i have had 2 (two) clear chest x-rays in the last 3 but my symptoms

>>8924078
*last 3 months

>>8924078
Uh oh, it looks like you're human. I'm afraid that the condition is fatal and has a 100% mortality rate.

Also consider this: you've been posting about this for, what, six months now? If you actually had advanced metastatic cancer, don't you think you would have gotten a lot sicker in that amount of time than you currently are?

>>8924091
idk people are often ill for like a year before they get diagnosed

>>8924102
No, you would be really, really ill if you actually had the disease you claim for that amount of time. You would look like those pictures of emaciated concentration camp prisoners.

Do you currently look like an emaciated concentration camp prisoner?

>>8924078
>what do i do?
stop being a dimwitted hypochondriac

your symptoms are incredibly general to about 10,000 conditions, including, you know, just being a human being.

>don't forget to sage

>>8924078
>headaches and hip pain (Indicative of metastasis)

kek'd

saged

>>8924173
it is though. lung cancer spreads bones and brain

>>8924189
Then are you currently bed-ridden due to being a hungry skeleton whose body is being eaten by cancer? Post a mirror selfie.

>>8924078

Fucking starve yourself and fast for like 2 weeks then, you have no appetite because your body is telling you NOT to eat right now.

fuck you still doing this fucking thread
that's some damn slow cancer

>>8924205
not yet, no

>>8924212
why is my body telling me this?

If you would have had cancer for this long, you would be a cachectic skelton by now, or dead.

>>8924078
Oh look its this guy again. Ive seen your other threads (or at least someone very similar's threads) and im going to say what ive said in all those other threads. No, you dont have cancer. However, spending lots of time around xray machines trying to confirm your hypochondriac suspicions is a good way to get cancer. If you are too god damned stupid to take your doctors advice, go back and request a blood test. PAULA's test is a blood test that can detect the presence of lung cancer before symptoms ever show. If it comes back negative and you still think you have cancer you need to see a psychiatrist, not a medical doctor.

>>8924251
they dont do that in uk i dont think, my basic blood chemistry is normal repeatedly but it normally is with cancer

>>8924253
Post a mirror selfie. We want to see how much of a skeleton you are.

>>8924260
im not because i eat out of boredom and lounge around all day, but i feel like shit

>>8924271
See? There's the real disease.

You're a fat, lazy fuck. That would take away anyone's appetite and give them aches from lack of exercise. Here's your treatment: walk at least one mile a day. Do that for two weeks, then report back here with your results.

>tfw you realise the actual OP died months ago and all these posts are people just memeing

File: 7d2.png (309KB, 600x712px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 600x712px

>>8924288

>>8924078
at this rate you will develop lung cancer from all these useless fucking chest x rays.

>>8924271
>sits on ass eating all day
>thinks hip pain is from metastasized lung tumor

HOW
FUCKING
STUPID
ARE
YOU

If you thing you have metastasis in the hip, why don't you get an X-RAY there and check?

>>8924331
because if they dont think i have lung cancer why would they refer me for metastases of lung cancer

>it's this asshole again
two clear xrays, a diagnostic assay with 98% specificity, and you claiming to have symptoms associated with tumors so large a toddler could diagnose them on an xray?

no. you categorically do not have lung cancer.

reminder that OP gained weight during the period he claims loss of appetite.

>>8924078
Sorry OP, I'm afraid it's obesity.

Looks like you won't be having children.

>>8924078
Stop posting here and stop wasting nus money. You do not have cancer at worst you have a cold and a headache.

>>8924344
no thats ct, ct is what i want but cant get

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16882373

x-ray isnt all that good, and this is one of the more of the more favorable studies

>>8924360
How about you try >>8924276 first before you give yourself real cancer from all that radiation?

>>8924360
No, you're wrong. I've posted the paper before here. X-rays have 98% specificity.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2391122/ Figure 3, part b. All of the specificity values are between 95% and 98%.

This paper has way more power, larger sample sizes, and was published more recently than the paper you've cited.

>>8924375
yeah but all that means is that when a a chest x-ray is reported clear, it is correct 98% of of time, no? i dont see why this would be surprising, obviously the vast majority of people who get an x-ray for lung cancer dont have it. i'm more concerned about the ~25% miss rate of tumours on x-ray as shown in the study i posted

>>8924388
>i'm more concerned about the ~25% miss rate of tumours on x-ray as shown in the study i posted
The UK paper is measuring something different than specificity. The study examines people who, later in life, were confirmed histologically to have lung cancer. The researchers examined those individuals and determined how many of them had had a negative x-ray screen. That is not specificity, as we known nothing about how many individuals were screened at the same time as those individuals and received negative diagnoses which turned out to be true. You can calculate a descriptor from that data (the false negative rate), but that descriptor is NOT useful for your situation. The false negative rate is only useful if you have some exterior knowledge of whether the individuals have the condition in question. You Do Not Know That.

The correct statistic for your situation, where you do not know if you have cancer, is specificity, which is very high from what we can tell.

Additionally, there is also a small issue of sample size. The 98% specificity described in the Japanese screening paper is derived from a massive screen of individuals of unknown cancer state with a ten-year follow-up. Never take a statistic from just one paper alone. You should instead look at the whole of the literature and decide which values you most trust. Personally, a ten-year follow-up study examining 13,000 individuals sounds like it would produce better estimates than a paper examining less than 300 people with confirmed cases of cancer.

>>8924078
Your symptoms could easily be caused by an allergic reaction to something in your environment, whether it be mold or food related. I would try going on vacation for a few weeks or go somewhere that isnt your main lliving space for awhile and see if you chance, while also removing select common allergens from your diet (milk, eggs, peanut, citrus)

File: damn_good_bunny.webm (449KB, 704x384px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 704x384px

>>8924078
I looked at it on WebMD, and you have ovarian cancer.

>>8924567
Well i still don't really take' specificity' to mean much when we are talking about a procedure that it is undertaken as commonly as a simple chext x-cray is. obviously the true negative will be high, obviously if an x-ray shows you dont have lung cancer then the overwhelming % chance is you dont have lung cancer. but anyone who has an x-ray is overwhelming unlikely to have cancer anyway. i take a bit of heart with the SENSITIVITY from that study you have posted tho, which is at 80%(5% higher than the study i posted). and as i have had two x-rays over three months that implies an even higher expected sensitivity over the course of two x-rays. i appreciate it would be rare occurrence for me to have lung cancer given the investigations i have had, but it wouldnt be all THAT unlikely in terms of medical data and i really want that ct with a far higher sensitivity to be sure

>>8924728
>Well i still don't really take' specificity' to mean much when we are talking about a procedure that it is undertaken as commonly as a simple chext x-cray is.
That's exactly when you SHOULD take specificity into account. We use statistics because human judgement is notoriously bad at making statistical predictions.

>>8924728
Arguing with you is harder than arguing with a cultist. You think you have terminal cancer because you are fat and lazy when in reality you would be thin and dead should you actually have had a metastatic tumor.

If you can not afford a CT then you can not afford the treatment if they were to find anything.
There are cancer sniffing dogs. Might be even more expensive than a CT. Maybe go to the pound and meet as many dogs as you can. See if they have any reaction to you?

>>8924732
no i don't really see what specifity means. chuck 100 hundred people in front of me and have me guess just by looking at them whether they had lung cancer or not and my 'specifity' would be around 98% i imagine, if not higher

>>8924746
* i mean more like 100,000, obviously 100 isn't enough when dealing with the numbers and the rarity of the ailment we are talking about here

IF we were dealing with 100, then my specificity just by looking at them would be 99%+ i guess

>>8924746
>>8924753
No, that isn't specificity. Specificity measures what proportion of called negatives are actually true negatives. It's the most directly applicable statistic to your situation.

You have received a negative diagnosis from an xray screen. 98% of negative calls with xray screening are true negative calls. That is the meaning of specificity.

If you think you have lung cancer despite a negative diagnosis, that means you think you fall in that 2% rather than the 98%.

>>8924271

Yeah you're never hungry BECAUSE YOU EAT ALL THE TIME you dopey cunt. I bet you eat junk food, fizzy drinks and sweets and not anything healthy because WAAGH I PROBABLY HAVE CANCER ANYWAY WAAAGH.

You """people""" disgust me. Wasting NHS resources because you're too much of a faggot to accept that you're just a worthless sack of shit with no medical excuse for your total failure of a life.

>>8924737

He's an unemployed Britshit, any treatment he might need is paid for by people who work for a living thru taxation.

>>8924078

Why don't you go ask a doctor cunt

File: matrix-smith.png (437KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 853x480px

>>8924078
Insist on another chest x-ray. You obviously have lung cancer by your symptoms. The x-ray technician must have used the wrong settings.

Go. Go now. Right now. Don't even bother posting a reply. Just grab your keys and go. God bless and good luck.

>>8924774
yes, that is exactly what i said, put 100,000 people in front of me and ask me if they would have cancer, i would record a 'true negative' of at least 98% without any kind of technology, just because i would say that almost each of them dont have cancer, if not all, but even if i just said 'negative' on all i would still record that kind of 'specifity'. specificity is quite useless really

apply for refugee status in Canada

>>8924797
And you're exactly in that situation. You were screened, you got a negative diagnosis.

>>8924819
well that would reassuring to a member of the general populace but not to somebody who has symptoms of lung cancer

>>8924827
Your symptoms are consistent with just about every illness on the planet. They have no bearing here.

>>8924827
>your symptoms
>lung cancer
pick one, and only one

>>8924078
>complete lack of appetite, never feel hungry

Jerk off, have a sandwich.

>phlegm cough in the morning

Drink more water and wash your filthy bedsheets/blankets/pillow. Smoker? Stop that.

>headaches

Drink 1 cup of coffee no more or less than twice a week.

>hip pain

Go to a proper chiropractor to get your hip/lower back put back in place.

>can't stop sucking cock

No known cure.

>>8924231
because you are a fucking faggot and you should stop taking food and oxygen from the rest of us