revised blogger's commentary - ovarian cancer (patient safety, ethics, survival, genetics.....)

Blogger's Note:

check back for additional comments and add your own


In the next several days previously unpublished work regarding "Survivors' Debate: The Past Decade in Ovarian Cancer" will be posted to this blog. Included will be the actual presentations (unedited except for selected graphics/formatting) which were presented at the 2 debates - Detroit and Toronto.

As time permits, duplicates will also be published to the sister blog. These postings represent a long held promise, albeit late including a different media source (social media) from the original intent.

Many of these papers/articles had been rejected in the past by main stream publishers.
Aside from outright rejections, most of the papers/articles required editing (by the publishers), such that the true thoughts and meanings would have been 'sanitized'. Sanitized to the degree that was not ethically nor morally acceptable to this author/blogger.

Prior to Carolyn Benivegna's untimely death, she gave me (Sandi Pniauskas - blogger)  her authorization to edit present and/or future papers - solely at my discretion.  In fact, the need for change/editing was minimal.

This trust is one under-recognized value of the actual trust if faith and integrity which most if not all survivors place in each other.

For this trust and respect and the so many trusts of the past and present, I am entirely grateful.

With great admiration and respect for our ovarian cancer women and supporting individuals, I publish this information on behalf of those who have no voice, and importantly, for the benefit of others as was originally intended.

In general - the ultimate message over time may be or is one of being dismissed or diminished? Inclusion or exclusion? Your answer to this will depend on your place and position in time and over time.

It is possible to put aside conflicts of interest to ensure ethics, morality and social justice prevails.  To alleviate, as much as humanly possible,  such extreme suffering in our ovarian cancer populations.

Each of us believes that we have the 'way' - a better way.  History so far remains dubious and elusive.

There is a cost, of course. Many will not understand. Many will not have the ability. Many will confuse the issues.

After reviewing the information, the history and the debate presentations timely to the year 2007,  your objective/subjective opinions will remain.

Aside from viewpoints of pessimism, cynicism and positive thinking (Pro vs Con), ask selflessly for the benefit of the many:

what has changed since 2007?