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.
Posted 17 December 2014 - 07:01 PM
Edited by Soma, 17 December 2014 - 07:43 PM.
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.
Posted 18 December 2014 - 12:50 AM
Look for disruptive companies to innovate in this war...
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.
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.
Posted 19 December 2014 - 04:38 PM
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.The war on cancer was looking for cures, not trying to change rates.
That assumes that that the increase will be due to tobacco usage or increases in weight.If rates increase because more people smoke or get fat, that's unfortunate, but it's not exactly a research failure.
Edited by Soma, 19 December 2014 - 04:53 PM.
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.
Posted 19 December 2014 - 05:54 PM
Right. So if smoking rates have been steadily dropping, does that leave us attributing this projected 75% increase in cancer to twinkies and soda.Actually, smoking rates have been falling for the last fifty years, probably much longer than that.
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.
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.
Edited by Soma, 19 December 2014 - 05:57 PM.
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.
Posted 19 December 2014 - 08:08 PM
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.What are you implying soma? What do you suggest we do about cancer?
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.Those things will not cure cancer. For all we know the coctail-effect only account for some fraction of the total cancer picture.
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 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.
Edited by Soma, 19 December 2014 - 08:16 PM.
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.
Posted 19 December 2014 - 09:39 PM
Posted 20 December 2014 - 05:03 AM
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.What are you implying soma? What do you suggest we do about cancer?
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.Those things will not cure cancer. For all we know the coctail-effect only account for some fraction of the total cancer picture.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users