This is pretty funny stuff. I just love the multiple ways to get your thesis to stick.

First, compare it to a metastasis. Completely irrelevant.
Then get actual source that disputes you verbatim. "Random Source"
Then there is a bunch of ignoring actually salient points. Classic ikes.

The bottom line here is you're wrong. I know this is probably mind boggling to you but tumors can be classified as more than one thing. For example melanoma is both a sarcoma and a skin cancer. Just because it's a sarcoma doesn't mean it's not a skin cancer. Similarly CTCL is a lymphoma, obviously. It's right there in the name. It doesn't make it not a skin cancer. You don't even need to know medicine to see why shouting "it's a lymphoma it's a lymphoma" is insufficient to prove your point. It's just basic logic.

Some final points, and I'll stop.


You can also find melanocytes in the dermis. Also where you find most lymphocytes in normal skin.

Mostly true. But important lymphocyte development takes place in the skin too.

In addition, like a thymic lymphoma would be both a thymic cancer and a lymphoma, CTCL can be a lymphoma can be both a skin cancer and a lymphoma.

If we want to be perfectly precise, melanoma is a sarcoma. It can arise in the skin, in which case it is also a skin cancer. Whereas if it arises in the GI tract then it is still a sarcoma but not a skin cancer. Simlarly you have lymphomas that are not skin cancer (most of them) and one that is CTCL.


LOL. At least I hope fly reads this last line. I know that will crush a long-standing theory of his.

Like, for real, some day some patient is actually going to get semantiked to death.

Do AC units have embedded processors now? Not sure if they do now but if not they will in the not too distant future. The Internet of things (IOT) is all about making smarter, Internet aware devices/appliances. With embedded processors it shouldn't be too hard to imagine that diagnosing and fixing problems will become much easier and efficient.

It will take a long time before surgeries will be done without a surgeon in the room. It takes a long time to convince people that a machine is performing better even in emergencies/complications especially when the result could be a dead patient.

A 100% standard is not necessary. Machines simply have to have a higher accuracy rate than humans.

It will be easier. Self driving cars have to deal with road signs, pedestrians running out, random stopping, road closures, inclement weather. Basically a huge, dynamic system. Surgery is relatively static in comparison.

Please move this ****ty derail out of here. All of you suck.

When I'm President, threads won't get aidsed up like this.

Obama has let things totally go to hell.

Fwiw. When I started the conversation in regards to protectionism I meant free flow of doctors across borders.

I was going to accept full responsibility. But I think I'll stick you w/ 2%. I'll take 98%. We can't give any to ikes, because everyone knows ikes is ikes.

Sorry for the AIDSy derail everyone.

Oh good, we're in a containment thread. Anyway, small correction to my last substantive post . I'm sure no one cares, but since we're not tarding up the main thread I'll post it. I said sarcoma when I meant neural crest derived tumor. My bad. I was drinking and it was late. Doesn't really change the logic any, but I figure if I clear it up now, that's one less tangent.

Edits inserted below

Oooh. Spin off thread.

Do we not already have that? Like 80% of the doctors i work with are foreign born.

Yeah, doctors get paid way too much.

I heard we're getting those flying Jetsons briefcase cars any day now.

I'm pretty sure we went over this before, but USA doctors aren't paid at a higher rate than other countries. They work longer hours. They're also, as a group, the best in the world

Melkerson this is the weirdest argument I've ever been in. Every reputable website I've read describes the condition as a leukemia/lymphoma. Your insistence here is truly ****ing weird and just wrong. Good luck with your cancer I guess

A+ thread title
C'est bon!

Cite.

Like I said, it's basic logic fail on your part. It is a lymphoma. Every website can and should say that. That doesn't make it not a skin cancer. The two are not mutually exclusive. No one is saying it's not a lymphoma.

I fully realize that stage I CTCL differs a lot of ways from most other skin cancers. That's why I picked it.

I've already provided you a source, that explicitly states that "Mycosis Fungoides is a skin cancer". Here are a couple of others, I'm sure they're just random too.

1. Gale Encyclopedia of Cancer: "Mycosis Fungoides is a skin cancer"
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/My...fungoides.aspx

2. Here it is again in an article in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm sure all the authors and reviewers are wrong, and you are right.
http://journals.lww.com/melanomarese...higus.200.aspx

I'm sure I could find others. But even if I found 10, I'm sure there is a classification system that exists in your mind where stage I Mycosis Fungoides is not a skin cancer. I can't help what you personally think. But in reality it is, for the many reasons already stated:

-It is called cutaneous t-cell lymphoma. It's in the name. So is lymphoma. Why you choose to only focus on the last part and not the first part is a mystery.
-The pathology is exclusively in the skin and no where else.
-The condition is by and large treated by dermatologists and I'm sure if you looked is found in every single dermatology textbook.
-If we apply your same logic to melanoma, it makes absolutely no sense.


I do agree with you that this is a pretty ****ing weird argument. It's amazing that anyone would take this much convincing to think that a cancer with the word "cutaneous" in it, is not a skin cancer.

You last sentence is truly random. Why on earth do you think I have CTCL? That is most bizarre insult(?) ever. Thanks for the fake concern, I guess. I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that I don't have it and never have. However, if I did, I'm sure it would less painful than this discussion.

After grunching through this thread and a few others, current robot capabilities are way overrated. As ikes alludes to, the cost for robots used in medicine is and will continue to be very high.

Just checking in to say to whoever titled this thread.

I read it and thought "wait, that can't possibly be what they mean, can it?" Then I opened the thread, and then I laughed.

nobody would ever refer to a cutaneous lymphoma as "skin cancer"

dear god that's a stupid tangent

My bad I really thought I was helping, but melkerson really wanted to fight

Done. Fun times. Same chart even.

100% standard is absolutely necessary, all it takes is for the machine to make one botched surgery where the patient dies / is crippled for there to be a law in place for a MD to be present at all times. Just 1.

I'm sure robots can one day do simple surgeries, but not in my lifetime will I see a robot cut my abdomen open, transplant a kidney, close it back up without a human present. Again all it takes is one botched surgery that would not have happened if an MD was actually present for the hospital to be massively sued.