The Lemon Fool

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... hannah-fry

An excellent and very raw look at cancer diagnosis and treatment by the mathematician Dr Hannah Fry but with the staggering twist that she is the subject as well as the presenter.

Unbelievable bravery from her to start this programme in the knowledge that she may not have been alive at the end of it!

Well worth a watch to see why some of the statistics behind common cancer treatment might not be telling you what you think.

Fascinating that when asked what improvement in their chances would persuade cancer patients to go through chemotherapy, normal patients siggest a 0.1% better outcome would be sufficient, When asked the same question oncologists say 25% improvement would be necessary for themselves.

Well worth a view.

John

Thanks John
Hannah being the subject came a shock to me
I have alway liked her way of presenting

redsturgeon wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0017wzq/horizon-2022-making-sense-of-cancer-with-hannah-fry

An excellent and very raw look at cancer diagnosis and treatment by the mathematician Dr Hannah Fry but with the staggering twist that she is the subject as well as the presenter.

Unbelievable bravery from her to start this programme in the knowledge that she may not have been alive at the end of it!

Well worth a watch to see why some of the statistics behind common cancer treatment might not be telling you what you think.

Indeed so, I saw the programme myself.

redsturgeon wrote:Fascinating that when asked what improvement in their chances would persuade cancer patients to go through chemotherapy, normal patients siggest a 0.1% better outcome would be sufficient, When asked the same question oncologists say 25% improvement would be necessary for themselves.

I remember that too. At the time though the thougt occurred to me: "That is the answer given by (presumably) healthy oncologists. Would they give the same answer if they had been diagnosed with cancer?"

redsturgeon wrote:Well worth a watch to see why some of the statistics behind common cancer treatment might not be telling you what you think.

This sounds like it was covering some of the same ground as one of my favourite essays, by Stephen Jay Gould - again based on personal experience.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/ar ... ge/2013-01

XFool wrote:I remember that too. At the time though the thougt occurred to me: "That is the answer given by (presumably) healthy oncologists. Would they give the same answer if they had been diagnosed with cancer?"

I suspect so - they've had plenty of time to think about it and see the side-effects of treatment. Conversely, how many of the 0.1% have experienced those side-effects? I get the impression that the medical system is being more honest about that side of things, and more people are saying "OK, I'd rather have less quantity of life but with better quality".

To take a recent "celebrity" example, Andy Goram has been given 6 months to live, but turned down chemo that would have added three months.

I'm only halfway through it
The opening 10 seconds are so powerful
what an attitude.... how brave
best of luck to her

redsturgeon wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0017wzq/horizon-2022-making-sense-of-cancer-with-hannah-fry

An excellent and very raw look at cancer diagnosis and treatment by the mathematician Dr Hannah Fry but with the staggering twist that she is the subject as well as the presenter.

Oh no! One of my favourite science presenters.

For those that prefer to watch or record it live it's on BBC2 tonight at 11:15pm. I'll catch it then.

Well worth watching
a bit harrowing in places
top marks to all those in the show

redsturgeon wrote:Fascinating that when asked what improvement in their chances would persuade cancer patients to go through chemotherapy, normal patients siggest a 0.1% better outcome would be sufficient, When asked the same question oncologists say 25% improvement would be necessary for themselves.

I expect part of the reason is that the oncologists understand percentages whereas most of the population would struggle to do a simple percentage calculation.

MrFoolish wrote:I expect part of the reason is that the oncologists understand percentages whereas most of the population would struggle to do a simple percentage calculation.

If that is really the case (which it may well be) that is a sad refection on the education system

Watched it on iplayer last night after reading this, thanks for posting. The bit I didn't quite catch was whether or not they found anything in the lymph nodes, if not then that part of the already radical surgery was unnecessary in hind sight. Now she has to deal with the lymphoedema.

Hard hitting but very interesting programme.

A friend of mine had the lymph nodes removed from his legs
This was 5 months ago, he was in bed for 3 months unable to walk
They had to "stretch" another muscle to replace the ones removed
He stiil has good and bad days , with no idea whether it gets better or is for life

pje16 wrote:

MrFoolish wrote:I expect part of the reason is that the oncologists understand percentages whereas most of the population would struggle to do a simple percentage calculation.

If that is really the case (which it may well be) that is a sad refection on the education system

Some here will know that I've had my own run-in with cancer (three baddies), and that although I didn't have to have any lymph nodes removed like Ms Fry did, it was a close run thing. So I've waited till now to find a quiet moment to watch this video - my wife has got enough on her plate without having to deal with me sobbing at the TV with empathy. (Oh, I did.... )

But I was struck by how my own perception of Hannah Fry's conclusions differed from some others here. To me, she was talking, from her own personal experience, about how a cancer diagnosis can throw all the cold mathematics out of the window - and how patients will go for the treatment options even if their effectiveness is not guaranteed. (And even if the maths says that they might not be needed at all.) Because, at the end of the day, it's their body, and they've only got the one life, and they can't face the idea of their families losing them, and so they're going to leave no stone unturned. Is that so illogical?

Yes, absolutely. Logically, it's illogical. But, having demonstrated incredibly well what the mathematics say, she concludes (at the 49 minute mark of the video, https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... hannah-fry):

"I've found a fundamental disconnect, really, between what the numbers say, and what it actually feels like when you're the number."

It surely does! Nailed it completely.

Me, I spent a week in numb shock, and then I started doing exactly what the hospital was telling me, so that they could get on with removing another nine bits besides the three baddies that they'd already taken. It wouldn't have crossed my mind to do anything else. But then, of course, I wasn't in an imminent end-of-life situation, so the stakes weren't so high. I was totally impressed by the young man who decided to stop the chemo so that he could ride his bike in Scotland for another year or so. And totally unsurprised by the two women who went for the chemo despite the state of the odds. Funny business, logic. That was my takeaway from this video.

BJ

bungeejumper wrote:But I was struck by how my own perception of Hannah Fry's conclusions differed from some others here. To me, she was talking, from her own personal experience, about how a cancer diagnosis can throw all the cold mathematics out of the window - and how patients will go for the treatment options even if their effectiveness is not guaranteed. (And even if the maths says that they might not be needed at all.) Because, at the end of the day, it's their body, and they've only got the one life, and they can't face the idea of their families losing them, and so they're going to leave no stone unturned. Is that so illogical?

Yes, absolutely. Logically, it's illogical. But, having demonstrated incredibly well what the mathematics say, she concludes (at the 49 minute mark of the video, https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m ... hannah-fry):

"I've found a fundamental disconnect, really, between what the numbers say, and what it actually feels like when you're the number."

It surely does! Nailed it completely.

Indeed. I believe that is what I was getting at by my comment:

XFool wrote:At the time though the thoug(h)t occurred to me: "That is the answer given by (presumably) healthy oncologists. Would they give the same answer if they had been diagnosed with cancer?