prognosis is good (90+% survive more than 5 years after diagnosis), but when diagnosed in late stages it's rather grim (26% survival at 5 years post-diagnosis) (source). Given no other information, the lifetime risk for a woman is 1 in 70. It tends to be a disease of older (post-menopausal) women, over age 50.

 

Trouble is, detection is a problem, and it's not all that common a disease, so if you were to screen for it, with existing techniques you get rather more than 10 times the number of false positives as detections ... and you still only catch about half of the people who actually have the disease.

 

Anyway, I just read a paper that claims to do much better (95% sensitivity rather than about 50%, 99.4% specificity rather than 98%), but they were taking 10 ml of blood a pop for their tests, which seems like a lot.

 

One of the other problems is that it may be a fast disease. If it typically runs its course from inception to late stage in about 2.5 years ... which is the the regime of the numbers that are out there ... then annual testing really isn't frequent enough to catch a lot of it. But going more frequent is a bigger PITA (where "A" means arm here), and of course it also doubles the number of false positives. And there's a slug of dollars it costs to do the screening, too, though economies of scale might be able to drive that cost down to $25-50 a test.

 

With current techniques the idea of screening has been pretty roundly rejected. The question is: how good must the techniques be for it to become worth it? And: if semiannual 10 ml blood draw testing really is needed, will people be willing to put up with that for a personal 1/70 lifetime risk?

 

I'm not used to thinking about that sort of thing, so I was wondering if anyone here had opinions of any sort.

 

10ml is a pretty large draw. For example, my understanding is that a sample for a CBC is usually 5ml.

 

That being said, if I were in the target group and the research proved to be accurate and well founded, I'd certainly be willing to put pressure on my HMO to add that testing. And also be willing to undergo it. But then again, I'm unusual in my lack of fear of needles.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

. . . Oooohohohooo, needles . . .

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

Fair enough, though in this case, you're not the target audience.

 

Ovarian cancer kills a bit more than 15,000 women in the US annually. It does not have distinctive symptoms, so it tends not to be diagnosed until it is well advanced. If detected in its early stages, prognosis is good (90+% survive more than 5 years after diagnosis), but when diagnosed in late stages it's rather grim (26% survival at 5 years post-diagnosis) (source). Given no other information, the lifetime risk for a woman is 1 in 70. It tends to be a disease of older (post-menopausal) women, over age 50.

 

Trouble is, detection is a problem, and it's not all that common a disease, so if you were to screen for it, with existing techniques you get rather more than 10 times the number of false positives as detections ... and you still only catch about half of the people who actually have the disease.

 

Anyway, I just read a paper that claims to do much better (95% sensitivity rather than about 50%, 99.4% specificity rather than 98%), but they were taking 10 ml of blood a pop for their tests, which seems like a lot.

 

One of the other problems is that it may be a fast disease. If it typically runs its course from inception to late stage in about 2.5 years ... which is the the regime of the numbers that are out there ... then annual testing really isn't frequent enough to catch a lot of it. But going more frequent is a bigger PITA (where "A" means arm here), and of course it also doubles the number of false positives. And there's a slug of dollars it costs to do the screening, too, though economies of scale might be able to drive that cost down to $25-50 a test.

 

With current techniques the idea of screening has been pretty roundly rejected. The question is: how good must the techniques be for it to become worth it? And: if semiannual 10 ml blood draw testing really is needed, will people be willing to put up with that for a personal 1/70 lifetime risk?

 

I'm not used to thinking about that sort of thing, so I was wondering if anyone here had opinions of any sort.

I dislike needles intensely, and they're none too fond of me. My veins roll, so it takes a rather skilled phlebotomist to pin the vein down to actually draw anything from it. They usually use baby needles, and it hurts like hell.

 

That said, I would do this blood test as part of my annual, if it's as accurate as this indicates. After all, I've put up with some very awkward and painful tests before, and will be putting up with worse tests in the future. My risk of breast cancer isn't that great, either, but I'm going to have to submit to the boob-squeezing machine someday, too.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

Fair enough, though in this case, you're not the target audience.

 

Ovarian cancer kills a bit more than 15,000 women in the US annually. It does not have distinctive symptoms, so it tends not to be diagnosed until it is well advanced. If detected in its early stages, prognosis is good (90+% survive more than 5 years after diagnosis), but when diagnosed in late stages it's rather grim (26% survival at 5 years post-diagnosis) (source). Given no other information, the lifetime risk for a woman is 1 in 70. It tends to be a disease of older (post-menopausal) women, over age 50.

 

Trouble is, detection is a problem, and it's not all that common a disease, so if you were to screen for it, with existing techniques you get rather more than 10 times the number of false positives as detections ... and you still only catch about half of the people who actually have the disease.

 

Anyway, I just read a paper that claims to do much better (95% sensitivity rather than about 50%, 99.4% specificity rather than 98%), but they were taking 10 ml of blood a pop for their tests, which seems like a lot.

 

One of the other problems is that it may be a fast disease. If it typically runs its course from inception to late stage in about 2.5 years ... which is the the regime of the numbers that are out there ... then annual testing really isn't frequent enough to catch a lot of it. But going more frequent is a bigger PITA (where "A" means arm here), and of course it also doubles the number of false positives. And there's a slug of dollars it costs to do the screening, too, though economies of scale might be able to drive that cost down to $25-50 a test.

 

With current techniques the idea of screening has been pretty roundly rejected. The question is: how good must the techniques be for it to become worth it? And: if semiannual 10 ml blood draw testing really is needed, will people be willing to put up with that for a personal 1/70 lifetime risk?

 

I'm not used to thinking about that sort of thing, so I was wondering if anyone here had opinions of any sort.

 

10 ml may be a lot in terms of the "usual draw", but it's insignificant in terms of what one's body can tolerate. 10 ml = 2.02 US teaspoons (or about 1/3 of a fluid ounce). A typical unit of donated whole blood is... one pint (roughly), which is (roughly) 48 times as big. Based upon the 56 day period between those donations, you could theoreticlally have a 10 ML draw nearly every day.

 

People have that 1/70 lifetime risk of getting it whether they get tested or not, right? So the only thing to put up with IMO is the needle. If it could mean early detection of a rapid type of cancer (and didn't break the bank), I'd be quite willing to have it done.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

My risk of breast cancer isn't that great' date=' either, but I'm going to have to submit to the boob-squeezing machine someday, too.[/quote']

 

I thought your husband (S.O.?) had that job.

[archermoo]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

10 ml may be a lot in terms of the "usual draw", but it's insignificant in terms of what one's body can tolerate. 10 ml = 2.02 US teaspoons (or about 1/3 of a fluid ounce). A typical unit of donated whole blood is... one pint (roughly), which is (roughly) 48 times as big. Based upon the 56 day period between those donations, you could theoreticlally have a 10 ML draw nearly every day.

 

People have that 1/70 lifetime risk of getting it whether they get tested or not, right? So the only thing to put up with IMO is the needle. If it could mean early detection of a rapid type of cancer (and didn't break the bank), I'd be quite willing to have it done.

 

Just as a note, the standard draw for a donation is 500ml, rather than a pint. At least in the US. Though it is frequently measured by weight rather than volume.

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

I thought your husband (S.O.?) had that job.

If he ever squeezes me THAT hard, he's losing a body part.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

And she's not telling him which one.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

I put more stuff in the purse carton Stripes liked to hide in and now she can't get inside' date=' but she's trying her darndest.....[/quote']Tenacity is it's own reward.

[Old Man]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

Anyone remember the TV fantasy show Wizards and Warriors?

I don't know why but I just had a desire to watch it again

 

That was a great show! But I guess only you and I liked it, given how long it stayed on the air.

 

 

I'm sure that's a sign of attempted demonic possession.

 

I didn't know demons could possess each other.

[teh bunneh]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

Le Lapin du Guillotin is still no wiser

 

You could've just stopped there and been just as acurate.

[death tribble]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

You're devious. However being wise to what I am upto, is another thing.

 

You were smart enough to understand that I meant you though. You just don't know why.

[L. Marcus]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

. . . for teh Bunneh?

[Old Man]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

Did the coup attempt start yet? No? Okay, then, well, forget I said anything.

[teh bunneh]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

That's why the NGD is (nominally) a democracy*. If you want to string someone up, go after RebeccaRed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*And by democracy, I mean "That's what we tell everyone we have".

[SteveZilla]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

Star' date=' the levitating cat, can leap more than 5 feet straight up if she sees a bug.[/quote']

 

Film her doing that, but film it so it'll be in slow motion. Then add a soundtrack like... The countdown to the Apollo 11 launch.

 

5...

4...

3...

2...

1...

Liftoff...

Star has cleared the tower!

 

It might be funny.

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

Re: Musings on Random Musings

 

...It's kind of sad and I feel a bit guilty about how happy I am not to be going through that. It takes a bit of the edge off of my employment situation anyway.

No! No feeling guilty allowed. I know I feel a certain thrill to see Kinko's disappear under the umbrella of FedEx completely even when FedEx swore that wouldn't happen. I left right before the changes started. I wonder how many of my old crew mates are still with the company.