That is an interesting question. I think it’s be
Post# of 153822
(Total Views: 744)
Posted On: 05/10/2020 7:23:17 AM
That is an interesting question. I think it’s because when a researcher/doctor decides to prove a theory they look to prove or disprove it before anything else. Clearly IL-6 targeting has some effect. Most likely they never bothered to look deeper because they’d proved their theory. (This is a broad assumption but I do think it mostly applies)
Here’s an example of that sort of narrow focus from my personal life...
My father had a bad back. Disc problems. Had to take a lot of pain meds at times just to be able to do the one thing he loved most, golfing. He decided, a couple of years ago, to finally get surgery. In October of that year, after lots of appointments, x-rays, and tests they got him under the knife for a discectomy and some other major thing in his lower back. By February it seemed the good results were getting worse again and by May he was dead of the stage 4 intestinal cancer that had spread unnoticed throughout his stomach the whole time. How nobody noticed he had significant cancer through all the poking and prodding and x-rays is a really tough thing for me to reckon with. Seems impossible. But they were zeroing in on his discs and not bothering to look at anything else. I don’t think they did anything wrong. They did a great job of diagnosing and fixing his back problems. But similar to how they are trained to look at a patient’s symptoms and draw the most obvious conclusion (working down from there) before ever drawing the more obscure conclusion, I can see this kind of missed opportunity playing out in research all the time since the body is so complex.
Here’s an example of that sort of narrow focus from my personal life...
My father had a bad back. Disc problems. Had to take a lot of pain meds at times just to be able to do the one thing he loved most, golfing. He decided, a couple of years ago, to finally get surgery. In October of that year, after lots of appointments, x-rays, and tests they got him under the knife for a discectomy and some other major thing in his lower back. By February it seemed the good results were getting worse again and by May he was dead of the stage 4 intestinal cancer that had spread unnoticed throughout his stomach the whole time. How nobody noticed he had significant cancer through all the poking and prodding and x-rays is a really tough thing for me to reckon with. Seems impossible. But they were zeroing in on his discs and not bothering to look at anything else. I don’t think they did anything wrong. They did a great job of diagnosing and fixing his back problems. But similar to how they are trained to look at a patient’s symptoms and draw the most obvious conclusion (working down from there) before ever drawing the more obscure conclusion, I can see this kind of missed opportunity playing out in research all the time since the body is so complex.
(5)
(0)