Friends, in my discussion, I'm not talking about yoga, tai-chi or acupuncture or other things along the lines of "alternative" care. I'm sure those things have their place for some people, but they are not necessarily for me and I don't believe they belong in a scientific treatment setting. I am talking about treatments and possible cures that are based on hard science, where the "big three" don't necessarily play the primary role.

I also want to say that the standard of care for my treatment was top notch. I believe I had some of the best medical minds in the world working on my treatment. But that not's to say that it could not have been improved and it's not to say that we don't need a paradigm shift in the standards of treatment and care.

No, I am talking in much broader terms from a very personal perspective. As an example, if I were to present with a recurrence, chances are the treatment they would be talking about would be surgical salvage, perhaps more chemo, perhaps more radiation (which is new thinking in terms of re-irradation). The point is there are other things out there that are less invasive and less destructive that could possibly be more effective, but these things are not at the top of clinic trials. Most clinical trials still involve conventional treatment methods, which are based on killing the tumor rather than treating the disease and the person.

Bob, I share your feeling of the sword over my head. Which is why I put my fingers to the keyboard in this case. I'm hoping that my fears are being constructively utilized.

In terms of what to call me post diagnosis and post treatment? You can call me Brett.

-Brett