A breakthrough study published in the journal Oncogene reveals scientists at the University of East Anglia have discovered a “rogue gene,” that if blocked by the right drugs, may stop cancer in its tracks. The gene, called WWP2, is an enzymic bonding agent found inside cancer cells. WWP2 attacks and breaks down a naturally-occurring protein in the body which normally prevents cancer cells from spreading. Tests show that by blocking WWP2, levels of the natural inhibitor protein were boosted and the cancer cells remained dormant.
According to researcher Andrew Chantry, "The challenge now is to identify a potent drug that will get inside cancer cells and destroy the activity of the rogue gene." Once new drugs are developed, it is hoped that conventional therapies such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy could be used on primary tumors with no risk of the disease taking hold elsewhere or metastasizing.
The research team is currently working with other scientists to develop such a drug. Chantry believes drugs could be developed in the next 10 years that could be used to halt the aggressive spread of many forms of cancer. More...
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Mesothelioma Patients May Benefit From Second Pemetrexed-based Chemotherapy
A new study conducted by a team of Italian researchers tested the effectiveness of pemetrexed-based chemotherapy (PBC) as a second-line treatment for mesothelioma cancer patients whose cancer shows at least a partial response to initial chemo. PBC is already effective for some patients, however no drugs have been approved yet for second-line treatment when the cancer continues to progress after first-line chemotherapy.
The study found that mesothelioma tumors shrunk or at least stopped growing in nearly half of patients (48%), and the median survival rate was 10.5 months after the treatment. Researchers also determined that the patients whose tumors stopped growing for at least 12 months after their first round of PBC treatment were more likely to respond well in the second round. Although the role of second-line therapy in mesothelioma needs further evaluation, this study suggests the possible therapeutic role of re-treatment PBC. More...
The study found that mesothelioma tumors shrunk or at least stopped growing in nearly half of patients (48%), and the median survival rate was 10.5 months after the treatment. Researchers also determined that the patients whose tumors stopped growing for at least 12 months after their first round of PBC treatment were more likely to respond well in the second round. Although the role of second-line therapy in mesothelioma needs further evaluation, this study suggests the possible therapeutic role of re-treatment PBC. More...
Monday, January 10, 2011
Study: Mesothelioma Significantly Underreported in Developing Countries
A new study published by the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives estimates the global magnitude of reported and unreported mesothelioma.
According to the study, it conservatively estimates that, globally, one mesothelioma case has been overlooked for every four to five reported cases. In particular, many developing countries, including some with a high cumulative use of asbestos, do not report mesothelioma. Russia, Kazakhstan, China, and India all rank in the top 15 countries for cumulative use of asbestos. Under diagnosing and/or underreporting may have occurred in these countries due to lack of awareness, knowledge and resources.
This study is the first to postulate a global estimate of “missed” mesothelioma cases based on the collective experience of countries with available data on asbestos use and the disease. Given that their estimation is based on asbestos use until 1970 and because many countries have increased asbestos use since then, those countries should anticipate a higher disease burden in the immediate decades ahead.
Since mesothelioma can be prevented by eliminating exposure to asbestos, the authors of the study propose that every country ban the mining, use, and export of asbestos on grounds of public health. They also propose that developed countries share experience and technology to enable developing countries to better diagnose, report, and manage mesothelioma cases.
According to the study, it conservatively estimates that, globally, one mesothelioma case has been overlooked for every four to five reported cases. In particular, many developing countries, including some with a high cumulative use of asbestos, do not report mesothelioma. Russia, Kazakhstan, China, and India all rank in the top 15 countries for cumulative use of asbestos. Under diagnosing and/or underreporting may have occurred in these countries due to lack of awareness, knowledge and resources.
This study is the first to postulate a global estimate of “missed” mesothelioma cases based on the collective experience of countries with available data on asbestos use and the disease. Given that their estimation is based on asbestos use until 1970 and because many countries have increased asbestos use since then, those countries should anticipate a higher disease burden in the immediate decades ahead.
Since mesothelioma can be prevented by eliminating exposure to asbestos, the authors of the study propose that every country ban the mining, use, and export of asbestos on grounds of public health. They also propose that developed countries share experience and technology to enable developing countries to better diagnose, report, and manage mesothelioma cases.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Debunking the Myths About P/D
"The Question is, Why Wouldn't a Patient Choose P/D?"
In 1994, Dr. Robert B. Cameron began to develop his specific "radical" lung-sparing pleurectomy and decortication (P/D) surgical procedure as a more rational and less radical alternative to the popular radical extra-pleural pneumonectomy (EPP) surgical procedure for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).
The data show that P/D is much safer than EPP. Surgical mortality (that is, when the patient dies during surgery) for P/D is only 3-4%. For EPP, surgical mortality is 5-7%, or almost twice as high. On top of fatalities, another two-thirds of EPP patients encounter serious surgical complications. Dr. Cameron’s surgical mortality numbers are below 1%.
P/D patients retain the use of both lungs, affording them a better quality of life. EPP patients are left with only one lung. With only on lung, the patient is vulnerable to threats to the remaining lung like infection, pneumonia or pulmonary restriction from prior smoking, asbestos scarring or the unshakeable threat of mesothelioma recurrence.
The only randomized trial for EPP (where the surgeon cannot bias the results through patient selection), revealed that patients who had EPP in fact did worsethan patients who avoided surgery altogether. Studies which have looked at both EPP and P/D reveal that P/D patients survive longer.
With P/D’s superiority overwhelmingly confirmed, the question is then, why wouldn't a patient choose a P/D over EPP? It seems that those clinging to the out-dated notion of performing EPP have tried to answer this question with a series of “myths” about P/D.
Over the coming weeks, Dr. Cameron, as the innovator of the P/D and the surgeon most experienced in performing it, will address in turn each of these "myths".
MYTH #1: “P/D Is Only Appropriate For Very Early Stage Meso.” January 3, 2011
Proponents of the EPP have been known to suggest that “P/D is fine for early-stage cases, but for a BIG tumor you need a BIG surgery.”
It is certainly true that lung-sparing P/D is more appropriate for early-stage cases than EPP. For a patient who is younger with less invasive tumor and a good long-term survival prognosis, there is simply no compelling reason to endure the risks and compromised quality of life associated with a radical lung amputation/EPP.
But just because P/D is more appropriate for early-stage patients does not mean that radical EPP is better for more advanced patients. Statistics reveal that P/D is also better advanced cases of pleural mesothelioma. In fact, many of those who argue that P/D is only appropriate for early-stage meso WILL NOT actually perform EPP for late-stage meso. They understand that EPP is too radical and difficult for late-stage patients and don’t want to harm their published survival statistics. They route their late-stage patients to P/D instead.
As a result, most studies comparing P/D to EPP show patients who were younger (less than 60) and relatively healthy going to EPP, and patients who were older (70 or above) and with more sickness going to P/D. Yet the overall survival for older, more advanced patients who had P/D was still BETTER than the survival for younger, less advanced patients who had EPP.
Click here for more information regarding malignant pleural mesothelioma and Dr. Cameron’s approach to treating the disease.
In 1994, Dr. Robert B. Cameron began to develop his specific "radical" lung-sparing pleurectomy and decortication (P/D) surgical procedure as a more rational and less radical alternative to the popular radical extra-pleural pneumonectomy (EPP) surgical procedure for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).
The data show that P/D is much safer than EPP. Surgical mortality (that is, when the patient dies during surgery) for P/D is only 3-4%. For EPP, surgical mortality is 5-7%, or almost twice as high. On top of fatalities, another two-thirds of EPP patients encounter serious surgical complications. Dr. Cameron’s surgical mortality numbers are below 1%.
P/D patients retain the use of both lungs, affording them a better quality of life. EPP patients are left with only one lung. With only on lung, the patient is vulnerable to threats to the remaining lung like infection, pneumonia or pulmonary restriction from prior smoking, asbestos scarring or the unshakeable threat of mesothelioma recurrence.
The only randomized trial for EPP (where the surgeon cannot bias the results through patient selection), revealed that patients who had EPP in fact did worsethan patients who avoided surgery altogether. Studies which have looked at both EPP and P/D reveal that P/D patients survive longer.
With P/D’s superiority overwhelmingly confirmed, the question is then, why wouldn't a patient choose a P/D over EPP? It seems that those clinging to the out-dated notion of performing EPP have tried to answer this question with a series of “myths” about P/D.
Over the coming weeks, Dr. Cameron, as the innovator of the P/D and the surgeon most experienced in performing it, will address in turn each of these "myths".
MYTH #1: “P/D Is Only Appropriate For Very Early Stage Meso.” January 3, 2011
Proponents of the EPP have been known to suggest that “P/D is fine for early-stage cases, but for a BIG tumor you need a BIG surgery.”
It is certainly true that lung-sparing P/D is more appropriate for early-stage cases than EPP. For a patient who is younger with less invasive tumor and a good long-term survival prognosis, there is simply no compelling reason to endure the risks and compromised quality of life associated with a radical lung amputation/EPP.
But just because P/D is more appropriate for early-stage patients does not mean that radical EPP is better for more advanced patients. Statistics reveal that P/D is also better advanced cases of pleural mesothelioma. In fact, many of those who argue that P/D is only appropriate for early-stage meso WILL NOT actually perform EPP for late-stage meso. They understand that EPP is too radical and difficult for late-stage patients and don’t want to harm their published survival statistics. They route their late-stage patients to P/D instead.
As a result, most studies comparing P/D to EPP show patients who were younger (less than 60) and relatively healthy going to EPP, and patients who were older (70 or above) and with more sickness going to P/D. Yet the overall survival for older, more advanced patients who had P/D was still BETTER than the survival for younger, less advanced patients who had EPP.
Click here for more information regarding malignant pleural mesothelioma and Dr. Cameron’s approach to treating the disease.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Who to Trust? Reading Medical Articles with A Grain of Salt
How much faith should we put in published, peer reviewed studies which show that a drug, vitamin, surgical technique or medical device produces a favorable result?
We certainly want to believe that a conclusion based on raw data generated in a properly designed test by objective scientists must be true and is therefore reliable.
A recent article in The New Yorker -- "The Truth Wears Off “ -- by Jonah Lehrer reminds us of the perils of putting all our faith in scientists who, like the rest of us, are fallible. Scientists, especially medical researchers, he contends, tend to select their data to confirm a preconceived thesis, especially if they want to publish their study in a prestigious journal
Once a "truth" gets established – e.g, cardiac stents work, PSA tests save lives, Vitamin E is good for you, hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women works, second generation anti-depressants are effective, etc -- it's hard to un-establish it. Few journals put priority on publishing studies that show that a drug or device had "no effect," a phenomenon which Lehrer calls "publication bias."
The writer's point is not that our medical journals are rife with scientific fraud. In the real world, scientists struggle with making sense of their data. If there are anamolies that don't seem to follow a pattern, they might get tossed out. Like anyone else, a researcher is wired to want to disregard what he or she doesn't want to see, or can't explain.
As Lehrer observes: "The problem of selective reporting is rooted in a fundamental cognitive flaw, which is that we like proving ourselves right and hate being wrong." Quite simply, it feels good to prove a hunch. It feels even better, he notes, when the researcher has a financial interest in the outcome, or stands to advance his career.
The answer, Lehrer argues, is in properly designing studies and making sure the data are both transparent and rigorously gathered, even if they contradict the hypothesis. Moreover, before publishing, the scientist should lay out on the front end what's a sufficient level of proof. He also suggests the use of accessible databases (something near and dear to Dr. Cameron and the Pacific Meso Center).
Bringing the subject closer to home, for many decades now US doctors have been quick to tout the extra-pleural pneumonectomy (EPP) as the best treatment for mesothelioma. Studies, mainly out of the Brigham and Women's hospital, have been published to prove the point. Several years ago, a big clinical trial, financed by Eli Lilly, showed that the chemotherapy drug Alimta was superior to doing nothing. Alimta went on to become the "front line standard of care" for pleural meso patients.
As you read up on the treatment options available, and listen to experts, it’s wise to stay on guard. Ask yourself, was the research based on selective reporting (aka, "cherry picking" the patients who did well but casting out those who didn’t)? Have the data been made available for review? Have the conclusions been validated elsewhere? Was the clinical trial randomized? Were apples compared to apples (if that’s even possible!).
Note that there has never been a clinical trial in the US in which pleural mesothelioma patients were randomly selected for either an EPP, a Pleurectomy/Decortication, or no treatment. Putting the ethical morass aside (I don’t think a patient would be eager to participate in a trial in which he was forced to do nothing or have his lung amputed), even if there was a well designed study, clearly surgical technique could not be 100% replicated, and every patient is different (genetics, age, sex, staging, pre-existing conditions, tumor cell type, will to live, etc).
In the end, we wind up making choices based on trust. Do we trust the doctor and his team? Do we trust the "science" on which he bases his opinions? Does he admit what he doesn't know? Does he follow the current fad or stubbornly cling to a one-size-fits-all strategy? Does he have passion without the in-your-face zeal ? Does he have a possible conflict of interest where, for example, he's got an irrepressible financial or career incentive to push one flavor over another?
Has your doctor tried to maintain “neutrality?” Radical surgery will transform the patient’s life irreparably. Has your doctor tried to suppress his own bias, anger or elation in recommending a treatment? Has your doctor truly explained whether an option first, does no, or at least very little, harm, balanced against the prospect of measurable benefit?
It’s not easy for a surgeon, or anyone, to “go Swedish” and consciously set aside biases. One thing is for certain, you’re not getting a fair shake if your doctor tells you he’s going to cure your mesothelioma. There is no proven cure for mesothelioma, period. At best, with an enlightened strategy, orchestrated by the an honest and caring medical team, meso patients can buy valuable time.
As WC Fields used to say: Trust your fellow man, but always cut the cards.
Roger G. Worthington, Esq.
December 15, 2010
We certainly want to believe that a conclusion based on raw data generated in a properly designed test by objective scientists must be true and is therefore reliable.
A recent article in The New Yorker -- "The Truth Wears Off “ -- by Jonah Lehrer reminds us of the perils of putting all our faith in scientists who, like the rest of us, are fallible. Scientists, especially medical researchers, he contends, tend to select their data to confirm a preconceived thesis, especially if they want to publish their study in a prestigious journal
Once a "truth" gets established – e.g, cardiac stents work, PSA tests save lives, Vitamin E is good for you, hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women works, second generation anti-depressants are effective, etc -- it's hard to un-establish it. Few journals put priority on publishing studies that show that a drug or device had "no effect," a phenomenon which Lehrer calls "publication bias."
The writer's point is not that our medical journals are rife with scientific fraud. In the real world, scientists struggle with making sense of their data. If there are anamolies that don't seem to follow a pattern, they might get tossed out. Like anyone else, a researcher is wired to want to disregard what he or she doesn't want to see, or can't explain.
Once Touted, Now Doubted Vitamin E and D megadosing |
As Lehrer observes: "The problem of selective reporting is rooted in a fundamental cognitive flaw, which is that we like proving ourselves right and hate being wrong." Quite simply, it feels good to prove a hunch. It feels even better, he notes, when the researcher has a financial interest in the outcome, or stands to advance his career.
The answer, Lehrer argues, is in properly designing studies and making sure the data are both transparent and rigorously gathered, even if they contradict the hypothesis. Moreover, before publishing, the scientist should lay out on the front end what's a sufficient level of proof. He also suggests the use of accessible databases (something near and dear to Dr. Cameron and the Pacific Meso Center).
Bringing the subject closer to home, for many decades now US doctors have been quick to tout the extra-pleural pneumonectomy (EPP) as the best treatment for mesothelioma. Studies, mainly out of the Brigham and Women's hospital, have been published to prove the point. Several years ago, a big clinical trial, financed by Eli Lilly, showed that the chemotherapy drug Alimta was superior to doing nothing. Alimta went on to become the "front line standard of care" for pleural meso patients.
As you read up on the treatment options available, and listen to experts, it’s wise to stay on guard. Ask yourself, was the research based on selective reporting (aka, "cherry picking" the patients who did well but casting out those who didn’t)? Have the data been made available for review? Have the conclusions been validated elsewhere? Was the clinical trial randomized? Were apples compared to apples (if that’s even possible!).
Note that there has never been a clinical trial in the US in which pleural mesothelioma patients were randomly selected for either an EPP, a Pleurectomy/Decortication, or no treatment. Putting the ethical morass aside (I don’t think a patient would be eager to participate in a trial in which he was forced to do nothing or have his lung amputed), even if there was a well designed study, clearly surgical technique could not be 100% replicated, and every patient is different (genetics, age, sex, staging, pre-existing conditions, tumor cell type, will to live, etc).
In the end, we wind up making choices based on trust. Do we trust the doctor and his team? Do we trust the "science" on which he bases his opinions? Does he admit what he doesn't know? Does he follow the current fad or stubbornly cling to a one-size-fits-all strategy? Does he have passion without the in-your-face zeal ? Does he have a possible conflict of interest where, for example, he's got an irrepressible financial or career incentive to push one flavor over another?
Has your doctor tried to maintain “neutrality?” Radical surgery will transform the patient’s life irreparably. Has your doctor tried to suppress his own bias, anger or elation in recommending a treatment? Has your doctor truly explained whether an option first, does no, or at least very little, harm, balanced against the prospect of measurable benefit?
It’s not easy for a surgeon, or anyone, to “go Swedish” and consciously set aside biases. One thing is for certain, you’re not getting a fair shake if your doctor tells you he’s going to cure your mesothelioma. There is no proven cure for mesothelioma, period. At best, with an enlightened strategy, orchestrated by the an honest and caring medical team, meso patients can buy valuable time.
As WC Fields used to say: Trust your fellow man, but always cut the cards.
Roger G. Worthington, Esq.
December 15, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Is EPP The Answer?
For years in the US the conventional wisdom taught that if you have pleural mesothelioma and you want to survive, you better have your lung taken out.
A new study from the UK has debunked that theory.
Doctors in the UK recently published the preliminary findings from the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) study, a randomized trial in which one group of participants would receive chemotherapy, then extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP), then radiotherapy. The second group of patients would receive other types of aggressive therapy, but would not receive EPP.
Significantly, the study did not contain an arm for patients to choose or undergo the surgical alternative to the EPP, known as the Pleurectomy/Decortication, which removes the tumor only and spares the lung.
The goal of the trial was to determine whether EPP in conjunction with adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy offered benefits to the patient in terms of life expectancy and quality of life, as compared to other standard therapies. The study also assessed the benefits compared to the surgical risks of morbidity or mortality.
In a nutshell, the MARS trial unambiguously debunked the popular theory that the EPP is the best surgical treatment for pleural mesothelioma patients.
Please read the abstract, as well as the comments by PD pioneer Dr. Robert Cameron of UCLA and the Pacific Meso Center.
Dr. Cameron has been treating mesothelioma patients for over 20 years. He is one of the innovators of the lung-sparing Pleurectomy/Decortication. He has has performed the procedure on over 300 patients in his career. It takes about twice as long as the EPP, is highly tedious, but the results have been worth it in terms of lower patient mortality, above average median survival, and improved quality of life. For more about Dr. Cameron's expertise, click here.
The MARS trial offered up sweet validation of Dr. Cameron's approach -- an approach that has not always endeared him to his pro-EPP surgical colleagues. He writes: "This most recent trial is even more proof that no one suffering from the ravages of mesothelioma should be subjected to the further indignation of a radical, debilitating and useless operation based on "selected" data.”
The take home message: there's no substitute for due diligence. Before consenting to a radical, lung amputating surgery, do your homework. Ask tough questions. And call Dr. Cameron.
December 8, 2010
A new study from the UK has debunked that theory.
Doctors in the UK recently published the preliminary findings from the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) study, a randomized trial in which one group of participants would receive chemotherapy, then extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP), then radiotherapy. The second group of patients would receive other types of aggressive therapy, but would not receive EPP.
Significantly, the study did not contain an arm for patients to choose or undergo the surgical alternative to the EPP, known as the Pleurectomy/Decortication, which removes the tumor only and spares the lung.
The goal of the trial was to determine whether EPP in conjunction with adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy offered benefits to the patient in terms of life expectancy and quality of life, as compared to other standard therapies. The study also assessed the benefits compared to the surgical risks of morbidity or mortality.
In a nutshell, the MARS trial unambiguously debunked the popular theory that the EPP is the best surgical treatment for pleural mesothelioma patients.
Please read the abstract, as well as the comments by PD pioneer Dr. Robert Cameron of UCLA and the Pacific Meso Center.Dr. Cameron has been treating mesothelioma patients for over 20 years. He is one of the innovators of the lung-sparing Pleurectomy/Decortication. He has has performed the procedure on over 300 patients in his career. It takes about twice as long as the EPP, is highly tedious, but the results have been worth it in terms of lower patient mortality, above average median survival, and improved quality of life. For more about Dr. Cameron's expertise, click here.
The MARS trial offered up sweet validation of Dr. Cameron's approach -- an approach that has not always endeared him to his pro-EPP surgical colleagues. He writes: "This most recent trial is even more proof that no one suffering from the ravages of mesothelioma should be subjected to the further indignation of a radical, debilitating and useless operation based on "selected" data.”
The take home message: there's no substitute for due diligence. Before consenting to a radical, lung amputating surgery, do your homework. Ask tough questions. And call Dr. Cameron.
December 8, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
A Holiday Message and Theological Response to “The Median Isn’t the Message” from Meso Survivor Pastor Charles Van Kirk
November 30, 2010
By John Caron:
A few days before Thanksgiving, I came back across the insightful and inspirational essay “The Median Isn’t the Message” written by Harvard and NYU evolutionary biology professor Stephen Jay Gould shortly after he was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in 1982.
In the essay, Professor Gould discusses his reaction to the median survival statistics of only eight months for patients diagnosed with his disease. Rather than resign himself to this fate, Professor Gould explained that statistics are merely abstractions which do not encompass the full range of variation and concluded that he should be in the favorable half of the upper statistical range because of his age, positive attitude, early diagnosis and the fact that he received the best available medical treatment. Professor Gould proved to be correct, surviving 20 years following his diagnosis with mesothelioma before passing away due to an unrelated condition.
I thought some of my mesothelioma clients would enjoy reading this timeless and optimistic piece and forwarded it to them along with a Thanksgiving greeting. Once such client was Thurl Charles Van Kirk, Pastor of the Rim of the World Community Church in Running Springs, California. “Pastor Chuck” has himself defied the statistics by surviving almost three years since his diagnosis with biphasic mesothelioma—and counting!
Knowing that Pastor Chuck received degrees in theology before serving 30 years as a Pastor, I was eager to receive his perspective on the evolutionary biology professor’s essay about statistics and survival. Pastor Chuck certainly did not disappoint.
Printed below with his permission is Pastor Chuck’s eloquent and thoughtful response culminating in a timely and valuable prayer for this Holiday Season.
Please enjoy and pass along to others.
Thanks again Pastor Chuck!
Dear John:
Thank you for the article, “The Median Isn’t the Message” by Stephen Jay Gould. It reminds me of a passage in Luke 16.8,
“…There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and
this steward was reported to him as squandering his
possessions.
And he called him and said to him, ‘What is this I
hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for
you can no longer be steward.’
And the steward said to himself, ‘What shall I do,
since my master is taking the stewardship away from me?
I am not strong enough to dig; I am ashamed to beg.
I know what I shall do, so that when I am removed from
this stewardship, they will receive me into their homes.’
And he summoned each one of his master’s debtors,
and he began saying to the first, ‘How much do you owe my
master?’
And he said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ And he said
to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’
Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’
And he said, ’A hundred measures of wheat.’ He said to him.
‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’
And his master praised the unrighteous steward because
he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd
in relation to their own kind than the sons of light.”
Professor Gould shed some light upon a gloomy topic. Statistics, ah, in college I spent a year deriving formulas by hand just in case our computers crashed. Through all the exercise of tangent and co-tangent, designing experiments and penning down conclusions, never mind their significance; we learned that Professor Gould was right. Statistics can be so stretched. And there is that mystical point where truth gives way to lies and lies fade into truth. “It’s all relative? To what? To whom?” My answers came from the study of theology.
What appeals to me in the above scripture appears in its preface, “this steward was reported to him as squandering his possessions.” Professor Gould dazzles the reader with his understanding and definitions. But the point in Luke’s account is that there shall be a day of accounting where the mean and the median will be required for each of us.
Yes, attitude is everything. At times my hardest struggle is just to get up in the morning. Deep, throbbing pain in my side demands attention. So I pop some pain meds and lay back down pondering what heaven will be like when we receive new bodies that never break down, get sick, wrestle with illness or suffer!
So thank you again. I’ll be seeking to be in the distribution of those who thrive even in the midst and realities of diseased bodies. The steward was wise in how he finally got those uncollectible accounts to pay up. It wasn’t the full measure but something is better than nothing. I suspect his employer had been trying to receive payment for years from his debtors. This shrewd servant found a way to endear himself with his master and those who owed him money.
My prayer for you and yours this holiday season is that you make time to celebrate the little things, the kindnesses and tenderness afoot from strangers, friends and family. Perhaps we as sons of light might advance those in our sphere of influence to reconsider the glory of Christmas, the cheer of Thanksgiving and fulfill the goals our master bids us do in 2011.
God Bless,
Charles Van Kirk
By John Caron:
A few days before Thanksgiving, I came back across the insightful and inspirational essay “The Median Isn’t the Message” written by Harvard and NYU evolutionary biology professor Stephen Jay Gould shortly after he was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in 1982.
In the essay, Professor Gould discusses his reaction to the median survival statistics of only eight months for patients diagnosed with his disease. Rather than resign himself to this fate, Professor Gould explained that statistics are merely abstractions which do not encompass the full range of variation and concluded that he should be in the favorable half of the upper statistical range because of his age, positive attitude, early diagnosis and the fact that he received the best available medical treatment. Professor Gould proved to be correct, surviving 20 years following his diagnosis with mesothelioma before passing away due to an unrelated condition.
I thought some of my mesothelioma clients would enjoy reading this timeless and optimistic piece and forwarded it to them along with a Thanksgiving greeting. Once such client was Thurl Charles Van Kirk, Pastor of the Rim of the World Community Church in Running Springs, California. “Pastor Chuck” has himself defied the statistics by surviving almost three years since his diagnosis with biphasic mesothelioma—and counting!
Knowing that Pastor Chuck received degrees in theology before serving 30 years as a Pastor, I was eager to receive his perspective on the evolutionary biology professor’s essay about statistics and survival. Pastor Chuck certainly did not disappoint.
Printed below with his permission is Pastor Chuck’s eloquent and thoughtful response culminating in a timely and valuable prayer for this Holiday Season.
Please enjoy and pass along to others.
Thanks again Pastor Chuck!
Dear John:
Thank you for the article, “The Median Isn’t the Message” by Stephen Jay Gould. It reminds me of a passage in Luke 16.8,
“…There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and
this steward was reported to him as squandering his
possessions.
And he called him and said to him, ‘What is this I
hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for
you can no longer be steward.’
And the steward said to himself, ‘What shall I do,
since my master is taking the stewardship away from me?
I am not strong enough to dig; I am ashamed to beg.
I know what I shall do, so that when I am removed from
this stewardship, they will receive me into their homes.’
And he summoned each one of his master’s debtors,
and he began saying to the first, ‘How much do you owe my
master?’
And he said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ And he said
to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’
Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’
And he said, ’A hundred measures of wheat.’ He said to him.
‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’
And his master praised the unrighteous steward because
he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd
in relation to their own kind than the sons of light.”
Professor Gould shed some light upon a gloomy topic. Statistics, ah, in college I spent a year deriving formulas by hand just in case our computers crashed. Through all the exercise of tangent and co-tangent, designing experiments and penning down conclusions, never mind their significance; we learned that Professor Gould was right. Statistics can be so stretched. And there is that mystical point where truth gives way to lies and lies fade into truth. “It’s all relative? To what? To whom?” My answers came from the study of theology.
What appeals to me in the above scripture appears in its preface, “this steward was reported to him as squandering his possessions.” Professor Gould dazzles the reader with his understanding and definitions. But the point in Luke’s account is that there shall be a day of accounting where the mean and the median will be required for each of us.Yes, attitude is everything. At times my hardest struggle is just to get up in the morning. Deep, throbbing pain in my side demands attention. So I pop some pain meds and lay back down pondering what heaven will be like when we receive new bodies that never break down, get sick, wrestle with illness or suffer!
So thank you again. I’ll be seeking to be in the distribution of those who thrive even in the midst and realities of diseased bodies. The steward was wise in how he finally got those uncollectible accounts to pay up. It wasn’t the full measure but something is better than nothing. I suspect his employer had been trying to receive payment for years from his debtors. This shrewd servant found a way to endear himself with his master and those who owed him money.
My prayer for you and yours this holiday season is that you make time to celebrate the little things, the kindnesses and tenderness afoot from strangers, friends and family. Perhaps we as sons of light might advance those in our sphere of influence to reconsider the glory of Christmas, the cheer of Thanksgiving and fulfill the goals our master bids us do in 2011.
God Bless,
Charles Van Kirk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)