He may have a point. In absolute terms increasing the survival rate from 70% to 85% represents 2.5X the number of lives saved as increasing the survival rate from 4% to 10%.
I’m not talking about lives saved .I’m talking about the rate of progress or progress made.
Sure from 1970 that say lung cancer for an example at 5% and at 2005 at 10% that is double and twice as many people alive
But over 35 years that is very slow.
Surreal, only if it is a percent of the same starting off number. Doubling the survival of those with lung cancer from 5 to 10% (assuming those numbers are accurate) is much much more in absolute numbers than the increased survival in childhood cancers of 60 to 80%.
sweat, half as many cancer deaths in those under 50, 43% decrease in those 50 to 59, 31% decrease in those 60 to 69 is not impressive to you?
Metastatic disease continues to be horrible with lots done that to me often seems more like extending the death process than extending life. 57% of the time lung cancer has metastasizd by the time it is diagnosed. Once metastasized 5 year survival is crap, 4%. Only 15% of the time is it diagnosed still localized when it has a 54% 5 year survival. Overall I’ve read it is now about 17%, not 10%.
I think your expectations are not in line with reality.
Improving the 5 and 10-year survival rates of any type of cancer is progress. That can not be disputed.
You seem to expect some sort of yearly acceleration of survival rates. If we improved the rate by one percent in year one, it should be two percent in year two, three percent in year three, and so on.
But look atFigure 2 on this page. It’s a study of deaths in the U.S. over a 75 year period. You’ll see that heart disease and cancer continue to be the leading causes of death. But, the percentage of people dying from those two causes has declined from 60 percent in 1983 to 47 percent in 2010.
That equals a decline of only about one-half percentage point for each year, but it’s a continuous decline and definitely progress.
I think it is English language problem and bit math problem. I’m having hard time explaining my self.
For it to be more impressive these numbers would have go up 8% every 10 years or so.
I don’t think from the 70’s to now these numbers gone up 8% every 10 years.
Cervix,Utteri 70%
Larymx 68%
Rectum 62%
Kidney,renal pelvis 61%
Colon 61%
Non-Hodgkins 57%
Oral cavity,pharynx 56%
Ovary 55%
Leukemia 42%
Brain,nervous system 32
Multiple myeloma 29
Stomach 23
Lung and Brochus 15
Esophagus 14
Here is the kicker these cancers are almost at 100%
Prostate 98%
Thyroid 96%
Testis 94%
Malanomas 89%
Breast 86%
Hodgkin’s 85%
Corpus uteri, utterus 85%
Urinary bladder 82%
If trends improve by the year 2050 these may well be at 100%
The next one mid range.
Cervix,Utteri 70%
Larymx 68%
Rectum 62%
Kidney,renal pelvis 61%
Colon 61%
Non-Hodgkins 57%
Oral cavity,pharynx 56%
Ovary 55%
Leukemia 42%
If trends improve by the year 2050 they could be like top one.
Low ones the deadly cancers are.
Brain,nervous system 32
Multiple myeloma 29
Stomach 23
Lung and Brochus 15
Esophagus 14
If trends improve by the year 2050 they may be like mid range.
This is sorta of the level of progress I had in mind. But from 1970 to now it may have not gone up that fast , so if it did not gone up that fast unless there are some major breakthroughs it will not go up that fast.
I may be not good at math but for this to be true would not all cancers have to progress and go up by 8% every 10 years?
And from the 1970 to now have rate and progress for cancer gone up by 8% every 10 years?
I don’t think this is a math or a language problem, which is not to see there are not some. It is just that you have what seems to many of us to be an odd definition for “progress.” 8% per year? Why that number?
Any thing closer to 10% is lot better in 10 to 15 years .Really I’m getting to think my explanations are too high and it does not progress that fast.
It may be more like this
If trends improve in 100 years from now it will be closer to 100%
Cervix,Utteri 70%
Larymx 68%
Rectum 62%
Kidney,renal pelvis 61%
Colon 61%
Non-Hodgkins 57%
Oral cavity,pharynx 56%
Ovary 55%
Leukemia 42%
If trends improve in 100 to 150 years from now it will be closer to top list.
Cervix,Utteri 70%
Larymx 68%
Rectum 62%
Kidney,renal pelvis 61%
Colon 61%
Non-Hodgkins 57%
Oral cavity,pharynx 56%
Ovary 55%
Leukemia 42%
Low ones the deadly cancers are.
Brain,nervous system 32
Multiple myeloma 29
Stomach 23
Lung and Brochus 15
Esophagus 14
If trends improve in 100 to 150 years from now it will be closer to mid rage.
The medical progress is slow and little has changed.
Esophagus cancer from 70’a to now.
http://img.medscape.com/fullsize/migrated/439/720/ms439720.lowe.fig4.gif
vaginal and vulval cancer
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@sta/documents/image/crukmig_1000img-13123.jpg
This is hardly want I call progress.
And what Lung cancer and stomach cancer 5% in the 70’s and in 2005 10%. That is very little progress. It should have been 10% in the 80’s and some thing like 15% or 20% in the 90’s
If it only going up 2% to 3% every 10 years it is going to take long time this war on cancer.
Okay language may be a large barrier too as I am not getting what you are trying to say at all. And you do not seem to be reading what others write. Lung cancer is now about 17% 5 year survival (as cited), from your claimed 5% in 2005. And that is with the majority being diagnosed in very advanced forms.
The short version: there is no way that the decrease in cancer per 100K and in particular the highly significant decreases in cancer deaths in those under 70 and especially those under 50 can be described as an “utter failure.” One can reasonably express disappointment that treatment for metastatic disease has progressed so little and that detection of some cancers before they are so advanced has advanced so little.
Here’s the EU status. Only pancreatic cancer is not decreasing (no good early detection and no good treatment). Otherwise:
This is not “utter failure.” It is solid workmanlike progress.
The Chinese had effective treatments for smallpox in the 10th Century. The disease wasn’t eliminated until 1977. That’s 1,000 years.
The first successful cure for diphtheria was discovered in Berlin in 1891. There were more than 4,000 diphtheria cases reported in 2013, including four in Germany. That’s 122 years.
William Hammond tested the first vaccine for polio in 1950. There were more than 400 polio cases reported in 2013. That’s 63 years.
The fight against those diseases represent public health miracles, yet progress against many forms of cancer is proceeding even faster.
Do you consider eradicating smallpox a “failure” because it took 1,000 years?
Correction to my last post - Lung cancer is now about 17% 5 year survival (as cited), from your claimed 5% in [del]2005[/del] the 70s and 10% in 2005.
My apologies.
My views of explanations are probably too high :(:(:(:(:(here and I’m having problems explaining it and it is coming across , just pulling out random numbers here and hard to understand.And I’m having problems understanding some times what other people say here.
I think kunilou came close to understanding what I’m getting at.
That my explanations of such cancer should be accelerating faster.
Than going from 5% in 1970 to 10% in 2005 is very slow and little has change. That means in 35 years it only gone up 5% and if the same trend , unless major breakthrough in 35 years from now it go from 10% to 15%.
That it should been more impressive like 5% in 1970 to 30% in 2005 or 40% in 2005.
That in 35 years any cancer type going up 5% to 10% is not that impressive.
Say Leukemia at 42% survival rate now , if in 35 years from now it goes up 5% or 10% that not that impressive.
My explanations may be too high and that may be not how it works.
It’s not your explanations that are too high. It’s your expectations. Progress is progress.
Cancer is (mostly) not like smallpox or typhoid. We’re not going to wipe it out - or develop a “cure” - the same way we have some bacterial and viral illnesses. You might as well compare tetanus to a broken arm.
Here’s what I’ve observed repeatedly in these sweat threads about medicine:
- Sweat makes some outrageous, outlandish claim, like “the war on cancer is an utter failure”
- Sweat attempts to back up this claim with a bunch of random statements and numbers that don’t really hang together as a logical argument or support his initial claim.
- Well-meaning people jump in and attempt, over and over, to explain what’s wrong with his claim, his arguments, and his data, complete with more data that provide a more accurate picture of modern medicine and progress.
- Sweat backs way down on his initial claim; something along the lines of “Oh, I didn’t mean that the war on cancer is an utter failure, of course! What I meant was that the rate of progress in this one particular subtype of cancer is slightly less rapid than I would like. How did you people get the idea that I thought THAT?”
- Sweat’s new, revised, smaller claim is thoroughly debunked, refuted, and explained.
- Sweat then claims that communication is being blocked by his lack of English.
GOTO step 5, thus setting up an infinite loop. Occasionally a new sub-claim will squirt out, setting off another subloop.
I hope this isn’t considered a hijack - but there are people concerned with our overall approach to breast cancer research in particular. NPR had an interesting story on something called the Artemis project last month. It’s an effort by the National Breast Cancer Coalition to take more control and improve coordination in breast cancer research. I don’t know enough to say whether breast cancer research needs more coordination or not - but it’s an interesting idea at least.
There needs to be a fork() in there that sets up a new thread with essentially the same premise, which goes the same way as the others. 
Of course, after we cure cancer, people will be panicked about the rise in Exploding Spleen Syndrome, which is currently little-known as it primarily affects people in their 130s.
Moderating
In view of the fact that the premise stated in the OP has been demonstrated to be incorrect, and that sweat09 has started a previous thread with the same premise, I’m going to close this.
Moderator Instructions
sweat09, I’m instructing you not to start any more of these threads in General Questions unless you have a more defined question. Don’t make some unsupported claim that you can’t back up effectively. If you wish to debate some aspect of medicine (as you seem to here), open a thread in Great Debates. I would recommend, however, that you improve your debating skills before doing so. I also note that you have expressed the opinion that there are “too many medical threads” in GQ. While I don’t necessarily agree, this is the kind of thread that seems to me to be superfluous.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator