Cure for Cancer?

[nec209]

These stats do not seem right http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@sta/documents/image/crukmig_1000img-12646.jpg

 

And here are five year survival rates some more survival statistics, also from the UK.

 

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/survival/latestrates/

 

 

All sites 66% +++++ ????

Breast 89% ++++++ 79%

Colon 65% ++++++ 46%

Leukemia 50% ++++++ 38%

Lung cancers 16% ++++++ 6%

Melanoma 92%

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma ++++++ 84%

Ovary45% ++++++

Pancreas 5% ++++++ 3%

Prostate 99% ++++++ 61%

Rectum 66% ++++++ 45%

Urinary bladder 81% ++++++ ???

stomach ++++++ 13%

Oesophagus ++++++ 7%

Brain ++++++ 13%

Cervix ++++++ 68%

Kidney ++++++ 45%

multiple myeloma ++++++ 24%

Larynx ++++++ 61%

Bladder ++++++ 71%

Colon ++++++ 46%

I thought most types of cancer have a 50% survivor rate ??

 

 

The one in bold are from the new stats site that seem much lower than the other stats I posted.

 

The Medical community progress in cancer treatment in the past 10 to 15 years is much higher than stats poste here.

Edited April 6, 2011 by nec209

[Marat]

More instructive data on the failure of modern medicine to deal adequately with cancer are the statistics on the number of cancer patients who die 'cancer free' but from cachexia and the side-effects of the highly toxic cancer 'therapies' used. If the way you 'cure' people of cancer is to kill them by your treatments or to make them so sick and terrified by the process of treatment that they wish they were dead, what do your five-year survival rates mean in human terms?

[SMF]

Marat. My mother made it just over five years from cancer treatment before its return got her. During this period she wrote a novel, took a couple of trips abroad, and enjoyed her children and grandchildren. The second and final round of treatment was pretty ugly, but it didn't have to be in pretty obvious ways. SM

[nec209]

So what are you saying the Medical community progress in cancer treatment in the past 10 to 15 years is not that great?

Edited April 8, 2011 by nec209

[Marat]

The problem throughout medicine now is that since no significant disease has been cured since polio was overcome as a public health problem in the West sixty years ago, medicine has retreated to 'managing' incurable conditions, which is at least good for business, for the same reasons the telephone company would rather rent you your new phone than sell you one. So medicine now tries to excuse its sorry performance by extending lifespans a little at the cost of ruining the quality of life during that extension.

 

So we have horrors like life on renal dialysis; life with labile diabetes subjected to coma-inducing hypoglycemia from strict blood sugar management; or cancer with chemo- and radiotherapy and radical surgery, followed by gradual wasting, only partially correctable anemia (given the limitations of erythropoietin treatment), and constant weakness. Some people look at these trade-offs and say that they would rather be dead and you don't see them again; others cling to life at any cost. These are individual decisions, and to some of us in some cases the choices made seem tolerable, but in others not.

 

I think medical science may have reached an intermediate stage of development where its technological improvements have only made more net suffering possible by encouraging people -- mistakenly -- to endure medical horrors for an inadequate return. Medicine did more good when it had to let more people die quickly, just as it will hopefully do more good once again when it advances beyond its present intermediate stage.

[farmboy]

These stats do not seem right http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@sta/documents/image/crukmig_1000img-12646.jpg

 

And here are five year survival rates some more survival statistics, also from the UK.

 

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/survival/latestrates/

 

 

All sites 66% +++++ ????

Breast 89% ++++++ 79%

Colon 65% ++++++ 46%

Leukemia 50% ++++++ 38%

Lung cancers 16% ++++++ 6%

Melanoma 92%

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma ++++++ 84%

Ovary45% ++++++

Pancreas 5% ++++++ 3%

Prostate 99% ++++++ 61%

Rectum 66% ++++++ 45%

Urinary bladder 81% ++++++ ???

stomach ++++++ 13%

Oesophagus ++++++ 7%

Brain ++++++ 13%

Cervix ++++++ 68%

Kidney ++++++ 45%

multiple myeloma ++++++ 24%

Larynx ++++++ 61%

Bladder ++++++ 71%

Colon ++++++ 46%

I thought most types of cancer have a 50% survivor rate ??

 

 

The one in bold are from the new stats site that seem much lower than the other stats I posted.

 

The Medical community progress in cancer treatment in the past 10 to 15 years is much higher than stats poste here.

 

I did a quick search and found this data, which seems to indicate that survival rates are in fact increasing steadily.

 

 

Taken from this page....

 

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/survival/fiveyear/

[Marat]

A large element in that apparent increase in the five-year survival rates is the undeniable improvement in early diagnosis of cancer -- in part through improved chemical tests, in part through wider use of advanced radiologic instruments, and in part through greater screening efforts by GPs. The earlier you start looking even at an unchanged duration of cancer from the first appearance of abnormal cells until the ultimate death of the patient, the better the five-year survival rates will seem to be.

[nec209]

no Medical community progress in cancer treatment in the past 10 to 15 years ?

[nec209]

That does not read well.I think what It should be what Medical progress in cancer treatment in the past 10 to 15 years if any ?

 

 

Any one have stats to show?This should clear up this confusing thread.

Edited April 28, 2011 by nec209

[nec209]

The only thing I found is this ? What is your thought on it?

 

take a look at how progression has been made in the treatment of childhood cancers

 

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/childhoodcancer/survival/