Kate Middleton cancer in remission

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have always liked Kate, but this has made me like her less. She's in a position where she could raise awareness and reduce the stigma of cancer (especially if it's colon cancer) an she's chosen not to. I get that it's hard, but it's harder for everyone who doesn't have her resources. I so admire the celebrities who during tough personal times nevertheless use the experience to make a difference.

My guess is that she was treated outside the UK or had access to treatment regular people wouldn't and they don't want to publicize that.

Please let us know these celebrities who during tough personal times used the experience to make a difference!

The classic examples for me are Betty Ford with alcoholism and Shirley Temple Black with breast cancer. Both did a ton to bring these conditions out of the shadows.

So anything in the last 50-60 years? What lame examples.

DP. Lance Armstrong for one. Only good thing that despicable person did in his life. Angelina Jolie especially with increasing awareness with BRCA mutation.

Lance Armstrong founded the Livestrong Foundation AFTER he had underwent treatment. If I recall correctly, he didn't initially say it was testicular cancer. He said it was cancer, he went and got treatment. After he was done with treatment, he became a very visible public figure via the Livestrong Foundation and specified the cancer subtype.

Angelina Jolie did not have cancer. She had a BRCA mutation and chose to have a prophylactic double mastectomy with reconstruction. She did a world of good with her op-ed and going public. But she can't be PP's example, because she didn't have cancer.

PP criticizes Kate for not - and I quote - "mak[ing] a difference" in the first 12 months of diagnosis - i.e., while undergoing active treatment (chemotherapy). By her standards, Lance should've started his foundation while hooked up in the infusion chair - he waited until after he recovered. So Lance also didn't do cancer right. So once again, who did cancer "right"?

[Anonymous]

People should show her compassion. Unless you are in her shoes you have no idea what she’s going through.
I’m saying this as the wife of someone who was diagnosed with incurable cancer when my kids were approximately Catherine’s ages.
It’s an absolute nightmare.
There are no rules to get through it. People should do whatever they need to to deal with it, especially if there are children involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have always liked Kate, but this has made me like her less. She's in a position where she could raise awareness and reduce the stigma of cancer (especially if it's colon cancer) an she's chosen not to. I get that it's hard, but it's harder for everyone who doesn't have her resources. I so admire the celebrities who during tough personal times nevertheless use the experience to make a difference.

My guess is that she was treated outside the UK or had access to treatment regular people wouldn't and they don't want to publicize that.

This is why she hasn’t said more. Right here. Or the PP guessing it’s ED related.

This is her body. She gets to say whatever she wants or doesn’t want to say about her body. Right?

All you ghouls and misogynists will just have to get used to disappointment.

I guess? What I liked about her was that she seemed like a regular person who had consciously taken on this public role and was taking it seriously. Her public persona of making appearances, looking polished and appropriate, seeming to care, seeming to be invested in raising her kids to be nice and as normal as possible...it seemed like she was not just a royal twit but someone who viewed her job as almost a sacred duty. And I get she's a human who might want privacy. But the confusing and contradictory statements, the AI photos, the maybe AI video announcement, the lack of doing even the most basic easy stuff, like thanking health care providers, the announcements now that she's not planning to do much work in the future....it doesn't accord with her image. Makes it seem like she's not who we thought.

Basic easy stuff? Really? With cancer? And three young children? Do you really think any of this has been easy for her? Esp with people like you sniffing around for personal details.

It's not like she runs her own social media--couldn't a PR person post something? She has nannies to care for the 3 kids, doesn't have to cook her own meals or clean her own house or go to work each day. Surely she might have a smidge of extra capacity compared to a regular person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Katie Curic and colon cancer.

And breast cancer

Yes, Katie did a ton to normalize colonsocopies even amid her grief. It was brave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have always liked Kate, but this has made me like her less. She's in a position where she could raise awareness and reduce the stigma of cancer (especially if it's colon cancer) an she's chosen not to. I get that it's hard, but it's harder for everyone who doesn't have her resources. I so admire the celebrities who during tough personal times nevertheless use the experience to make a difference.

My guess is that she was treated outside the UK or had access to treatment regular people wouldn't and they don't want to publicize that.

Please let us know these celebrities who during tough personal times used the experience to make a difference!

The classic examples for me are Betty Ford with alcoholism and Shirley Temple Black with breast cancer. Both did a ton to bring these conditions out of the shadows.

So anything in the last 50-60 years? What lame examples.

DP. Lance Armstrong for one. Only good thing that despicable person did in his life. Angelina Jolie especially with increasing awareness with BRCA mutation.

Lance Armstrong founded the Livestrong Foundation AFTER he had underwent treatment. If I recall correctly, he didn't initially say it was testicular cancer. He said it was cancer, he went and got treatment. After he was done with treatment, he became a very visible public figure via the Livestrong Foundation and specified the cancer subtype.

Angelina Jolie did not have cancer. She had a BRCA mutation and chose to have a prophylactic double mastectomy with reconstruction. She did a world of good with her op-ed and going public. But she can't be PP's example, because she didn't have cancer.

PP criticizes Kate for not - and I quote - "mak[ing] a difference" in the first 12 months of diagnosis - i.e., while undergoing active treatment (chemotherapy). By her standards, Lance should've started his foundation while hooked up in the infusion chair - he waited until after he recovered. So Lance also didn't do cancer right. So once again, who did cancer "right"?

It would be wonderful if she does something like this at a future point. Do you think she will?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have always liked Kate, but this has made me like her less. She's in a position where she could raise awareness and reduce the stigma of cancer (especially if it's colon cancer) an she's chosen not to. I get that it's hard, but it's harder for everyone who doesn't have her resources. I so admire the celebrities who during tough personal times nevertheless use the experience to make a difference.

My guess is that she was treated outside the UK or had access to treatment regular people wouldn't and they don't want to publicize that.

This is why she hasn’t said more. Right here. Or the PP guessing it’s ED related.

This is her body. She gets to say whatever she wants or doesn’t want to say about her body. Right?

All you ghouls and misogynists will just have to get used to disappointment.

I guess? What I liked about her was that she seemed like a regular person who had consciously taken on this public role and was taking it seriously. Her public persona of making appearances, looking polished and appropriate, seeming to care, seeming to be invested in raising her kids to be nice and as normal as possible...it seemed like she was not just a royal twit but someone who viewed her job as almost a sacred duty. And I get she's a human who might want privacy. But the confusing and contradictory statements, the AI photos, the maybe AI video announcement, the lack of doing even the most basic easy stuff, like thanking health care providers, the announcements now that she's not planning to do much work in the future....it doesn't accord with her image. Makes it seem like she's not who we thought.

Basic easy stuff? Really? With cancer? And three young children? Do you really think any of this has been easy for her? Esp with people like you sniffing around for personal details.

It's not like she runs her own social media--couldn't a PR person post something? She has nannies to care for the 3 kids, doesn't have to cook her own meals or clean her own house or go to work each day. Surely she might have a smidge of extra capacity compared to a regular person?

Oh my goodness. She had cancer. Cancer. Think about what you just said. She does have to use any extra capacity she does have when dealing with cancer on you. Not even a smidge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have always liked Kate, but this has made me like her less. She's in a position where she could raise awareness and reduce the stigma of cancer (especially if it's colon cancer) an she's chosen not to. I get that it's hard, but it's harder for everyone who doesn't have her resources. I so admire the celebrities who during tough personal times nevertheless use the experience to make a difference.

My guess is that she was treated outside the UK or had access to treatment regular people wouldn't and they don't want to publicize that.

Please let us know these celebrities who during tough personal times used the experience to make a difference!

The classic examples for me are Betty Ford with alcoholism and Shirley Temple Black with breast cancer. Both did a ton to bring these conditions out of the shadows.

This whole Raising Awareness canard is so incredibly absurd. There are no currently sentient people - without serious intellectual disability at least - who are unaware of cancer in all of its various forms. You want to gossip, just own it. Set yourself free, babe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It matters the type because outcomes are different. If a patient doesn't reveal the cancer type, nothing else they say about their cancer is important or worth my attention.

Cancer is more than probability of death. You may very well discover that, since there's about a 1 in 2 chance you'll get it. Hopefully, when you're writhing in pain from surgery or chemo, no one says, "but what type? It matters for outcomes. Tell me or nothing you say is worth my attention."

I'm not PP, and don't agree with the last part of their comment, but the type/stage are relevant IMO. I come from a large family that has a ton of cancer problems - and its hard to see some of our relatives with stage 1 cancer of a type with a very high survival rate compare themselves to other relatives with stage 4 low survival type cancer. It sucks all around, but stage 1 cancer of some types is hardly the death sentence that stage 4 is for many. My father was diagnosed with stage 1 at 60 and lived until he was 85, my brother was diagnosed with stage 4 at 55 and lived just 4 years. So yeah, the stage and type matters in terms of how serious it is for most.

The American Cancer Society tracks survival rates for 22 types of cancer. The most recent reports show the five-year survival rate for 11 of those types of cancer ranges between 100% for prostate cancer to 90.9% for colon cancer. Here’s information on survival rates for other localized cancers:

Thyroid cancer, 99.9%.
Melanoma of skin, 99.6%.
Breast cancer, 99.3%.
Testicular cancer, 99.2%.
Uterine cancer, 94.9%.
Kidney cancer, 92.9%.
Ovarian cancer, 92.4%.
Hodgkin lymphoma, 92.2 %.
Cervical cancer, 91.2%.

What cancers have the lowest survival rates?
Esophageal cancer, 48.8%.
Pancreatic cancer, 44.3%.
Liver cancer and intrahepatic bile cancer, 37.3%.
Brain cancer, 36%.

These statistics are misleading because they look at 5 year survival. Early stage breast cancer is frequently cited as a highly survivable cancer. What these statistics don't show is that breast cancer eventually kills 25% of early stage breast cancer patients. Yes, you'll make it 5 years. But your odds of dying from it are still uncomfortably high.

[Anonymous]

Catherine was just at the hospital to raise awareness. It’s not necessary for her to provide the personal details of her disease and treatment to do that.

William and Catherine have consistently been the most popular members of the royal family since the death of HLMTQ. Only Americans are invested in Meghan v Catherine. UK decided long ago. Catherine had no need to perpetrate such a fraud, and it’s ugly to suggest that parents so loving would subject their children to such suffering.

[Anonymous]

I think the more Catherine feels comfortable with her remission the more open she’ll be to discussing her journey. Competing her to anyone is pointless.

I actually think RBG hiding her condition is something that has way more public relevance.

[Anonymous]

I just don't understand why neither she nor King Charles will say what kind of cancer they had. Aren't their whole "jobs" supposed to be to help people, raise awareness, blah, blah...couldn't they be a bigger help if they shared their own experiences?

For example, when Betty Ford had breast cancer and openly talked about it, she made it OK to talk about breast cancer.

https://cancerletter.com/in-the-archives/20210625_7/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why neither she nor King Charles will say what kind of cancer they had. Aren't their whole "jobs" supposed to be to help people, raise awareness, blah, blah...couldn't they be a bigger help if they shared their own experiences?

For example, when Betty Ford had breast cancer and openly talked about it, she made it OK to talk about breast cancer.

https://cancerletter.com/in-the-archives/20210625_7/

Why wasn’t it OK to talk about breast cancer before? Do those stigmas persist today?

Keep in mind she just finished active treatment. I can’t think of a single celebrity who was out raising awareness while undergoing active treatment. Can you?

Maybe she will make this a cause in the future, maybe she won’t. Give her a minute! I bet her blood work isn’t even back to normal yet!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don't understand why neither she nor King Charles will say what kind of cancer they had. Aren't their whole "jobs" supposed to be to help people, raise awareness, blah, blah...couldn't they be a bigger help if they shared their own experiences?

For example, when Betty Ford had breast cancer and openly talked about it, she made it OK to talk about breast cancer.

https://cancerletter.com/in-the-archives/20210625_7/

Why wasn’t it OK to talk about breast cancer before? Do those stigmas persist today?

Keep in mind she just finished active treatment. I can’t think of a single celebrity who was out raising awareness while undergoing active treatment. Can you?

Maybe she will make this a cause in the future, maybe she won’t. Give her a minute! I bet her blood work isn’t even back to normal yet!

It was considered shameful and improper to talk about breasts, let alone cancer. People suffered alone. My mom has said it was a HUGE thing when Betty Ford talked about it. It was mind-blowing at the time that someone famous and respected would admit to having breast cancer and speak openly and frankly about something so "private." To some degree that generation viewed illness as a moral failing. When my mom's grandmother had breast cancer, she didn't even tell her family.

Re: Kate, I mostly agree with you but we don't know if she just finished treatment or she finished six months ago. She hasn't said.

[Anonymous]

Saying she had cancer but being "private" perpetuates stigma. Should've just stfu.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saying she had cancer but being "private" perpetuates stigma. Should've just stfu.

How can something have a stigma that’s so pervasive?