• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

70% increase in cancer projected over the next 20 years by WHO

cancer

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Soma

  • Guest
  • 341 posts
  • 105

Posted 17 December 2014 - 07:01 PM


Progress report on our "war on cancer": Despite the innumerable billions of dollars in research and the development of new technologies and treatments, cancer rates continue to rise and a massive 70% increase is projected over the next 20 years.

The WHO stresses the need for prevention, which is still an rather unknown concept in the healthcare world.

http://www.eacr.org/...tail.php?id=120

Edited by Soma, 17 December 2014 - 07:43 PM.

  • Informative x 1

#2 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 December 2014 - 12:04 AM

The war on cancer was looking for cures, not trying to change rates.  If rates increase because more people smoke or get fat, that's unfortunate, but it's not exactly a research failure.   Death rates from cancer have been falling for a long time, albeit slowly.  That will probably improve in the future as more advanced methodology comes on line.


  • Good Point x 2

#3 jroseland

  • Guest
  • 1,117 posts
  • 162
  • Location:Europe

Posted 18 December 2014 - 12:50 AM

Look for disruptive companies to innovate in this war...


  • Needs references x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • dislike x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 158

Posted 18 December 2014 - 12:25 PM

We don't need to worry much about cancer, it is a well funded area with a lot of attention and support for those who suffer it. I'm a lot more worried about normal aging, which is horribly ignored and under-funded. Pity that governments around the world will likely toss billions into worthless campaigns to inform the public that they should not eat like pigs instead of funding repair-based therapies.


  • like x 3
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#5 GhostBuster

  • Guest
  • 107 posts
  • 22

Posted 18 December 2014 - 07:57 PM

I find it kind of hilarious if it's more important to find new cures than prevent the cancer all together (which would be an ethical thing to pursue). But I understand it, everybody wants do "the right thing", but - there's a catch - only in away that they see suitable, in a way that serves also their intrests. Everybody wants their own piece of the cake. 


Edited by GhostBuster, 18 December 2014 - 07:58 PM.

  • Agree x 2
  • unsure x 1

#6 Soma

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 341 posts
  • 105

Posted 19 December 2014 - 04:38 PM

The war on cancer was looking for cures, not trying to change rates.

Which, with all due respect, I think is the wrong tactic in the long term. Obviously finding cures is absolutely imperative to those with existing cancer, but in terms of sheer numbers, it is far more efficient to prevent cancer in the first place. But, like I said, the healthcare domain is curiously reticent on this topic. Maybe because prevention is somewhat abstract and our collective ignorance is an extension of our individual ignorance. We have been evolutionarily wired to respond to immediate threats and largely disregard potential future threats. What does that result in? A society that only deals with cancer after-the-fact...when it has already been acquired. Maybe, on the whole, we're just not wired for prevention. It is obviously shortsighted, whatever the reason for it.

If rates increase because more people smoke or get fat, that's unfortunate, but it's not exactly a research failure.

That assumes that that the increase will be due to tobacco usage or increases in weight.
Doesn't it seem conceivable that there is something else at play here?

My suspicion is that influx of synthetic chemicals that have becomes rather pervasive in the environment (which we cannot remove ourselves from no matter how hard we may try) conceivably play a larger part than typically acknowledged in the process of carcinogenesis. How are cancers initatied in lab animals? With mutagenic chemicals, of course.

"As new chemicals enter commerce, the number of chemicals on the Inventory changes. Today more than 84,000 chemical substances are on the Inventory." http://www.epa.gov/o...tory/basic.html

Now, obviously these are likely not all carcinogenic chemicals. But it stands to reason that out of the 84,000+ synthetic chemicals that have entered commerce and thus human exposure, some of them are. It is impossible that sufficient testing has been done on all of these. Add to this the estimated 700+ new chemicals that enter commerce each year. How could you possibly test all of the variables with 84,000 chemicals.

"EPA reviews about 1,500 new chemicals every year, about half of which go on to enter commerce and be listed on the Inventory." http://blogs.edf.org...very-poor-hand/

Even drugs that have gone through a battery of tests often produce effects later down the road that were completely unintended. What about potential interactions between these 84,000 chemicals and new unpredictable compounds that may ensue. I'm not mentioning this in the spirit of an alarmist or, god forfid, some type of conspiracy theorist. I just think it is the huge lumbering elephant in the room. I mean, we're really going to chalk up a 75% increase in cancer to tobacco and junk food. While that is certainly part of the picture, it is inconceivable that there are not greater sources. I put in all in terms of evolution: we have created a massive number of compounds that our species and others have never seen before and certanly did not co-evolve with. Mind you, we are talking about 84,000 synthetic chemicals (and growing by the day), the vast majority synthesized and introduced in the past century. I think that capacity for unintened negative consequences that scenario greater the the capacity for positive consequences. I am not saying this is undoubtedly the principle reason for the increas in cancer rates, but I think that it is reasonable and something that should possibly be explored.

And that is where our shortsightedness may have failed us yet again. Maybe we should have been a bit more careful before unleashing all of these novel compounds in an environment that has subsisted for millions of years without them. But that is the result of the "devil may care" cowboy mentality we've had for quite some time.

I feel we may have simply outsmarted ourselves.

Edited by Soma, 19 December 2014 - 04:53 PM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#7 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 19 December 2014 - 05:10 PM

The war on cancer was looking for cures, not trying to change rates.  If rates increase because more people smoke or get fat, that's unfortunate, but it's not exactly a research failure.   Death rates from cancer have been falling for a long time, albeit slowly.  That will probably improve in the future as more advanced methodology comes on line.

 

Actually, smoking rates have been falling for the last fifty years, probably much longer than that.

http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/mm5644a2.htm

 

Systemic xenoestrogen pollution probably has a hand in all this. Think BPA and other as yet unknown pollutants.


  • like x 1

#8 Soma

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 341 posts
  • 105

Posted 19 December 2014 - 05:54 PM


The war on cancer was looking for cures, not trying to change rates. If rates increase because more people smoke or get fat, that's unfortunate, but it's not exactly a research failure. Death rates from cancer have been falling for a long time, albeit slowly. That will probably improve in the future as more advanced methodology comes on line.

Actually, smoking rates have been falling for the last fifty years, probably much longer than that.
http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/mm5644a2.htm

Systemic xenoestrogen pollution probably has a hand in all this. Think BPA and other as yet unknown pollutants.
Right. So if smoking rates have been steadily dropping, does that leave us attributing this projected 75% increase in cancer to twinkies and soda.

Maybe it would be more intelligent to research what may be behind growing rates of cancer in the first place. In order to prevent something, one must know the causes. If prevention is the best medicine, research into the causes of cancer would indicate our best medical course of action, long term. Funny that it is not seen that way.

Our current model is like a fire crew that desparately tries to put out fires without ever investing much effort into unearthing the cause of the fires. Obviously the same pattern continues over and over again. It would be moronically comical if it wasn't so tragic.

Edited by Soma, 19 December 2014 - 05:57 PM.


#9 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 158

Posted 19 December 2014 - 07:23 PM

What are you implying soma? What do you suggest we do about cancer? I suspect you are going to start proposing actions that would have enormous costs and not give us anything worthwile in return, 100 % ecological food, removing all industrial pollutants, giant public health projects and the like. Those things will not cure cancer. For all we know the coctail-effect only account for some fraction of the total cancer picture.

 

The main problem is that people reach higher ages today, meaning more accumulated damage. This equals more cancer.

 

Cancer is not a big issue. It can kill you or me today, but the majority of cancer will be a non issue in a decade or two.

 

Lets focus on funding SENS and similar tech beacause aging is certain to kill us all if we do not stop it, and the technology-umbrella that accomplishes SENS will make cancer a non issue.


  • Needs references x 1
  • unsure x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1

#10 Soma

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 341 posts
  • 105

Posted 19 December 2014 - 08:08 PM

What are you implying soma? What do you suggest we do about cancer?

All I am suggesting is that more efforts be put into prevention, both through lifestyle education and more research into chemoprevention- specifically into relevant causes of carcinogenesis, etc.

Those things will not cure cancer. For all we know the coctail-effect only account for some fraction of the total cancer picture.

Exactly. I am not talking about curing cancer. I'm talking working to prevent its occurence in the first place. There is a monumental difference. So, it looks like we are talking about different issues.

Cancer is not a big issue. It can kill you or me today, but the majority of cancer will be a non issue in a decade or two.

Really? You must be privy to information that the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer is not aware of, since they said it would increase by 75% in those two decades- the two decades that you say it will become a "non-issue". Interesting.

Cancer will be a non-issue in a decade or two? Sounds a lot like what was said a decade ago...and a decade before that...and a decade before that. We are generally an endlessly optimistic species, I'll give us that. And we never seem to lose our undying faith in ourselves and the promise that we are always just on the brink of. Our utopias of one sort or another are always just over the horizon.

Edited by Soma, 19 December 2014 - 08:16 PM.


#11 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 19 December 2014 - 08:29 PM

 

The war on cancer was looking for cures, not trying to change rates.  If rates increase because more people smoke or get fat, that's unfortunate, but it's not exactly a research failure.   Death rates from cancer have been falling for a long time, albeit slowly.  That will probably improve in the future as more advanced methodology comes on line.

 

Actually, smoking rates have been falling for the last fifty years, probably much longer than that.

http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/mm5644a2.htm

 

Systemic xenoestrogen pollution probably has a hand in all this. Think BPA and other as yet unknown pollutants.

 

 

 

Smoking rates have been falling in America, although there was an increase in smoking by women that is now showing up as an increase in lung cancer in women.  Note that the article linked in the first post is world data, not US data.  The rest of the world still smokes heavily, and that is part of the problem in the world data.
 

From OP's link:

 

 

Cancer cases worldwide are forecast to rise by 75% and reach close to 25 million over next two decades.

EACR member Chris Wild, the director of the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer, told the BBC: "The global cancer burden is increasing and quite markedly, due predominately to the ageing of the populations and population growth. If we look at the cost of treatment of cancers, it is spiralling out of control, even for the high-income countries. Prevention is absolutely critical and it's been somewhat neglected."

Restrictions on alcohol and sugar need to be considered, say World Health Organization scientists as there now exists a "real need" to focus on cancer prevention by tackling smoking, obesity and drinking.

 

Let's look at this:  First of all, it's cancer cases, not cancer rates that they're talking about.   That says nothing about one person's odds of getting cancer, which is significantly under their own control through lifestyle choices. They point out that this is mainly due to aging and population growth, rather than environmental chemicals.  Finally, they agree with Soma that prevention is important.


  • Agree x 1

#12 Logic

  • Guest
  • 2,659 posts
  • 586
  • Location:Kimberley, South Africa
  • NO

Posted 19 December 2014 - 09:39 PM

How to Prevent Cancer and Aging with the Same Strategy
http://www.anti-agin...-same-strategy/

Add your fav NAD+ upregulator and some C60oo  (if you're adventurous) to the above and you should be able to worry less.

#13 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 158

Posted 20 December 2014 - 05:03 AM

 

What are you implying soma? What do you suggest we do about cancer?

All I am suggesting is that more efforts be put into prevention, both through lifestyle education and more research into chemoprevention- specifically into relevant causes of carcinogenesis, etc.

Those things will not cure cancer. For all we know the coctail-effect only account for some fraction of the total cancer picture.

Exactly. I am not talking about curing cancer. I'm talking working to prevent its occurence in the first place. There is a monumental difference. So, it looks like we are talking about different issues.

Cancer is not a big issue. It can kill you or me today, but the majority of cancer will be a non issue in a decade or two.

Really? You must be privy to information that the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer is not aware of, since they said it would increase by 75% in those two decades- the two decades that you say it will become a "non-issue". Interesting.

Cancer will be a non-issue in a decade or two? Sounds a lot like what was said a decade ago...and a decade before that...and a decade before that. We are generally an endlessly optimistic species, I'll give us that. And we never seem to lose our undying faith in ourselves and the promise that we are always just on the brink of. Our utopias of one sort or another are always just over the horizon.

 

 

I agree about the need for chemoprevention but if I was in charge of the world, the brunt of the money would be going to SENS. Not public campaigns that need decades in order to convice the global population that they should not be living like pigs.



#14 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 20 December 2014 - 07:13 AM

Thanks @Soma! This finally answered a question, that I asked some time ago in this forum in a topic named "The great cancer rate reduction". There I cited a study, that promised the US people, that they will see a great cancer rate reduction. Lol. It seems, that these plans failed.



#15 JohnD60

  • Guest
  • 540 posts
  • 70
  • Location:Colorado

Posted 22 December 2014 - 07:46 AM

Most everything from the WHO gets almost zero press in the US. Pretty much the only people in the US that care what the WHO has to say are far left ideologues, because most people in the US understand that the WHO is just a tool for the UN to advance its tax and control political agenda (in this article they make reference to restricting sugar and alcohol), and that people that work for the WHO are appointed based upon their politics. As far as the article/interview linked to, even the WHO guy acknowledged that the *projected* increase in the number of Cancer cases is predominately due to population increases and increases in average life span, something common sense told me before I even read the article. Of course a greater percentage of people are dying of Cancer now than they did 30 years ago, that is a success, it means people are living long enough to get Cancer. Death is still a zero sum game, deaths from malnutrition, malaria, and childhood diseases have been greatly reduced as a percentage of total deaths, it is entirely logical that as a result of those decreases Cancer would increase as a percentage of overall deaths.


Edited by JohnD60, 22 December 2014 - 07:46 AM.

  • Good Point x 2
  • Ill informed x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: cancer

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users