From the CBS Early Show Do you agree with this thought?

[whatz]

I agree with all of ya'll :-). I do second Ellie that I have a sneaky suspicion that stress makes us more vulnerable and also believe that the reason for the vulnerability is a weakened immune system. That said...a positive attitude would technically reduce stress and therefore help in that aspect. Can it cure cancer by itself? I believe not(!) for all the reasons so eloquently stated in earlier posts.

[Becky]

There have been studies that show no correlation between attitude and survival. That said, I feel it can't hurt to be positive as it makes the time you have left on earth (be it a day or 100 years) that much more enjoyable. Even if cancer wins, you win too as the disease did not also take joy from your life and those around you.

Also, I would think that it does help somewhat and keep you healthier overall in mind and spirit. Depression makes you sick all over.

[Hopeful]

There have been some interesting articles that have studied the effect of both stress and loneliness and the changes they induce to our biology:

http://her2support.org/vbulletin/sho...eferrerid=1173

http://her2support.org/vbulletin/sho...eferrerid=1173

I don't think the absence of a positive attitude per se affects survival, but I do think that anything that induces an inflammatory response in the body runs counter to it.

Hopeful

[Mary L]

I think having a good attitude and attacking your cancer feeling you CAN beat it is better than being depressed and feeling sorry for yourself going through treatment. Does it cure cancer....no but it sure might help. Mary L

[Lani]

I remember reading years ago that stuidies is the medical literature have failed to show a difference in overall survival between those with positive fighting attitudes and those without as I understand it (leaving out those with absolutely depression who fail to get their treatment, whether radiation therapy of endocrine therapy--as much as they can tell the latter).I never bothered to pay mich attention as I thought it was difficult to quantify the former or the latter(let alone the last)

Just thought you might want to see what MedPage Today wrote about the Douglas pronouncement--

my comment--just like breast cancer, throat cancer comes in a lot of different varieties, so talking about statistics and response to treatment of throat cancer as a whole may not be appropriate. It depends on ithe biology of the specific subset.

here we go:

By Kristina Fiore, Staff Writer, MedPage Today
Published: January 11, 2011

After months of radiation and chemotherapy for late-stage throat cancer, actor Michael Douglas is tumor-free, he told NBC's "Today Show" viewers this morning.

Not a trace of the stage-IV, walnut-sized tumor at the base of his tongue could be detected on medical imaging, Douglas said.

That's a signal, researchers told MedPage Today and ABC News, of complete response to treatment.

Yet they caution that the 66-year-old Douglas is hardly out of the woods.

"We always hope that our treatments cure the patient, but the reality is that even in the absence of detectable disease, he is at risk for recurrence," Scott Strome, MD, chair of head and neck surgery at the University of Maryland in Baltimore, wrote in an e-mail.

It is typical for this type of cancer -- even at stage-IV -- to be in complete remission at this point, according to Gregory T. Wolf, MD, chair emeritus of the University of Michigan Hospitals in Ann Arbor.

Prognosis, however, depends significantly on the biology of the tumor.

Tongue-base cancers that are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) infection "have excellent 'cure' rates [measured by five-year survival] in the range of 70% to 80%, regardless of tumor stage," Wolf said.

But those rates are diminished for patients whose cancer is likely tied to smoking and drinking.

Ted Teknos, MD, chair of head and neck surgery at Ohio State University Cancer Center in Columbus, said five-year survival for tumors related to smoking alone is about 30% to 40%.

Patients whose tumor is associated with a combination of HPV and smoking have cure rates somewhere in between those figures.

It is not clear whether Douglas' cancer was positive for HPV, but the actor has admitted to smoking and drinking rather heavily. If solely based on smoking and drinking, his risk of recurrence is about 50%, Wolf estimated.

The next step for the actor will be a follow-up scan in three months, which the MedPage Today sources say can provide a good idea about the possibility of a cure, but is by no means absolute. The greatest risk of recurrence is in the first two years.

Douglas had been receiving radiation and chemotherapy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York since September.

The actor has reported problems swallowing, a typical side effect of treatment as radiation has closed down salivary ducts. He also reported losing 32 pounds during treatment.

Christine Gourin, MD, professor of otolaryngology at Johns Hopkins University, said that while labeling Douglas as "cured" is at least five years off, this first step provides some good news.

"We don't know the future," she wrote in an e-mail, "but in the face of a complete response to treatment there is every reason to be optimistic."

This article was developed in collaboration with ABC News.

[PinkGirl]

You can't dismiss the role of a positive attitude ... but ... these kinds of comments drive me CRAZY ... look what it did to my hair ...

Sign me up for the Crap Shoot Society. How do you explain the dead
positive people and the living SOB's??? To me this is just another way
of blaming the patient ... this disease can take it's course regardless of
our attitudes.

That being said, I think stress puts added pressure on our bodies and
being happy and positive can't hurt ... but geez ... to say that Michael Douglas went into his treatments determined to beat the cancer ... so did I .. . celebrities shouldn't throw this crap in our faces .. it's not fair ... they aren't experts in anything ...