Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Therapeutic Cancer Vaccine

******
******

I am not usually a proponent of Big Pharma. This potential breakthrough, however, is too exciting not to share and monitor.  ~ TC

 

Breakthrough: Israel is Developing Cancer Vaccine

Vaxil’s groundbreaking therapeutic vaccine, developed in Israel, could keep about 90 percent of cancers from coming back.

As the world’s population lives longer than ever, if we don’t succumb to heart disease, strokes or accidents, it is more likely that cancer will get us one way or another. Cancer is tough to fight, as the body learns how to outsmart medical approaches that often kill normal cells while targeting the malignant ones.

Hadassah HospitalIn a breakthrough development, the Israeli company Vaxil BioTherapeutics has formulated a therapeutic cancer vaccine, now in clinical trials at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem. If all goes well, the vaccine could be available about six years down the road, to administer on a regular basis not only to help treat cancer but in order to keep the disease from recurring.

The vaccine is being tested against a type of blood cancer called multiple myeloma. If the substance works as hoped — and it looks like all arrows are pointing that way — its platform technology VaxHit could be applied to 90 percent of all known cancers, including prostate and breast cancer, solid and non-solid tumors.

“In cancer, the body knows something is not quite right but the immune system doesn’t know how to protect itself against the tumor like it does against an infection or virus. This is because cancer cells are the body’s own cells gone wrong,” says Julian Levy, the company’s CFO. “Coupled with that, a cancer patient has a depressed immune system, caused both by the illness and by the treatment.”

The trick is to activate a compromised immune system to mobilize against the threat.

A vaccine that works like a drug

A traditional vaccine helps the body’s immune system fend off foreign invaders such as bacteria or viruses, and is administered to people who have not yet had the ailment. Therapeutic vaccines, like the one Vaxil has developed, are given to sick people, and work more like a drug.

Vaxil’s lead product, ImMucin, activates the immune system by “training” T-cells –– the immune cells that protect the body by searching out and destroying cells that display a specific molecule (or marker) called MUC1. MUC1 is typically found only on cancer cells and not on healthy cells. The T-cells don’t attack any cells without MUC1, meaning there are no side effects unlike traditional cancer treatments. More than 90% of different cancers have MUC1 on their cells, which indicates the potential for this vaccine.

“It’s a really big thing,” says Levy, a biotechnology entrepreneur who was formerly CEO for Biokine Therapeutics. “If you give chemo, apart from the really nasty side effects, what often happens is that cancer becomes immune [to it]. The tumor likes to mutate and develops an ability to hide from the treatment. Our vaccines are also designed to overcome that problem.”

For cancers in an advanced stage, treatments like chemo or surgery to remove a large tumor will still be needed, but if the cancer can be brought down to scale, the body is then able to deal with it, Levy explains. ImMucin is foreseen as a long-term strategy — a shot every few months, with no side effects — to stop the cancer from reoccurring after initial treatments, by ensuring that the patient’s own immune system keeps it under control.

In parallel, the company is also working on a vaccine that treats tuberculosis, a disease that’s increasing worldwide, including in the developed world, and for which the current vaccine is often ineffective and treatment is problematic.

cancerours cellBased in Ness Ziona, Vaxil was founded in 2006 by Dr. Lior Carmon, a biotechnology entrepreneur with a doctorate in immunology from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot. In June, Vaxil signed a memorandum of understanding to merge its activities into Sheldonco, a company traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.

By Rivka Borochov
For more info about this incredible vaccine, visit Vaxil on the web at www.vaxilbio.com

Friday, November 18, 2011

******
******

Dear Tamera,

Today, FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg announced the revocation of the drug Avastin for treatment of metastatic breast cancer, agreeing with the recent unanimous recommendation of the Oncologic Drug Advisory Committee (ODAC).

Breast Cancer Action supports Dr. Hamburg’s decision to revoke Avastin for metastatic breast cancer based on existing science. Since 2007, BCAction has actively opposed the use of Avastin for metastatic breast cancer patients because of its failure to improve overall survival or quality of life and its serious side effects. 

As a former BCAction board member testified before the FDA panel:


Today’s decision is the right one, but it’s not a victory. We will continue to demand and support the approval of more effective, less toxic, and more affordable treatment options for all women with breast cancer. Women deserve more than false hope—they deserve treatments that work. 

Sincerely,

 

Karuna Jaggar
Executive Director

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Too Much Pink Ms. Brinker?...Yes, yes there is!

******
******

Anyone who has read my blog knows that I am a card-burning anti-pink rabble-rouser. Or in Ms. Brinker's [founder & CEO of Susan G. Komen] opinion...a grumbler. Nancy'sPoint - a blog that I follow and enjoy, insightfully scrutinized the following OP-Ed by, for, on behalf of Ms. Brinker - wherein Ms. Brinker defends the mission of SGK against plebeians like myself.
I am not going to try and compete with Nancy's dissection. [Check out Nancy'sPoint: http://nancyspoint.com/rumblings-grumblings-my-response-to-ms-brinker/.] I was so enraged, however, when I read Ms. Brinker's OP-ED piece myself, I just couldn't sit quietly. My own opinions and fingers started churning. I share Ms. Brinker's OP-ED in its entirety below.

First impression for the uninitiated [not meant to be derogatory, but only to categorize those who enjoy an envious life beyond researching anything and everything related to breast cancer] may be..hey, SGK sounds like they are on the front line for those living with breast cancer...PINK ON! Then, there is the fact-check. And Ms. Brinker's defenses, in my opinion, crumble. I share my opinion and my two cents in CAPS at the most egregious of her statements, below. I have also included  all of the posted comments to Ms. Brinker's OP-ED. They are articulate, respectful, and spot-on. They challenge the unsupported assertions of Ms. Brinker brilliantly, and made me proud to be an ANTI-PINK RABBLE-ROUSING GRUMBLING PLEBE.

Another View: Too much pink? Not while breast cancer still kills

Special to The [Sacramento] Bee

OPINION - Published Sunday, Oct. 30, 2011


Nancy G. Brinker, former ambassador to Hungary, is founder and CEO, Susan G. Komen for the Cure. She is responding to the Oct. 23 article by Francesca Lyman in California Forum, "Pink Inc. has many starting to see red."

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and every year at this time we hear grumblings about pink, the color of the breast cancer movement.

"There's too much pink." "We have enough awareness." "Where is the money going?"
When a Portland woman is living in her car because she can't afford her cancer treatment; when a Chicago woman has to choose between paying bus fare to treatment or buying food for her family; and when treatments for metastatic breast cancer are often more debilitating than the disease itself, then there is not too much pink during October. We'd argue there's not enough.
MS. BRINKER, YOU NEGLECT TO SHARE THE LACK OF FUNDING THAT SGK ITSELF DIRECTS TOWARD METASTATIC BREAST CANCER RESEARCH & TREATMENT. YOU GLOSS OVER THE SAD FACT THAT SGK SOLELY FOCUSES ON EARLY DETECTION...WHICH DOES NOT NECESSARILY "SAVE LIVES." THE VERY TRAGIC IRONY IS THAT SUSAN G. KOMEN DIED FROM METASTATIC BREAST CANCER. SEE ALSO... http://boo-bee-trap.blogspot.com/2011/10/peaking-behind-pink-curtain.html

For the skeptics out there, we'd invite you to take a few minutes to learn what the pink is actually doing. You might be surprised to learn that 84 cents of every dollar spent by Susan G. Komen for the Cure over the past five years has gone to cutting-edge research, to community programs that get women into and through cancer treatment, to advocacy programs that preserved cancer funding in 19 states, and to things that mean a lot when you're sick, like wigs, groceries, co-pays and, hopefully, an end to having to choose between feeding your family and going to the doctor's office.
FOR THE "PINK BELIEVERS" OUT THERE, SGK HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR 32 YEARS, WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION: WHY DID SGK ONLY START DIRECTING FUNDING  TO "CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH" FIVE YEARS AGO?  MORE CURIOUS IS THAT OF THE ESTIMATED $2.1 BILLION TOTAL PUBLIC SUPPORT AND REVENUE RAISED (1982-2010) SGK SPENT ONLY $500 MILLION ON RESEARCH.

Pink also pays for awareness, because despite the assumption that everyone knows all there is to know about breast cancer, women still tell me they don't need a mammogram because there's no history of breast cancer in their family (awareness check: most people diagnosed with breast cancer have no family history); or because they've never worn underwire bras (awareness check: underwire bras have nothing to do with breast cancer).
"FINDING CANCER DOES NOT ALWAYS SAVE LIVES....MAMMOGRAMS CAN RESULT IN FALSE-NEGATIVE RESULTS [AS MY PERSONAL HISTORY OF MAMMOGRAMS ATTEST]. REGRETTABLY, SCREENING MAMMOGRAMS MISS UP TO 20% OF BREAST CANCERS THAT ARE PRESENT AT THE TIME OF SCREENING. FURTHER... SCREENING MAMMOGRAMS ALSO FIND CANCERS & CASES OF DCIS THAT WILL NEVER CAUSE SYMPTOMS OR THREATEN A WOMAN'S LIFE, LEADING TO 'OVERDIAGNOSIS' [AND 'OVERTREATMENT'] OF BREAST CANCER...EXPOSING WOMEN UNNECESSARILY TO THE ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH CANCER THERAPY."
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/detection/mammograms 


So no, there's not too much awareness. And yes, all this pink does quite a bit of good.
The $685 million that Komen has invested in research over 30 years has helped reduce breast cancer death rates by 31 percent since 1991. It has helped improve five-year relative survival rates for early stage cancers to 99 percent, up from 74 percent when I started. It has paid for treatments that are making it possible for many women, even with aggressive or metastatic disease, to live longer, and it has provided key research findings for patients with other types of cancer, most notably those with BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 genetic mutations.
SGK's OWN 990 REPORTS INDICATE ONLY $500 MILLION INVESTED, NOT $685M.  I CULLED AGAIN THROUGH KOMEN'S REPORTS, AFTER READING MS. BRINKER'S OP-ED, AND COULD NOT FIND THE ADDITIONAL $185 MILLION SHE PADS ON TO THE ABOVE FIGURE. MORE IMPORTANTLY, HOWEVER, IN 1991, 43,583 WOMEN DIED FROM BREAST CANCER.  http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00026281.html 
ACCORDING TO THE CDC, IN 2007 (the most recent year numbers that are currently available) 40,598 WOMEN DIED IN THE U.S. FROM BREAST CANCER. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/index.html THE DIFFERENCE IS 14.6 %, NOT 31%; AND SGK'S ACTUAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE ACTUAL DECREASE IN NUMBERS IS NOT DEFINITIVE. ANECDOTALLY, OF THE 3 ONCOLOGISTS I INTERVIEWED FOR  MY OWN CARE, ALL OF THEM CONCURRED THAT THERE REALLY HAS NOT BEEN A DECREASE IN THE DEATH RATE FROM BREAST CANCER IN 50 YEARS. THE REPORTED DIFFERENCES IS HOW THE DEATHS OF WOMEN ARE BEING CATEGORIZED. E.G. UTERINE CANCER, OVARIAN CANCER vs. MBC.

At Komen alone, the funds raised from pink paid for 700,000 breast screenings last year for poor and uninsured women, and provided financial and social support for another 100,000.
BY THE WAY, SGK OWNS STOCK IN GENERAL ELECTRIC - ONE OF THE LARGEST MAKERS OF MAMMOGRAPHY EQUIPMENT IN THE WORLD.

All told, Susan G. Komen has pumped $1.3 billion into programs in thousands of communities that provide this real help to real women, men and families facing breast cancer.

In California, Komen has funded $64 million since 1982 to research at institutions across the state, including 68 active research projects totaling $30 million today. The eight Komen Affiliates serving California have awarded millions to local community programs and fought to preserve state-funded breast cancer programs for California's low-income and underserved women.


The research we're funding here, and globally, is investigating environmental factors in breast cancer, real prevention strategies, ways to find breast cancer before symptoms appear, ways to stop it before it spreads, and ways to effectively treat the deadliest forms of this disease for those with metastatic and aggressive disease. The community programs target women who, without our help, will not get access to screenings, cancer treatment and follow-up care.
GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS MS. BRINKER...WHAT ABOUT SGK'S REQUISITION OF ITS NEW PERFUME, "PROMISE ME," THAT CONTAINS GALAXOLIDE - A KNOWN HORMONE DISRUPTER, AND TOLUENE - A POTENT NEUROTOXICANT BANNED BY THE INTERNATIONAL FRAGRANCE ASSOCIATION. http://boo-bee-trap.blogspot.com/2011/09/promise-me-pink.html
WHAT ABOUT SGK'S FLIP-FLOPPING ON THE IMPACT OF POLYCARBONATE PLASTICS CONTAINING BPAs ON OUR HEALTH. SEE, SGK WEBSITE 02/2011. COULD SGK'S INCONSISTENT STANCE ON BPA LADEN PLASTICS BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS BRAND NAMED SPONSORS: COCA-COLA, GENERAL MILLS, GEORGIA-PACIFIC, 3M - INDUSTRIES THAT ALL USE BPAs IN THEIR MANUFACTURING AND PACKAGING.  MS. BRINKER, I NOTE THAT YOU ARE ALSO SILENT AS TO THE FACT THAT SGK OWNS STOCK IN SEVERAL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INCLUDING ASTRA-ZENECA (aka AZKONOBEL), THE MAKER OF TAMOXIFEN - WHOSE SIDE EFFECTS INCLUDE UTERINE CANCER.


Research and community programs cost money, and we make no apologies for raising the funds that make them possible. In fact, we need to raise more, because - despite our advances - a woman is still being diagnosed with breast cancer every 19 seconds and a woman dies of breast cancer every 74 seconds somewhere in the world.
WHILE WOMEN CONTINUE TO DIE AT RATES THAT HAVE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED SINCE 1960, SGK SPENDS NEARLY $1 MILLION YEARLY SUING SMALL CHARITIES FOR THE USE OF THE WORD: "CURE." SGK'S GENERAL COUNSEL, JONATHAN BLUM, WHEN COMMENTING ON A LEGAL BATTLE INVOLVING SGK AND A SMALL LUNG CANCER NON-PROFIT, FOR USING THE WORD "CURE", STATED: "WE SEE IT AS RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF OUR DONOR'S FUNDS.

Do consumers need to be aware of where their dollars are going? Absolutely. We urge people to do their homework before donating to ensure that their dollars go to organizations that are legitimately engaged in ending breast cancer.
WHICH IS WHY IN REVIEWING SGK'S 990s YOU CAN DISCOVER THAT THE CLAIMS BY MS. BRINKER, ON BEHALF OF SGK, DO NOT PAN OUT.





If you do like pink - and our surveys say most people do - then I thank you for seeing it for what it is: the symbol of a movement that is doing all that it can to end suffering from the leading cancer killer of women worldwide. Half a million women will die of breast cancer in the world this year, including 40,000 right here in the United States.
AGAIN, MS. BRINKER, IT CANNOT BE OVERSTATED, THAT THIS NUMBER HAS NOT SUBSTANTIVELY CHANGED IN 50 YEARS, DESPITE THE BILLIONS RAISED...AND SPENT BY SGK.

Roulette Wheels as breast markers
...nice. At least they're organic [?]
There won't be enough pink until the fight against this disease is won.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Showing 8 comments (these are the total comments that were posted)
  • Bobbalino                                           
    You say that your research over the last 30 years "has helped reduce breast cancer death rates by 31 percent since 1991. " But breast cancer mortality is going up not down!
  • Carrie Anne Kelly                                           
    Lets stop "cutesifying" Breast Cancer with all the pink nonsense and get to the matter at hand which is that your organization is aligning itself with the very industries that are suspect to be using harmful material in the production of their products. If you are really interested in finding the cure, then show us by demanding accountability from the food, cosmetic and household cleaning industry. Oh right. You're too busy suing smaller organizations for using the term "For the Cure".
  • BBZinger                                           
    Ms. Brinker has been defending pink for years. Her anecdotes don't prove her point. If women with breast cancer are living in their cars, they don't need pink, they need money. When I was Executive Director of Breast Cancer Action, and since, I have heard numerous complaints about Komen's non-responsiveness to individuals in need of help, despite the enormous resources at Komen's disposal. Pink is a pretty color, but there is nothing pretty or happy about a breast cancer diagnosis. For a different view, see www.barbarabrenner.net
  • natrum                                           
    Ms Brinker, What I do not understand, is why so very little, if any, of the Komen Millions of dollars is spent on education regarding prevention. There is good information out there, and much benefit could come from people learning about diet, the protection afforded by adequate vitamin D, the fact that ingested sugar directly feeds cancer cells, the toxins in our consumer products, the dangers of radiation.... the list is very long. Heredity is a small part of risk. And even then, gene expression is not an absolute. The environment plays a key role. Pink buckets filled with chicken pumped with hormones and antibiotics, coated in who-knows-what, fried in genetically modified soy oil, is an example of the environmental dangers to avoid.
    Breast cancer "awareness" needs to include actions to take to avoid it, even at the risk of offending industrial sponsors whose products are implicated in causation.  This is information I want my sister to know.
  • Erika Munson Sudz                                           
    Funny thing, I looked ALL Over the Komen web site for assistance regarding prescriptions/travel/insurance/lodging. All I found were links to OTHER organizations to ask for assistance there was nothing there showing how Komen was offering to help anyone. Such a scam
  • ricaLIVESTRONG                                           
    The Pink Machine driven by Komen is a FARCE. I have called and tried to contact Komen for support during my breast cancer battle. Those requests for help, the chance to redeem themselves in my eyes, were ignored, though I WAS subscribed, unwillingly, to their marketing material. Thanks, Komen, but LIVESTRONG will get every cancer-fighting dime I have to give.

    The ongoing hypocrisy of Komen is sickening, to the point that I need to ingest some pink - Pepto-Bismol.

    Partnering with companies like KFC for a pink bucket, which only ENCOURAGES behavior that can INCREASE CHANCES of breast cancer, selling perfume and glamorizing the fight by wrapping it up in pink bows, and showing beautifully made-up bald women (who are obviously wearing bald caps) is false advertising and INSULTING to those of us in the throes of the fight.

    And do I even need to bring up the despicable habit of taking over the phrase "For The Cure?" Well, here. Sue me.

    I encourage EVERYONE out there to REBEL For The Cure.
    Pink ribbons are not welcome in my home, or hospital room. Yellow is.

    LIVE STRONG.     
  • CA_Comment                                          
    Ms. Brinker - respectfully the public does support the need to help connect and drive critical funds to research that will deliver a cure, improve awareness, improve early detection, aid diagnosis, and help women and men get access to critical care for this cancer so they may fight and survive this disease, as well as regain quality and quantity of life. To say we do not care about this because we question the current implementation of the pink campaign is incorrect.

    We are giving you valuable feedback that the pink campaign is important (otherwise no one would care to give you feedback), We are telling you it appears the pink campaign is at risk of becoming distracted/diluted and in some business alliances and implementations the campaign is downright hijacked. You may not like this message...but this message is real and affords an opportunity for you and others working to make a difference to consider and adjust. We are not telling you to stop. We are however telling you there is a need to make some changes or you risk alienating even more of your supporters.

    Although your organization holds a position as a leading voice on this cause...you must remember this is a human issue we all own. We are your stakeholders. We want and need you (and other organizations who can help us make a real impact) to be successful. In exchange for our support, we are demanding a vigilance by you or anyone else that takes this role. Our message is be attentive that the means-to-an-end approach does not become the actual downfall for the support needed to defeat the cancer itself. What decisions you make...good or bad...not only reverberate to breast cancers...but they spill over to work being done for all cancers.
  • Miss Susie                                         
    I have to agree with this idea. When I saw the pink KFC basket, I thought, really? Fast food containers for cancer--doesn't that just encourage people to live a lifestyle that promotes disease while allowing themselves to feel good about it because it's going to cancer? I felt the same way when another chain (or maybe it was also KFC) was promoting a beverage special--read: cola--to help the fight against diabetes.

    When it's all about buying 'pink,' you run the risk of marginalizing the issue--it's not a serious medical issue, we can just solve it by shopping. The various partnerships make it also seem a little hokey. I never buy pink because I always stop and think to myself, well, once the money spent goes to pay for the actual item, the costs of shipping and production, marketing, packaging, et cetera, there's probably very little left for actual breast cancer. (The few things I need that come in pink don't really match my house, like the KitchenAid mixer I saw when I was buying one.)

    I'm all in favor of getting more pink out there for the awareness, but I think there is a valid point to be made about being cautious of various commercial partnerships.

Monday, November 14, 2011

I am having a Hallmark moment...in the pit of my stomach

******
******

Really ?????????

Friday, November 11, 2011

A Constant State of Being

******
******
SURREAL is a constant state of being when you live with a chronic disease.



You are in a surreal state of numbness, waiting for the next test / imaging results. Trying to convince yourself you are not worried. Holding your breath while you pretend to breathe.

It is sensorally surreal, the incessant barrage of cancer commercials & tag lines: "changing the face of cancer" "changing the history of cancer" "cancer has a new enemy."

It is incomprehensibly surreal watching pink walkers chanting "Fight, fight, fight" when all I really I want to do is LIVE...LIVE...LIVE.

It is ragingly surreal wondering daily, what does this pain mean; what does that ache indicate.

You are in a protective surreal bubble, convincing yourself that you actually do not mind the bruised veins. That in some grotesque way they are a badge of honor.

It is glaringly surreal being so acutely aware of those moments when you actually feel good, because those moments seem to arrive less often.

It is the epitome of surreal, being awoken each morning by a pain, by an ache, and making the conscious decision that regardless, "it is time to make the donuts," and you are the one that has to do the making.

Saturday, November 5, 2011

The "Cancer" Conversation

******
******
The "cancer conversation" can be a focal point of stress for me, personally. It is not that I don't or won't converse. When specific, non-judgmental inquiry is initiated I do not have any qualms about answering. The open-ended "how are you feeling"? Or the blatant, expectation for me to "dish" - I can feel my emotional protective wall envelope me. Not because I am protecting myself from the inquiring person, but because I am protecting myself, from myself.  More so when family "expects" me to be the one to initiate the discussion. I also, selfishly, (and I do use that description quite a bit when trying to express how I am dealing with my chronic illness. Not because I am being self-deprecating, but because cancer is a "selfish" state of being) squirm at the thought of having to deal with the inquiring persons reactions.

Then there is the discomfort of the unknown. When presented with the open-ended query of: "how are you feeling [or doing]"; I am not sure just how much the inquisitor really wants to know. We live in a society where the perfunctory start to every conversation, whether it be with the SB Barrista, a client, an adversary, or a BFF, starts with "how are you"
In short, its complicated
The below synopsis, of a study conducted by The University of Texas' study on cancer communication, delves into the complexity of this "conversation."



Reprinted from "Navigating Cancer" - October 12, 2011

Some people choose to discuss their health concerns with those who are closest to them. Others prefer professional counselors, support group members, other survivors, or acquaintances made through the Internet. Not everyone finds the connection they need from the same source, and the depth of the conversation will vary as well.

Communication about an illness was the focus of a study conducted at The University of Texas which provided interesting results. Researchers specifically looked at patients asserting control over how they chose to discuss their illness, or chose not to discuss it. The overall findings suggest when patients assert control over communication it helps to overcome feelings of helplessness. In this way patients can determine an aspect of how they want to face the challenges of their diagnosis.
Erin Donovan-Kicken, assistant professor of communication, led the research to examine the strategies people with cancer use to communicate with family, friends, and colleagues. Donovan-Kicken and her team interviewed cancer survivors on how they approached the topic of their diagnosis with various audiences. The team gathered data regarding the advice patients received, the challenges they faced, and the recommendations they would make when talking about a disease. The participants were also asked to evaluate existing patient literature and how they managed information about their illness.

The study results indicate that asserting control over communication is an important factor for patients coping with the stress of cancer. Yet despite best efforts to control that communication, patients can’t control other people’s reaction. Patients will benefit from setting boundaries with family and friends when they need space to be ill or feel emotional in private. They should be allowed to focus on themselves without needing to support others, and to avoid people who are overly solicitous. Choosing not to engage in social discussions about an illness can prove to be an empowering decision for some patients.


Ultimately Donovan-Kicken’s research defined the difference between asking –
“Are you opening up to people?” and
“Do you have people you can talk to if you want to open up?”

The distinction is note-worthy for oncologists and survivor advocacy groups who counsel and provide support to patients. Patient literature could also be refined to emphasize what is meaningful about communication from patients’ perspectives. It could include suggestions on how to manage or withhold from personal health discussions, and establish boundaries allowing patients to experience their illness in a way that best suits them.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Wednesday Dip

******
******


I find that most times I am my own worst distraction. Which is probably why I put so much energy into work and advocacy. It takes me out of my own head. That said, I am being told -- externally and internally that I...ABSOLUTELY...NEED...TO...SLOW...DOWN.

It is when I slow down, however, that I become more acutely aware of the crowded real estate masquerading as my brain.

I shared with someone that I wanted to come back in my next life as a Bottle nosed Dolphin. That then, I would slow down.

She guffawed and said that even as a Dolphin I would dive (bad pun intended) into fostering baby dolphins and create and run a non-profit: SMfMR (Sea Mammals for Marine Restoration). 

She is spot on. And, quite frankly, it doesn't sound like a bad plan.