Though guidelines suggest screening starts at 50, researcher says it's premature to change them
This news article has expired. Below you will find a short description about the news article and comments that were left by CancerCompass users.
American Cancer Society report credits better screening, treatment for the gains
Fri Jan 25, 2013 09:32 PM
And yet the federal government committees has recommended reducing screening for breast, prostate, and colon cancers.
It doesn't appear they are looking at people and lives saved. Wonder what data they're looking at - certainly not death rates.
Thu Jul 18, 2013 09:53 PM
Its the same BS over and over. They are not looking for a cure but rather treating the sympton. This makes for good business.
Overall death rates for cancer are unchanged in 80 years!
In North America, it is projected that one in three people will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. In fact, we expect to see 1,825,400 new cases of cancer this year, and, sadly, a large percentage of these peoplewill die from it.
For males, since 1930, the only bright spot has been the decline in deaths for stomach cancer. The death rate for colon cancer isunchanged . . . for prostate cancer it'sincreased . . . and for lung cancer it'ssignificantly increased.
For women, while the death rates for colon, uterine, and stomach cancer have declined slightly, the rates are essentially unchanged for breast cancer, and they've dramatically increasedfor lung and ovarian cancers.
For both men and women, the rates for thyroid cancer are rising atepidemic rates.
Also consider that, right now, nearly one in seven women is expected to get breast cancer and one in three menis expected to get prostate cancer. And, as I previously stated, worst of all . . .
One in three among the entire population is expected to getsome kind of cancerduring his or her lifetime.
Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:40 AM
What about the fact that many cancer deaths are reported under cardiovascular causes or aplastic anemia instead of under cancer... yet these deaths were clearly due to the toxic or other harmful effects of the predominant cancer treatment protocols? And some cancer cases that are counted as successes would not have led to death in the first place because they were so small that the body could have contained them or so slow-growing that the person would have died of something else before the cancer would have caused problems. How about the patient who "recovers" from one cancer, only to develop another 5 years later, largely caused by the treatment of the first, that results in death? Counts as 2 cancers, but only one death. You know what they say about statistics. The scepticism has been expanded: "There are liars, there are outrageous liars, and there are scientific experts."
We care about your feedback. Let us know how we can improve your CancerCompass experience.