My grandmother died last Spring at 79 from what started out as a UTI, then escalated to sepsis, then multiorgan failure (something was wrong with her lymphatic system and that was leaving fluid in her lungs, making it difficult to breathe- causing her lungs to shut down, and then her kidneys failed, then her heart). I would guess that smoking had something to do with it. She was also a hip cancer survivor, and her husband (my grandfather) a prostate cancer survivor. This is what got them to quit for good.
I think itās ironic that Limbaugh is bringing out the compassion in all of us. Thatās a good sign. The only thing that will save America is finding common ground. If not, things will get only get worse.
4 Likes
I have been saying the same thing for a couple of years, my friend. Iām glad we could put our differences aside, at least for this issue.
No worries.
Congratulations. My grandfather quit in the 80ās (I think it was) during the great American smoke out. He passed away at 88, mostly natural causes.
I quit for 4 years after my son was born. (Sold my motorcycle too) 
Picked them back up at a horse race after a few beers. 2 years later Iām back on the wagon, cigarette wise.
1 Like
As long as you agree with me, weāll get along famously!
If you meet me half way, weāre good!
Enlightened input, as always. 
Iām sorry for your loss. 
As was mentioned, cancer sucks.
1 Like
I want to cut goverment spending across the board by 75 percent except for SS. Medicare and freeze military budgetā¦or even cut that 5 percent per year for next 5 years.
1 Like
But enough of talks of death. Praying for Gods healing touch.
OK. Just cannot digest that right now. On my way to the Sandman. Work out my 67 year-old bod at 5:30. Catch you on the flip side.
I hope for speedy recovery. Heās irreplaceable IMO.
1 Like
What sort of āscreeningā is given for lung cancer? The one above? The test first time I saw it on the job 20 odd years ago there was a higher set of normal values for smokers than non smokers.
Iāve really never understood āscreeningsā. Thatās one of my issues with mammograms before menopauseāthey lead many women to unnecessary redos and further testing like breast ultrasound and biopsy (most breast biopsies donāt have any cancer).
If ultrasound is a better way of getting a look at breast tissue to either bring the patients home until next year or bringāem in for biopsy, why not replace mammograms altogether with ultrasound?
I donāt believe that. I find it hard to believe when one, they still donāt know what causes cancer specifically, and two, I have members in my family who have gotten it and never smoked a day in their lives. Besides which thereās enough poisons in the air, water, and food now (government approved no less) that it really doesnāt matter what you do now. Just wait until 5G comes out. Weāll either find a cure, evolve, or die off eventually. It is what it is.
Thoughts and prayers.
https://time.com/5777544/shannen-doherty-cancer-stage-4/
Hereās another revealing a late stage diagnosis. Problem may have gotten diagnosed late in the first place due to her business managers irresponsibly allowing her health insurance to lapse.
Am really sorry to hear this.
Lung cancer in non smokers is more common than one would think.
Iāve listened to Mr. Limbaugh for years, had the radio on through my phone yesterday at a late lunch when he made his announcement. It was a stunning moment.
I really want to compliment everyone on this forum, itās wonderful to see everyone coming together to wish him well. Thank you.
I looked at the FoxNews site last night and multiple just vicious comments came with the reporting. Sad.
2 Likes
Iām a (Interventional) Radiologist. Ultrasound is not better than mammograms or tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening. For screening exams you have to balance sensitivity (the test is able to detect the majority of cancers) and specificity (the test doesnāt give a lot of false positives). Mammography is the gold standard for breast cancer screening because it is sensitive and relatively specific.
Some have attempted to use ultrasound for primary screening. When used that way, breast cancer screening ultrasounds have an unacceptably high miss rate. They do not detect cancers with any degree of confidence.
There has been a trend for non-qualified physicians or other providers to get ahold of an ultrasound machine and tell people they can give accurate, painless, radiation-free breast cancer screenings which are ābetterā than mammography. Run the other way. I have seen too many women with advanced breast cancer who were reassured for years that an ultrasound said there was nothing to worry about. (Also read the fine print about how the ultrasounds are not a substitute for mammography.)
Ultrasound is a great tool for further evaluating findings on mammography. Tomosynthesis (3D mammography) has improved the false positive rate of conventional mammography.
Ideally, weād have a screening test that detects every cancer and is never wrong. We donāt have that in breast cancer or any screening test. We will always have false positives, and the stress on the patient (and physician) as a patient is undergoing diagnosis sucks. However, ultrasound as a screening tool still has the false positives while missing a magnitude higher or more of cancers that are really there.
Iāll get off my soapbox. This is an area pretty close to home.
4 Likes
