Viewer discretion is advised. And while you may not consider it a quote from the film, per se, it is the lens through which we begin to view it. But not all cancer patients and caregivers chose to tune in, as evidence on social media showed. As a former caregiver and patient myself, I felt that acutely. Indeed, there were parts of the film that were extremely difficult to watch, even in the more innocuous-seeming historical portions.
It is a medical document, detailing conditions and treatments. We pan along the ancient document, and are told of a reference to breast cancer. Night one of the film was difficult, and unflinching. And like the experience of cancer itself, probably different for everyone.
What moments were most poignant for you? On Twitter? Follow us at CancerResearch and join the conversation by including CancerFilm in your tweets. Help us cheer on our Team CRI members who have been not only training for a marathon, but also helping to raise funds for a future immune to cancer. The Chinese believed that an emperor's right to rule was bestowed by heaven. If the emperor failed to govern responsibly or mistreated the people, his right to rule - the 'Mandate of Heaven' - could be withdrawn.
Natural disasters such as floods or famines could also be seen as evidence that the emperor had lost the support of heaven - and should be overthrown. Imagine you have gone back in time, and you are a Chinese emperor. How would you run your empire? Take the quiz and see which famous emperor you would have been. Empress Wu was the only woman in Chinese history who took the title emperor.
The daughter of a timber trader, she became a palace maid when she was fourteen, and then a concubine. She took the throne and proclaimed herself emperor in She was ruthless, and politically astute, having numerous rivals killed, including people in her family. But the people prospered under her rule - she improved the examination system, and promoted economic growth. She circulated texts that predicted the reincarnation of the Buddha Maitreya as a woman, under whom the world would be free of all troubles.
She was finally deposed in , when she was over eighty years old. Many stories about Empress Wu are inflienced by prejudice against her, both as a usurper, and as a woman. You are most like Tang Taizong!
Good news! He is thought of as one of China's greatest emperors. A dynamic leader, he expanded the territory of the empire, giving Tang China great international prestige. He promoted able men, and encouraged them to voice their opinions freely. He was ruthless - he even killed two brothers to take the throne - and at the end of his life he quarrelled with his ministers.
But overall he was hard working, wise, and he cared about the people - and the empire prospered. Happy days! Sounds like you are the Hongwu Emperor The founder of the Ming, and a hugely influential ruler of China. Ruthless on his path to power, he was suspicious and vicious as emperor, instilling terror in his ministers and killing thousands in vicious purges. He worked immensely hard, a control freak who trusted noone. Hongwu's experience as the son of a poor peasant meant that he never forgot the plight of the common people, and his harsh policies were rooted in a passionate determination to rid the world of evil.
Oh my, you are just like Kangxi, possibly the greatest ruler China ever had. He consolidated Manchu rule over China, and expanded the empire - personally leading his troops in campaigns against the Mongols. But what that discounts is a steady upward trajectory in knowledge.
Already, immunotherapy, probably the most exciting new avenue of cancer therapy, is making a significant difference. These clinical trials are extremely promising for a certain subset of cancers. BG: The most common cancers are also the hardest to attack with conventional therapies. All the smoking-related cancers, including lung and kidney cancer, and also melanoma, have too many mutations to target with drugs. On the other hand, those cancer cells look very different from healthy cells and are more vulnerable to immunotherapy.
The ones in the middle are going to be the biggest problem. MJ: Your film really underscores the hubris of the medical profession—the jealous guarding of clinical turf against emerging facts. It covers, for example, how radical mastectomy was developed on the false assumption that cancers grow in an orderly pattern.
Will you talk about what happened when Dr. Bernard Fischer challenged that prevailing dogma? BG: With radical mastectomy there was a very logical assumption that the more you cut out, the more lives you save, but it was never subjected to clinical trials.
In fact, there were no such thing as clinical trials when it was first developed. Bernie Fischer just had a very independent streak and was not someone who accepted received wisdom without question—and he was tough enough to undergo the bruising that happened when he proposed clinical trials on radical mastectomy.
He was cut off from his grants. He was vilified. He was ostracized. It takes someone like that to puncture these entrenched ideas. BG: Huge debt! He is one of the real heroes of the cancer story. MJ: Would breast cancer treatment have developed differently had it mainly affected men?
BG: Without a doubt. It took not only Bernie Fischer, but the activism of women with breast cancer to overturn that. This cycle of optimism followed by disappointment—the only solution is to subject these things to disciplined trials. In the case of Herceptin, Genentech responsibly resisted opening its trials to lots of women who simply wanted the drug.
MJ: Knowing everything you know, how do you suppose you would approach treatment if you were diagnosed?
0コメント