Cancer rates have exploded since 1970. I told this to someone and they arrogantly corrected me. But I just looked it up right there and they had confused death rates with cancer rates. Thanks be to god for smartphones. Diabetes, obesity, cancer, depression rates all exploded in unison starting around 1970. Why does everyone ignore the massive implications of this? It means there’s something we’re doing that is killin…
U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991
101–110 of 120 posts
Re: U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991
#102Cancer rates have exploded since 1970. I told this to someone and they arrogantly corrected me. But I just looked it up right there and they had confused death rates with cancer rates. Thanks be to god for smartphones. Diabetes, obesity, cancer, depression rates all exploded in unison starting around 1970. Why does everyone ignore the massive implications of this? It means there’s something we’re doing that is killin…
I think about things like this:
https://preview.redd.it/clcfr7xw08y31.jpg?auto=webp&s=6dc026...
It was around that time when modern society became remarkably efficient at poisoning or completely destroying ecosystems
Re: U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991
#103Cancer rates have exploded since 1970. I told this to someone and they arrogantly corrected me. But I just looked it up right there and they had confused death rates with cancer rates. Thanks be to god for smartphones. Diabetes, obesity, cancer, depression rates all exploded in unison starting around 1970. Why does everyone ignore the massive implications of this? It means there’s something we’re doing that is killin…
This is already well-known and understood in science: cancer rates exploding is not because of an external force causing more cancer, but a sign that we addressed other things that kill you before you get cancer. And we also got far better at screening, including being able to identify benign tumors.
This sort of hyperbole- "killing millions", "trillion pet theories"- is needlessly alarmist.
Re: U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a dubious claim. While links between HPV and cervical cancer are quite strong and well-defined, the associations with the other viruses you cite are only correlative. Also, Hep C, HIV and herpes have no vaccine, so unclear what your statement is referring to anyway? What has contributed to a drop in cancer mortality would be advances in treatment (like targeted therapies and immunoncology), better image/blood…
This particular virus has a solid link to various forms of cancer: "[Epstein–Barr virus] has also been implicated in several other diseases, including Burkitt's lymphoma, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, Hodgkin's lymphoma, stomach cancer, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, multiple sclerosis, and lymphomatoid granulomatosis.". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epstein%E2%80%93Barr_virus#Rol...
The word "implicated" in science normally means "correlated with" and can't really be considered a "solid link".
Some of the articles cited in that section have sentences like "1 out 2 (50%) adult analyzed cases was positive, with 50% of stained tumor cells (this patient was a 22 years old female, coming from Napoli);" that don't follow the necessary standard of evidence. I continued to skim the linked articles and they are all clearly correlative.
Re: U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991
#105Cancer rates have exploded since 1970. I told this to someone and they arrogantly corrected me. But I just looked it up right there and they had confused death rates with cancer rates. Thanks be to god for smartphones. Diabetes, obesity, cancer, depression rates all exploded in unison starting around 1970. Why does everyone ignore the massive implications of this? It means there’s something we’re doing that is killin…
> Cancer rates have exploded since 1970 So has life expectancy! Cancer is ultimately a numbers game & you roll the dice every single day. Life expectancy in the US today is ten years longer than it was in 1970. All those extra dice rolls add up. Ideally you could correct for this effect, but it’s not clear we know enough about how cancer risk accumulates over time to do this correctly.
Cancer rates for each age have exploded, not just total cancer rates. Cancer rates for cancers that were known and diagnosed well before 1970 have exploded.
Re: U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cancer rates skyrocketed because we started screening for cancer. It's that simple.
And obesity skyrocketed because nobody knew the difference between a fat person and a skinny person before 1970? We knew what cancer was before 1970. We certainly knew what diabetes was. The simple fact is that people started getting sicker in the 70s. For a very long time people have been going to the doctor when they feel sick. Oliver Cromwell consulted with doctors and was convinced that he was very ill. Later on…
> An illness like diabetes presents very specific symptoms and doctors have been aware of diabetes for a very long time. The same is true for many kinds of cancer
You can have diabetes and high blood pressure and cancer and not have symptoms. That's why we screen for them. If you have symptoms, it is no longer screening, it's diagnosing. A lot more screening is happening now than before the 70s so we are obviously finding a lot more disease.
I'm not arguing against the fact that lifestyle and environment play a significant role in increasing cancer, but that doesn't change the fact that dramatically increased screening rates have contributed to dramatically increased disease diagnoses.
> There are literally people out there who basically do not get cancer heart disease or diabetes and nobody seems to think it’s important to get to the bottom of this
I think there is probably more research these days into causes of cancer than ever before.
> people like you who leave snide comments and contribute nothing. A worthless parasite.
Really?
Re: U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991
#107Cancer rates have exploded since 1970. I told this to someone and they arrogantly corrected me. But I just looked it up right there and they had confused death rates with cancer rates. Thanks be to god for smartphones. Diabetes, obesity, cancer, depression rates all exploded in unison starting around 1970. Why does everyone ignore the massive implications of this? It means there’s something we’re doing that is killin…
This is already well-known and understood in science: cancer rates exploding is not because of an external force causing more cancer, but a sign that we addressed other things that kill you before you get cancer. And we also got far better at screening, including being able to identify benign tumors. This sort of hyperbole- "killing millions", "trillion pet theories"- is needlessly alarmist.
[flagged]
Re: U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
This particular virus has a solid link to various forms of cancer: "[Epstein–Barr virus] has also been implicated in several other diseases, including Burkitt's lymphoma, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, Hodgkin's lymphoma, stomach cancer, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, multiple sclerosis, and lymphomatoid granulomatosis.". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epstein%E2%80%93Barr_virus#Rol...
The word "implicated" in science normally means "correlated with" and can't really be considered a "solid link". Some of the articles cited in that section have sentences like "1 out 2 (50%) adult analyzed cases was positive, with 50% of stained tumor cells (this patient was a 22 years old female, coming from Napoli);" that don't follow the necessary standard of evidence. I continued to skim the linked articles and t…
This article appeared today.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34367905
"...several herpes viruses, which two-thirds of us carry, induce tumors in animal species."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4353788/
"A herpes virus causes Burkett's lymphoma in humans; another causes nasopharyngeal cancer in humans."
Re: U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cancer rates skyrocketed because we started screening for cancer. It's that simple.
I'm not so sure, cancers seem to be mostly due to environment/lifestyle [0]. Diet is a big factor and it definitely got worse since the 70s [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515569/
I'm not arguing that they don't, but the fact is
- the American Cancer Society didn't start promoting cervical cancer screening until the 1960s [1] - mammography was first recommended officialy in 1976 [1]
Screening was just coming of age 50 years ago so it's no surprise we started to find something once we started looking for it.
[1]: https://www.cancer.org/treatment/understanding-your-diagnosi...
Re: U.S. cancer death rate has dropped by a third since 1991
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
And obesity skyrocketed because nobody knew the difference between a fat person and a skinny person before 1970? We knew what cancer was before 1970. We certainly knew what diabetes was. The simple fact is that people started getting sicker in the 70s. For a very long time people have been going to the doctor when they feel sick. Oliver Cromwell consulted with doctors and was convinced that he was very ill. Later on…
> An illness like diabetes presents very specific symptoms and doctors have been aware of diabetes for a very long time. The same is true for many kinds of cancer You can have diabetes and high blood pressure and cancer and not have symptoms. That's why we screen for them. If you have symptoms, it is no longer screening, it's diagnosing. A lot more screening is happening now than before the 70s so we are obviously fi…
I don’t buy it. Cancer that is screened eventually will present. It doesn’t change the amount of cancer that presents. Again, this changes survival but not diagnoses. People who abstain from living in the modern way almost never get cancer or diabetes. Is this because they aren’t being screened? The explosion doesn’t correlate to change in screening methodology. Yes, people who ignore the simple facts are parasites. Like with the recent breakthrough in epigenetic aging, for decades the theory of mutation based aging dominated despite the clear and simple fact that there was contradictory evidence. For decades we had to put up with the amyloid theory of Alzheimer’s even though the plain and simple fact was that there were people without Alzheimer’s who had plaques and there were people with Alzheimer’s who didn’t have plaques. The reason why billions of dollars were spent on the wrong solutions and the reason why millions of people have suffered and died prematurely for no good reason is people like you who glom onto whatever is the least painful thing to believe. Whatever liberates you the most from accountability. No, it’s not anything we are doing, it’s just data anomalies and we are totally helpless. The same doom worship that is responsible for every global warming advocate getting really glassy eyed and avoidant whenever you start to discuss actual solutions rather than just rave about how utterly screwed we are. People don’t want solutions they want to resign to their helplessness. So yeah you are part of the problem in my opinion. You just want to resign to the fact that cancer is totally beyond our ability to comprehend or do anything about it. And you ignore these insane data points that demand to be scrutinized and made sense of because it would interrupt your world view.