Need help to improve my writing skills to ask better questions in medical threads

In My Humble Opinion
1

I need to improve my writing skills to ask better questions in medical threads.

I seem to have run into some problems with some of my medical threads with some members here.

1.One that I have clouded views that medical progressive needs to be accelerating faster and if it is not , it is failure or little to NO change.
2.Members proving me wrong that there has been change. But my clouded views and lack of English did not see it , I had to read it over again.
3.Not being able to communicate proper , where it come across I’m just pulling random numbers.

A lot problem with these medical threads I made.

1 I need to read more how the human body works ,biology, chemistry ,philosophy , anatomy , how drugs work ,research is done so on.
2 Better my self at English ,Math and reading numbers and my communication skills.
3 What they are working on and what is going on in the lab,

And last one may be hard , is I think my views are clouded that if there is not accelerating of progressive it is failure.

I think because of this I’m having hard time communicated in some of these threads and come across has a rent , debate or reading comprehension problem , of I explain it to you two or three times and you still do not get it.

That in 1970 cancer 5 year survival is 5% and in 2005 it is 10% is failure in my book , but in other members view is amazing!! That my views are , it has to be much better.Some thing more like 1970 cancer 5 year survival is 5% and in 2005 it is 40%.

I’m not sure getting a history book and reading on medical progress will help me much , because I think I have distorted thoughts that progress needs to be much faster.

I think part of the problem like I said in other threads here is when you look at computers and electronics they have changed very fast.Where 5 years ago there was no ipad even past two years the ipad is lot better and changed a lot.Computers are faster than they where in the 90’s.You got HD TV and now UHDTV ,DVD and now blue ray.

That first iPhone in 2007 and before that no iPhone and the progressive of smart phones and tablet computers. The ultra thin tablet computers and smart phones.

Well Computers ,electrons and engineering very different than the 90’s

Also media and pop science. Little what goes on in lab is talked about in the media and pop science unless it is wow factor , person cuts finger off and person grow new finger or stem cell to heal organ.That if it is not wow factor it is not talked about.

And because of this a illusions of disappointment of medical research.

I think some members here are very knowledgeable with medical subject and see past these things.

I think the only thing I can do is.

1 I need to read more how the human body works ,biology, chemistry ,philosophy , anatomy , how drugs work ,research is done so on.
2 Better my self at English ,Math and reading numbers and communication.
3 What they are working on and what is going on in the lab

And that medical research has made progress and will make progress in the future just not major change like my self and some public will like it too be.

That the war on cancer we have going on now , that if we DO NOT have a cure for most cancer in 50 years or 100 years from now it is NOT a failure. That it may be 150 to 200 years to most cancers have a cure.

That my views and some public have is not realistic and looking at medicine has much harder than Computers ,electrons and engineering and will progress slower than Computers ,electrons and engineering.
Anyways if anyone here has some pointers to help me out to make better threads on these medical subjects and where I’m running into problems with some of these threads and how I can educate my self to over come some of these views that may be not realistic.

2

Fist thing you must learn is to post in the proper forum.

3

Posting in the Pit is the first correct thing he’s done in a long time. People can give him the advice that he so desperately needs here.

4

Your first problem when it comes to understanding cancer is that you are thinking of it as one disease. It is actually a category of diseases, all of which have different causes and different treatments, and different survival rates.
A quick google search for “Cancer survival rates 1970” gave me this page: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/survival/common-cancers/ The page is statistics for England and Wales, but it shows that the 5-year survival rate for all cancer is 54%, while it was 25% in 1971. There has been much progress in some areas (Prostrate, Breast, Malignant Melanoma), and very little progress in others (Lung, Pancreas). There are many reasons why this is true. It could be money, it could be the number of researchers in each field. Overall, there has been much more progress than you think.

5

Okay I did not see that chart and in some areas it did made a lot of progress very much so improved in all areas like Testis ,Maligmant Melanoma ,Prostate ,Hodghkin Lymphoma ,Breast ,NHL ,Bowl ,Leukaemia.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@sta/documents/image/surv_common_change.png

Some other areas like Pacreas ,Lung, Oesophagus ,Brain,Stomach very little.

Perchance this one thing I over looked in those thread. I did not know that or why that was case.

6

Moved to IMHO.

7

sweat209, your OP is a little bit of TL;DR for me. However, I CAN improve your medical questions threads by at least a little bit, by offering you one simple fact. If you keep this fact in mind, and modify your behavior accordingly, your threads will be better:

A space ALWAYS goes AFTER a comma; NEVER BEFORE.

Here’s an example of what I mean. From your post #5:

Properly following the rule I’ve given you will lead to it reading:

That’s much better, and I haven’t even corrected any of the misspelled words!

8

You also need to look at breakdowns of cancers by age groups. Children with cancer are surviving to adulthood. Old people with cancer are not surviving very long, but their life expectancy was not very long anyway. When someone who is 86 is diagnosed with stage two cancer, and given three years to live, that means surviving until age 89. That is still longer than the typical lifespan by several years.

What you need to look at in the case of elderly cancer patients in not the number of years they survive post-diagnosis, but their quality of life-- pain control, for example, and whether the cancer causes neurological deterioration.

And while some cancer patients do not live very much longer, their quality of life post-diagnosis has improved. Even immediately after, when they undergo chemotherapy, which can be grueling, has improved, with much better drugs for nausea. It used to be that people on chemo had to take leaves of absence from work. Now, many can keep working, even though it isn’t a walk in the park, it is bearable. 20 years ago, often the post-chemo vomiting was so bad, people needed to stay in the hospital to receive intravenous fluids. Now, this usually isn’t necessary.

Also, in 1970, there were still people who died without ever being diagnosed, so technically, those people had a 0 survival rate because the diagnosis came after death, but they are not counted in statistics. This almost never happens anymore, unless you are a Christian Scientist, or something. Pretty much everyone gets a shot at some care, and that effects statistics. It means that the most aggressive cancers are probably not represented in the “5 years” of 1970s, but are represented in today’s stats.

Try looking at something like childhood leukemia. In 1970, it was rare for a child to live more than a few years. Now it has a very high cure rate. Actual cure, where a child is cancer-free, and will have a normal, or near-normal lifespan-- sometimes they have residua, like needing to take growth hormones, because the therapy interfered with their ability to make it naturally, but those things can all be treated and are not life-threatening.

9

I’m not sure how much anyone can help you if you think advances in biology should take place at the same rate as technology.

Is there no research or studies or publishing done in your native tongue? I would think it would help with comprehension of the larger subjects, before you try to talk about specifics in a language you feel less comfortable with.

10

Despite the massive word salad you’ve thrown up there, sweat, the problem here is not your writing skills, or your English, or any of that nonsense. Those are excuses you hide behind.

The problem is that you are dedicated to a particular point of view on medical progress, and that point of view is just plain flat-out wrong, by any measure. And you seem to utterly refuse to admit that, on any level. Every time evidence is presented or an argument is laid out showing that you’re wrong, your only response is either more word salad or “Oh, you guys just don’t get what I’m saying,” or “Oh, my English must be really bad.”

Yes, you suck at communicating. But we’re used to that around here. We get what you’re saying, and I think you get what we’re saying. You just don’t LIKE having to face facts that disagree with you, and you keep squirming around trying to find an excuse to not believe them.

11

A thumbs up for options #1 and #3.

#2 is much less important.

12

Suggestion 1:
There is NO part of human science or technology that has progressed nearly as fast as computers in the last 40ish years. NONE. Nor is there any historical precedent of ANY area of human technology making double-every-18-months progress over even a few years, much less 4-plus decades.

So holding computers or IT as a ruler up to ANY area of human endeavor guarantees that that area looks pitifully slow & plodding.

So don’t use that as your standard of comparison.
Suggestion 2:
A good GQ says in effect “Educate me about this topic.” Not “I already believe such-and-such about this topic. Prove to me that I’m wrong or confused.”

An even better GQ question is much more specific than “Educate me about this topic.”. It’s more like “I read this reputable source [link here], which says this. But I don’t understand this small part of it. Somebody help me get these details right.”
Suggestion 3:
SLOW DOWN when you write. Do NOT just bash out a bunch of words & hit [Post].

I’m assuming you can write a coherent paragraph in whatever your native language is. So do that. Write your question in your native language. Work on it until it reads as well, as sensibly and understandably, as any textbook or newspaper article in your native language.

Then translate that to English. Use a translation website if necessary to get you started.

Bottom line:

We want to help, we really do. We enjoy helping. But posters who are native English speakers who just slam out a bunch of half-thought out words as fast as their fingers will go then hit [Post] don’t get good service here because their style doesn’t mesh with ours.

You write like those folks. Your less-than-ideal English skills don’t help, but they are NOT the root of your problems expressing yourself. The problem is you’re not making sense in any language because you’re simply typing the jumble of thoughts bouncing around in your head.

Everybody has jumbled thoughts. The thing that separates a kid texting from someone who can write clearly and persuasively is that they know how to tame the jumble before they hit [Post].

13

That what I said. That it seems my views on medicine are faulty , probably shaped by Hollywood and media.That I’m NOT looking at medicine at being very complex and hard , compared to computers ,electronics and engineering .

And like some members said in many threads we made lots of progress but my biased views don’t seem to appreciate that because that not good enough in my book.I don’t understand the complexity of medicine.

Like I said in other thread why we don’t have cure for.

-liver failure
-kidney failure
-Parkinson
-spinal cord injury
-diabetes
-stroke patients
-Multiple sclerosis
-neuron disease
-autoimmune disease and MS

I don’t understand the diseases vs condition or the complexity of these.

When I complain why is it like this ,or not like that :eek::eek:, or should be like that members don’t understand me.

There no disappointing medicine is better today than 30 years ago and day and night 100 years ago. But I seem to think should be faster and better.

And that in 50’s or 100 years from know all cancers 5 years survival rate should be close to 100% or at least 90%

And I think that is the problem here.

Like I said in other thread there needs to be better communication with doctors scientists, researchers and the uneducated public , polluted by media ,pop science and Hollywood.

So the media ,pop science and Hollywood understands medicine is complex and hard and will not progress at rate like computers ,electronics and engineering. And for the media and pop science to stop looking for wow factor.

And if the public wants medicine to progress bit faster start calling your congressman and senators for more money or government agencies like the CDC.

We spend more on wars than any thing else.

Those web sites I read probably made my views on medicine more biased posting in these threads.

And those conspiracy theories web sites and web sites saying the war on cancer is failure are probably saying that because we have not won the war or looks like we will in 50 years from now.

Unfortunately it may take trillions of dollars and 150 years to 200 years to win the war not what public has in mind.

14

To bad the media and pop science can’t say that. The media and pop science not saying that you think little has change.

Also like some posters said in other threads there are cases where people survival cancer to get other cancer.

One and three people will get cancer in their life and one and two of them will die from cancer.And like people said in other thread there are cases people survival cancer to get other cancer.

May be if they understand why the human body is getting cancer it will be easier for cure.