Is the war on cancer an utter failure? In the past 15 to 20 years have there been any progress ( or just little bit) ? Is there any new stuff in lab shown promising results.
Some of these web sites probably biased information seem to say the war on cancer an utter failure.These web sites may be biased information. I don’t know enough about it to say otherwise.
http://rense.com/general9/cre.htm
http://www.nanomedicinecenter.com/article/how-much-money-is-spent-on-cancer-research/
Any time you see these words preface a noun: “War on…”, know that it is a propaganda scam and its result is not only failure, but the enrichment of a few.
This is pretty far outside of my areas of expertise, but I can tell that a lot of this information is extremely biased just by this quote from your second linked article:
In other words, we are reducing the mortality rate, but the total number of deaths is rising (presumably due to population growth?). The key there is that n article that claims the war on cancer is an utter failure freely admits that we are reducing the mortality rate. Uh, that sounds like we’re actually winning the war, if slowly. It’s progress, not an utter failure. As long as the per-capita mortality rate continues to drop, we’ll eventually win. It’s when the mortality rate stops dropping that we start losing the war.
The third article you linked to makes the same argument:
These articles all seem to think that the fact that we haven’t completely won the war yet means that the war is a compete waste and can’t be won. It’s not an easy war to win. Cancer isn’t one simple disease. It’s a whole bunch of different diseases with different causes and different cures.
You can make the claim that the war on cancer is an extremely costly war, but you can’t claim it’s a complete failure when we’re making progress These articles seem to think that anything short of “wonder pill discovered that cures cancer!” is a failure.
And the first article is from a crackpot/scam site.
War on cancer is a bit vague. Lots of different cancers, lots of different cures.
Antibody therapy is the most promising thing going. Goverment agencies slow everything to a crawl though.
And probably also increasing lifespan and/or a reduction of deaths by other means. You can’t die from cancer if something else kills you first after all.
Exactly. The war on deaths due to the great killers in the modern world of the last 50 years is an utter failure. People still just keep dying.
Billion upon billions spent on cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia, chronic obstructive lung disease and diabetes. (WHO list of major causes of death in the developed world.) The difference is that in the developed world you will usually be over 70, often well over. And until very recently that age kept going up. There is a lot to suggest that the reason it isn’t going up anymore (or even going down) in some countries is diet and lifestyle driven.
And the usual addition. There is no such thing as just “cancer,” anymore than there is such a thing as dying of a “virus”. There are many cancers, and they are intrinsically different. Some we have got a lot better at treating, some not.
There are a couple of charts linked to on this website to look at:
Look at the charts labeled “Trends in Age-adjusted Cancer Death Rates by Site, Males, US, 1930-2010” and “Trends in Age-adjusted Cancer Death Rates by Site, Females, US, 1930-2010”. There has been a reasonable amount of progress (within the U.S.) since about 1991. The biggest progress has been in lung cancer, and that’s because the amount of smoking has decreased. Some cancers, like pancreatic, have proved difficult to cure, so there has been little progress. Notice that these charts are age-adjusted. So, yes, there has been progress on curing and preventing cancer, but the fact that people live longer has meant that the progress is not quite so noticeable since obviously older people are more likely to get cancer.
This website says specifically that the cancer death rate (within the U.S.) has declined since 1991:
One can lie with statistics, and one can speak the truth with statistics. The people who’ve made the sites the OP has found are either liars or not competent on the subject, so their stats lie. These charts tell the actual truth. The progress on prevention and treatment of cancers has been tremendous, but if you ignore that cancer is a “hasn’t died of anything else yet”-disease, that’s easy to hide.
A 1% decrease per year since 1991 would mean a 25% decrease. That’s not an abysmal failure.
My doctor says that since the advent of statins, his older patients are no longer dying of heart disease and, inevitably, many are dying of cancer. But at an advanced age. He does not think that the main effect of statins is the reduction of cholesterol, but in the suppression of inflammation.
We haven’t done well with treating metastatic cancer, regardless of the type. Maybe buying the person a few extra months, maybe even years if you’re lucky, but it’s an unrelentingfoe.
Are you ignoring all the information about cancer that’s been given to you in your similar threads?
Okay. So we can cure some cancers sometimes. And antibody therapies are very promising but not really saving many lives at this point. I believe that the treatments being used are the same horribly toxic methods we were using three decades ago. It’s like when they used arsenic to treat syphilis. Progress has been much slower than with many other diseases. Maybe not an utter failure but certainly nothing to brag about.
To go back a little further, you have to realize that in the 1960s, a diagnosis of cancer was usually a sentence of death by torture. Occasionally surgery worked but otherwise you were out of luck. There has been slow but steady improvement in the five year survival rates for most cancers, and we now have extremely promising tools for further improvements. Considering cancer is a fundamental failure of the body’s genetic and immune system, treating it effectively is a very complex question.
In my experience, whenever you hear people going on about “the war on cancer” they’re intent on denigrating progress made in fighting it.
We’ve made remarkable progress in combatting hematopoietic disorders like leukemia and lymphoma that were once automatic death sentences. Long-term survival is now possible for people with CML and multiple myeloma. And even advanced/recurrent acute lymphoblastic leukemia has a very promising treatment (genetically modified T-cell therapy).
When caught early enough (which happens more and more due to better detection methods), solid cancers of various organs are being cured, something that wasn’t possible 50 years ago for most.
Progress has been very slow for the most virulent neoplasms (like those of pancreas, brain gliomas etc.) and advanced cancers with metastases remain difficult to treat with certain exceptions like testicular seminomas.
Overall, anyone who alleges the “war on cancer” has been “an utter failure” is utterly ignorant.
*rense.com is a refuge for conspiracy theorists, bigots and loonies of all kinds.
Anyone saying cancer research has nothing to brag about doesn’t know jack about what a complicated and diverse issue cancer is, or how much survival chances have increased.
it’s pretty difficult to fight when it’s your own body’s cells going rogue. much easier treating/curing something caused by a foreign pathogen.
Some of these web sites saying this many new cases and this many deaths not that accurate.You have no idea how long the person had cancer or other info.
The 5 or 10 year survival rate is better.
That what I was looking for what the 5 or 10 year survival rate was in the 80’s to now .To see how we improved the treatment.
As pointed out in your last thread about this - the statistics are out there if you wish to look for them. Here’s the data for stomach cancer, for example:
This shows the increase in 1, 5, and 10 year survival for stomach cancer since the 1970s. Notice the steady improvement. Of course it could be better, but that seems to be the trend.