Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

U.S. cancer death rates dropping faster than ever

LAURAN NEERGAARD

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Latest comment posted at 2:45 PM EDT 16/10/07

Improvement attributed to progress against colorectal cancer ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. doctor business from vancouver, Canada writes: If this is true, then why the widespread perception that cancer rates are rising. I hear such claims constantly. Could this be the language of statistics? Rates of 'diagnoses' versus some other catagory of measurment? Some context would be nice. When I read the headline I was hoping for something like - people eating less fast food - cancer down or something like that. I guess it's never that simple. Ride a bike to work and eat less processed foods is always a good idea though.
  2. usually write from Canada writes: When corrected for an aging population, it can be seen cancer rates are not rising, and as shown here, can be in decline for certain ones. ENGOs have a self-interest in deluding the average schumck...same with the "organic" food purveyors.
  3. andre michaels from Leamington, Canada writes: I have posted about this so often and just cannot resist one more time. As has been mentioned, the 'epidemic' of rising cancer rates is false. Absolutely FALSE. You have naturopaths and organic farmers (amongst others) who continuously promote this misleading statistic that rates are rising so that they will benefit by selling more product. If you eat well, do not smoke and avoid long stretches in the sun, you will reduce your chance of getting cancer infinitely more than by eating organic food. Actually making fruits and vegetables more expensive for the average consumer (as organic does) can only lead to an increase in cancer rates as average consumers avoid those expensive items and eat less of them.

    Science and medicine have done an amazing job over the last few decades in understanding cancer and producing better medication and treatments. The case of the Maple Leafs player Blake is a perfect example. The drug he is taking is a product of this research and has been instrumental in reducing the death rate of this form of leukemia. So please continue to support scientific research and the results will continue to improve over the next couple of decades.
  4. jens gessner from Canada writes: The first three comments are missing the point: The article states that cancer Death rates are falling.

    It might very well be that cancer rates are climbing. But the medical profession is just getting better at preventing cancer deaths, especially in the case of colorectal cancer.
  5. andre michaels from Leamington, Canada writes: Jens- No, after adjusting for the aging population, overall cancer detection rates are actually either flat or on the downslope and some specific cancers cases are on the clear decline (such as male lung cancer rates). People are better educated about their health and medical care and diagnosis is improving dramatically. The press just doesn't want to report on these successes and they would rather hype the misinformation regarding the effects of pesticides, pollution etc which is just not a player in the overall cancer statistics.
  6. Joe Falcon from Canada writes: Eating meat is the greatest risk factor for colon cancer. Maybe more people must be beecoming vegetarian.
  7. Political Junkie from Canada writes: Yes, the "sky is falling" crowd abetted by an eager press genuinely wants to believe that everything is going to hell in a handbasket. They love to wallow in bad news.

    It's hilarious when good news on health or the environment somehow sneaks out. These people get furious, shoot the messenger, question the integrity of researchers, etc.

    One good example is when you try to tell any Suzuki indoctrinated "environmentalist" that Great Lakes water quality and air pollution in Canada are immensely better than some decades ago. They not only disbelieve you, they actually detest you for daring to suggest that there has been progress!
  8. jens gessner from Canada writes: andre michaels - Pesticides and pollution are "clearly not a player in the overall cancer statistics"??

    I guess, we all pick the sources we choose to believe. But let me ask you this:

    Suppose you are about to board a plane for a long flight. Two engineers who both worked on the plane talk to you. One said the plane is perfectly safe, the other said it is clearly not. Who are you going to believe?

    How do you know which study on pesticides and pollution is accurate, given that there are plenty of conflicting studies out there? Is it not reasonable to take a cautious approach and avoid pesticides and other pollutants - especially since there are so few unbiased studies out there?
  9. G. Triver from langley, Canada writes: PROTECT YOURSELF with Vitamin D3 Supplements!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The SINGLE most important thing Canadians can do is to take a very safe (and probably still too low) 2000 I.U. of Vitamin D3 daily. No space here for the confirmed science (which is STILL only trickling out of cancer agencies). Vitamin D is not really a vitamin, but a hormone precursor. Don't take my word--Martin Mittelstaedt, Globe journalist, has been regularly reporting on this. I'm a Ph.D. with family/friends in epidemiology, cancer research and have tracked this phenomenal epidemiological story for about 4 years. It culminated in the June Creighton University study of over 1000 women given a mere 1100 I.U. daily over 4 years--this group has a 60% lower cancer rate. Weeding out the first year's statistics resulted in a 70% drop. Not a fluke study, though this was the first double blind study. The studies examining blood serum levels of D3 and cancer rates have numbered in the hundreds. The old "recommended limit" of 400 I.U. was for bone density--but EVERY oncologist and researcher will tell you of D3's major role in cellular differentiation--preserving the integrity of cells. Our bodies have over 200 varied cells with D3 receptors. D3 is THE regulator of calcium absorption. In fact suspicions now are that low calcium levels are due to D3 deficiency, not due to not having enough available calcium.

    DO THIS FOR YOUR HEALTH: Simply plug in Vitamin D Cancer in Google to quickly find research papers dating back a decade that will make your eyes roll and wonder why this isn't front page news everyday. And for a superb resource go to Dr. John Cannell's site: www.thevitamindcouncil.com which is trying to get the word out to the public. There are NO big drug companies behind this hard science...D3 is incredibly cheap (at any pharmacy), costing 3-5 cents/1000 I.U. on average.
  10. Political Junkie from Canada writes: jens gessner, you have the right to question any study you wish, however when the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (with over 500 Nobel Prize winners as members) puts its name on a study, I tend to find it convincing. So did the New York Times.

    If this isn't good enough to convince you, then you're not going to be sold! I know it's hard to believe that Suzuki didn't tell you that 99% of the pesticides you eat are natural, present in "organic" foods, courtesy of Mother Nature.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE6D71239F935A25751C0A960958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/P/Pesticides
  11. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Political Junkie: . . . Suzuki and his fellow enviro-commies also try to convince us that (1) greenhouse gases exist, and that (2) pollution exists. Go figure.
  12. Michael Jahonneson from Vancouver, Canada writes: Current life expenctancy for men in America: 77.6.

    ----

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/20557.php

    ----

    Current life expectancy for men in Europe: 70.

    ----

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g2llVRIzHBrGM72FDIhh9i3HOH0gD8S6C7600

    ----

    Researchers cite significant air pollution in Europe and poor health care systems for the widening gap. Bush!
  13. Political Junkie from Canada writes: Mr. Justice, what's your opinion?

    Is Suzuki in science or is he in Showbiz? Nobel or Oscar potential, which?

    The topic was the "sexing up of evidence." Remember that that's wow we got to Iraq!
  14. David Jenkins from Kelowna, Canada writes: Cancer rates may be dropping but there is still for too much emphasis on finding 'the cure' rather than massive education on prevention. Another recent article pegged the amount spent on prevention at less than 10% even though it is readily acknowledged that many cancers can be kept at bay through healthy diet and lifestyle choices, and early screening.

    I still give to cancer-fighting organizations but I am very careful to select those that are promoting prevention and integrated healing rather than just 'the cure'.
  15. Dick Nails from Desoronto, Canada writes: Political Junkie from Canada writes: Yes, the "sky is falling" crowd abetted by an eager press genuinely wants to believe that everything is going to hell in a handbasket. They love to wallow in bad news.

    It's hilarious when good news on health or the environment somehow sneaks out. These people get furious, shoot the messenger, question the integrity of researchers, etc.

    This applies to climate change too, of course. For some odd reason, perhaps the tens of thousands of years when things were bad for the human race, when we could get wiped out by viruses, floods, fires and so on, before we became rational and logical, we fixated on bad things. Fast forward to Y2K and any number of pre and post millenial death cults (aren't they all?), the selling of fear and death exceeds smiley bears and rainbow gift cards. Why, when things are as good as they have ever been for all of humanity, do we fixate on the less than perfect state of the world? Pity that the doomsayers don't take their own advice and leave the rest of us who do want to live, alone, to live.
  16. andre michaels from Leamington, Canada writes: David Jenkins-I agree with you 100%. We have to do a better job on prevention and spend more in that area and I know the cancer societies are also planning for this and have started implementing some new plans. I think it will be a tremendous "bang for the buck" in terms of money spent and reducing rates even further.

    As for Jens' question regarding engineers and flying...the sample size is too low in your analogy. There are not only two scientists (one saying that pollution causes cancer and one against). The VAST majority of cancer researchers do not see a link between cancer and pollution/pesticides. I will believe the majority in this case.

    And I will continue to take my vitamin D every day too!!!
  17. jens gessner from Canada writes: andre michaels: There are several possibilities why such a direct link can not (or will not) be established. The most obvious one is economics: If we found out for certain, we would have to change the way we consume and live. Well, industry would be compromised, and that would never do. Hence, such study results are frequently and vigorously discounted.

    It is much easier - and more profitable - to keep the cancer industry going by finding ever more expensive treatments and staying away from preventative measures.

    Cancer happens when the body loses its ability to stop unusual cell growth (and such cell growth happens all the time). That can only occur when the immune system is weakened - pollution and toxins play a big part in that.

    Believe me, preventing cancer is a lot better than treatment. I just went through 13 months of it. I plan on staying away from pesticides from now on. "99%" safe is not good enough. Aim higher.
  18. Political Junkie from Canada writes: Jens, with all respect to your personal trials, if you want to stay away from pesticides you'll have to give up eating a healthy diet.

    Broccoli, for example, is just loaded with natural pesticides. This is nature's way of defending the plant from insects. These pesticides kill mice just as effectively as man-made chemicals do. A single cup of coffee has seventeen carcinogens in higher concentrations than you are likely to get from man-made pesticide residues in a year from your normal diet.

    "Environmentalists" have a misanthropic view (nature good - man bad) totally unsupported by science. This leads to a serious misapproppriation of funds and effort.

    Look it up!!!!! Enjoy a normal diet without getting stressed out.

    http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.103/pub_detail.asp
  19. M F from Canada writes: This report is regarding cancer in the US....our Canadian statistics are not nearly as good.

    Also the US spends considerably more on health care than we do in Canada. Instead of blaming the expenses of the US system on "for-profit" medicine, we might want to look at the outcomes of their cancer screening programs and cancer treatment programs.

    In Canada, useful screening techniques are rationed ie colonoscopy.
  20. Andrew E from Canada writes: M F from Canada writes: This report is regarding cancer in the US....our Canadian statistics are not nearly as good.

    Also the US spends considerably more on health care than we do in Canada. Instead of blaming the expenses of the US system on "for-profit" medicine, we might want to look at the outcomes of their cancer screening programs and cancer treatment programs.

    In Canada, useful screening techniques are rationed ie colonoscopy.

    Now you've gone 'n' dun it, M F! You've pissed on the altar of Canadian social health care good/US private health care bad.
    You're on your own here, bub. I've seen the Raging Grannies, the nurses unions, and the Friends of Medicare in action an' it ain't pretty.
    May God have mercy on your soul.
  21. Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: Where are all the the "environmentalists" who claim that we are poisoning ourselves and increasing cancer rates by virtue of the air we breathe and the food we eat ? Maybe a few of the people who read this will realise the huge con perpetrated by the "health food " industry.
  22. Alistair McLaughlin from Ottawa, Canada writes: The death rate from colo-rectal cancer in Canada is much higher than the US. This is a real tragedy because regular screening can cut the death rate from this type of cancer by a huge margin. Colorectal cancer is one of those cancers for which prevention and early detection is highly effective. Provincial healthcare plans need to come up with some sort of regular screening program.
  23. whatevah D from Canada writes: Diane Schweik: have you even read the article? It states that gains were made against colorectal cancer and that these gains are driving these results.

    Consider for instance that: "One reason is that colorectal cancer is striking fewer people, the report found. New diagnoses are down roughly 2.5 per cent a year for both men and women, thanks to screening tests that can spot precancerous polyps in time to remove them and thus prevent cancer from forming."

    That doesn't mean that pollution etc doesn't cause cancer! From my perspective cancer seems to be on the upswing. I have lost three family members in the last couple of years and one more is on their death bed now. I've seen lots of friends lose loved ones to this disease too. Perhaps we should forgo the "see, there's nothing wrong with our environment" argument and focus on beating this disease once and for all.

    Jens: I hope you are feeling better. Take care.
  24. J.C. Davies from Canada writes:
    If Lance Armstrong were Canadian he'd be long dead.
  25. J M from Realityville, Canada writes: The cancer rate is shrinking in the US simply because the 'Getting shot in Iraq', and 'Getting shot in Atlanta' rates are at all time highs.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top