Cancer Stats -- Smoke & Mirrors

[Rouser2]

As regards to The NCI Cancer Progress Report

"The Report Card apart, there are disturbing questions on the reliability of NCI’s incidence statistics. This is well illustrated by wild reported variations since 1973 for the percent changes in the incidence of childhood cancer:
1973-1980 +21%
1973-1989 +10%
1973-1990 +1%
1973-1991 -8%
1973-1994 +31%
The Report Card’s optimistic and misleading assurances, the latest in a series of smoke and mirror break-throughs since 1971 when President Nixon launched the "War Against Cancer," are designed to divert attention from the escalating incidence of cancer, which has reached epidemic proportions. Cancer now strikes 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women, up from an incidence of 1 in 4 a few decades ago. Meanwhile, our ability to treat and cure most cancer, apart from relatively infrequent cancers particularly those of children, remains virtually unchanged. "

-- Samuel S. Epstein, MD

http://www.nutrition4health.org/NOHAnews/NNS98CanceReportFails.htm



-- Rouser

 

[BTox]

Rouser's moronic "sources" - smoke and mirrors are a perfect description!

 

[LucyR]

Meanwhile, our ability to treat and cure most cancer, apart from relatively infrequent cancers particularly those of children, remains virtually unchanged. "

Well that's something anyway.

Also, I assume more of us are getting cancer because we're living longer.

 

[tracer]

And, of course, the fact that this article appears on the website for an organization named the "Nutrition for Optimal Health Association" wouldn't imply any form of bias here....

 

[roger]

The article is nothing more than allegations. No proof. No review of the statistical analysis utilized by the report.

Much like rouser's posts. No wonder he likes it.

 

[Rouser2]

Re: Re: Cancer Stats -- Smoke & Mirrors

Well that's something anyway.

Also, I assume more of us are getting cancer because we're living longer.

You assumptions only in part true. Perhaps you skipped over this:

"Additionally, any true decline would be considerably less if the mortality rates were appropriately based on the current age distribution of the U.S. population, rather than that of 1970, with its relatively higher representation of younger age groups, as misleadingly calculated by NCI. These criticisms are in general consistent with those detailed in a May 1997 New England Journal of Medicine article, "Cancer Undefeated," by former NCI epidemiologist Dr. John Bailar."


-- Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

And, of course, the fact that this article appears on the website for an organization named the "Nutrition for Optimal Health Association" wouldn't imply any form of bias here....

Indeed. Suerely must be another "kook" site. To think that nuitrition or lack thereof has anything whatever to do with the increased incidence of cancer. Perhaps cancer is really just a demon. We should call an exorcist.

-- Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by roger [/i]

>>The article is nothing more than allegations. No proof. No review of the statistical analysis utilized by the report.

The proof is in the analysis of the conclusions. How the incidence of childhood cancer go from plus one to minus 8 to plus 31 in the space of a few years defies credulity and offers the suspicion that these numbers are simply pulled from right out of the air.

-- Rouser

 

[Rouser2]

Rouser's moronic "sources" - smoke and mirrors are a perfect description!

A "moronic source" is any source you disagree with, eh? Shall we add to your list the New England Journal of Medicine???


"President Nixon declared a "war on cancer" in 1971 and launched a $42 billion spending spree. What has 30 years and $42 billion produced? Not much, according to the University of Chicago's Dr. John Bailar.
Bailar reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1986 and again in 1997 on the progress in cancer research. In 1986, Bailar concluded that "some 35 years of intense effort focused largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure."
In 1997, Bailar added, "Now, with 12 more years of data and experience, we see little reason to change that conclusion..."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,32304,00.html


-- Rouser

 

[Zep]

As regards to The NCI Cancer Progress Report

"The Report Card apart, there are disturbing questions on the reliability of NCI’s incidence statistics. This is well illustrated by wild reported variations since 1973 for the percent changes in the incidence of childhood cancer:
1973-1980 +21%
1973-1989 +10%
1973-1990 +1%
1973-1991 -8%
1973-1994 +31%
The Report Card’s optimistic and misleading assurances, the latest in a series of smoke and mirror break-throughs since 1971 when President Nixon launched the "War Against Cancer," are designed to divert attention from the escalating incidence of cancer, which has reached epidemic proportions. Cancer now strikes 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women, up from an incidence of 1 in 4 a few decades ago. Meanwhile, our ability to treat and cure most cancer, apart from relatively infrequent cancers particularly those of children, remains virtually unchanged. "

-- Samuel S. Epstein, MD

http://www.nutrition4health.org/NOHAnews/NNS98CanceReportFails.htm



-- Rouser

Ooooh! Numbers! MUST be true if it's got numbers!

Ahem.

Given the paucity of numbers to work with, I decided to go with what was provided above. I have plotted these differences over time, using 1973 as the "base" point, at 100%. Therefore, at the years indicated, the percentages will be 121 (1980), 110 (1989), and so on. Then I plotted two trend lines - linear and polynomial. Here's the result below, and from that we can see that the trend using that data is a slight increase in rates from 1973 to today, not the calamity he trumpets. And this may quite easily correlate with the increased ability to actually detect cancers in recent years - there are more to plot simply because there are more detected now, whereas previously they went undetected.

Of course, there's a LOT of blank spaces in between these points, and it would be awfully nice if Rouser would fill them in... But then again, more data might easily collapse his case for him, so I bet he won't oblige.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The proof is in the analysis of the conclusions. How the incidence of childhood cancer go from plus one to minus 8 to plus 31 in the space of a few years defies credulity and offers the suspicion that these numbers are simply pulled from right out of the air.

-- Rouser

So because the figures are strange, you conclude that they are fabricated? If you were to fabricate figures for some purpose, would you just put down some wild shots? Well, I guess I believe that, but MOST frauds are smart enough to fabricate some numbers that look sensible and support their claims .

Now, Rouser, what is your message with this thread? What is it you wanna discuss?

Hans

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe.

 

[The Don]

I will make this assertion on Rouser's behalf just to get the ball rolling.


The medical profession has no effective way of treating cancer. Figures suggesting that they do have been deliberately doctored (no pun intended). Money spent developing cancer "cures" has been wasted. The hold that the medical monlith (comprising drug companies and conventional doctors) has over the medical profession maintains the status quo and prevents alternative treatments being investigated or rubbishes those which have.

-- Strawman substituting for Rouser

 

[Zep]

I will make this assertion on Rouser's behalf just to get the ball rolling.


The medical profession has no effective way of treating cancer. Figures suggesting that they do have been deliberately doctored (no pun intended). Money spent developing cancer "cures" has been wasted. The hold that the medical monlith (comprising drug companies and conventional doctors) has over the medical profession maintains the status quo and prevents alternative treatments being investigated or rubbishes those which have.

-- Strawman substituting for Rouser

Clunk! Black ball into the corner pocket, game over.

 

[ingoa]

I start with a simple assumption:

Eventually we will all die.

To obtain a death certificate you can use several means:

- Accidents
- Infectious diseases
- Cardiac problems and other effects that indicate a worn out body
- Suicide
- Cancer

Accidents and suicides can happen any time (not really age related, I guess)
Infecticous diseases can happen anytime, but many aren't mortal anymore.
Problems with the heart and organs should rise. Obesity will surely help to that.

So how does one achieve to obtain a death certificate in order to elegible for resurrection (if one belives in such)? Cancer. If lung cancer doesn't get you, kidney cancer will or if that fails another one would do the trick. Cell replication is not perfect. This will get you at the very end. The only way to beat cancer in the long run is to get rid of my initial assumption. But I am afraid that that's not so easy.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, we're back to the reason I agree with the anti-vax mob that dog and cat vaccines cause cancer (apart from vaccine-associated fibrosarcoma, which isn't disputed).

If your pet dies of distemper or infectious hepatitis or parvovirus at a young age, he won't get cancer. Vaccines drastically reduce the incidence of these diseases, thus allowing more pets to survive long enough to die of one of the diseases of old age, including cancer.

Thus, vaccination causes cancer. Right....

I wish Rouser would actually say what he means. Does he think the stats are faked? If they were, wouldn't those faking them do a better job?

Meanwhile, our ability to treat and cure most cancer, .... remains virtually unchanged.

And the evidence for this would be....?

Rolfe.

 

[Suezoled]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,32304,00.html

Well with a web pages like foxnews, I can't help but think "well now *that's* not a biased source full of garbage." I'm biased, I admit.

That said, the link is in fact about the -federally funded- failure of stem cell research to treat, prevent, even fully cure diseases. The article then goes on to blame these federally funded programs, stating outright that "the feds" are flushing money down the toilet.
and then there are gems like

The problem is that as long as the feds run the research, we won't know what the true prospects for a cancer cure are. The federal medical research bureaucracy won't give us a straightforward assessment.

and

The only certain beneficiaries are the scientists who seem to view cancer research funding as a workfare entitlement for the overeducated but underproductive.

and then it goes on to spew more hate about "the feds" stopping the funding of people who challenge the idea that HIV causes AIDS, and by the way what have "the feds" done lately to combat mutations and resistent strains of HIV virus? Shame on them for turning their nose up at new proposals!


Mention of idea that penicillian was discovered by accident with no government backing.
And then the rest ends with:

If we are going to take ethical liberties with embryos, we should at least have confidence that the process has a chance of producing something worthwhile. Federally funded research doesn't meet this standard.

You know, as if researching HAS to produce viable results, instead of exploring the possibility of discarding the possibility of viability.

AH, well. what do I know?

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Suezoled [/i]


>>Well with a web pages like foxnews, I can't help but think "well now *that's* not a biased source full of garbage." I'm biased, I admit.

Oh, but Fox only reports; you decide.


>>That said, the link is in fact about the -federally funded- failure of stem cell research to treat, prevent, even fully cure diseases. The article then goes on to blame these federally funded programs, stating outright that "the feds" are flushing money down the toilet.

Flushing money down a rat hole. Same difference. The taxpayer's money; the NCI's rat hole.

>>Mention of idea that penicillian was discovered by accident with no government backing.

Ah, that's a point die-hard worshipers of government funded research seem to always choke on.

>>And then the rest ends with:
You know, as if researching HAS to produce viable results, instead of exploring the possibility of discarding the possibility of viability.

Yes, indeed. The Cancer Industrial Complex is very good at exploring dead ends, with other people's money.

>>AH, well. what do I know?

Not much. You seem to have overlooked the author, Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, a frequently referred to website on these alleged "skeptic" boards, as well as his association as an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. But what do they know? Just a bunch of anti-goverment free market loving radical kooks, eh??? The implication is, that the War on Cancer as implemented by the the Cancer Industry, is, in fact, worthy of the label "Junk Science".

-- Rouser

 

[bjornart]

Maybe Americans don't get proper cancer treatment for their research bucks. But us Norwegians certainly appear to.

Looking at the raw data I get these results (based on 5 year averages and rounded whichever way I chose):

A decrease of 50% in mortality in the under 29 bracket, a decrease of 30% in the 30-39 bracket, a decrease of 20% in the 40-49 bracket and 0-5% decrease in the 50-59 bracket.

In the 60-69 bracket the mortality has increased by 20% for men and stayed stable for women. In the 70-79 it has increased 30% for men and stayed stable for women. And for those 89 and older it has increased by 50% for men, and stayed stable for women.

Broken down to individual years 1991-2001 the figures for women are slightly worse for the 70-79 and 89+ bracket, and slightly better for men in the 60-69 bracket.

Based on the table: Sex and age-specific death rates from malignant neoplasms. Underlying cause of death. 1951-2001. Per 100 000 population

The data has been compiled by the official sensus and statistics bureau, Statistics Norway, so I suppose the paranoid can scream about government coverup if they want. To me the numbers are obvious. We're getting better at curing cancer, but people are living longer and/or men are the weaker sex and/or men have cancer inducing habits.

Edited to add: Neoplasm is a fancy word for tumor, I think.
Edited again to add: these figures aren't adjusted for age distribution, and won't be since I don't have access to age distribution data for that whole period.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, our ability to treat and cure most cancer, .... remains virtually unchanged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>And the evidence for this would be....?

As outlined by Dr. Epstein:

"Reversal in overall mortality rates has been minimal and due largely to a reduction in lung cancer deaths from reduced smoking in men rather than to advances in treatment. Overall five-year survival rates for all cancers have remained virtually static since 1970, from 49 to 54 percent for all races combined, and from 39 to 40 percent for African Americans. Dr. John Bailar, formerly an epidemiologist at the NCI and now chair of the Department of Health Studies at the University of Chicago, has found that reduced mortality rates are more likely the result of earlier detection and diagnosis rather than improved cancer treatments."

"Longer life expectancy cannot explain these increases, as incidence and mortality rates in cancer registries are age-adjusted to reflect these trends."

Excerpted from "The High Stakes of Cancer Prevention" by Samuel Epstein and Liza Gross, Tikkun Magazine, Nov/Dec 2000 www.tikkun.org
and Stop Cancer Before It Starts: How to Win the War on Cancer by Samuel S. Epstein,


-- Rouser