Okay, I got a bit carried away today and of course lost the original news article, but this was one of those AP type broadcasts that hit every news service-
U.S. cancer deaths fall for second year in row / Bay Area doctors say report reflects real progress against disease, is no mere fluke - SFGate
The numbers I saw quoted were as follows- 2002 557,271
2003 556,902
2004 553,888
Flashy headline and glowing reports on the success of "the movement".
Now you may ask why it took so long to determine this (two years) and why there wasn't a similar news story in 2008. At least that was my thought so I started digging. Well based on data found on cancer.org (yes, our friends at ACS who released the good news), that was the last year that cancer deaths dropped.
Instead of the number of deaths dropping, NOW it's the cancer rate dropping-
Annual Report: Rates of New Cancers, Cancer Deaths, Dropping
Well, that sounds real good, until you look at population growth over the last 10 years-
Population; total in the United States
The crude estimate is that there is about a 6% increase in population by births compared to deaths meaning the rate would logically fall since the total number of people keeps growing, even if the number of deaths keeps increasing. Plus you are replacing older people with babies.
Now why didn't the ACS come out and state that although the RATE is decreasing, then number of deaths is INCREASING.
2005 Est. 570,280
2006 Est. 564,830
2007 * 559,650
2008 Est. 565,650
2009 Est. 562,340
2010 Est. 569,490
2011 Est. 571,950
Now I suppose that perhaps the ACS got a little nervous after their earlier propaganda was met with a change in direction so in 2007 they added the NOTE-
"* Caution: It is very important to note that beginning with Cancer Facts & Figures 2007, estimated new cancer cases in the current year were computed using a new,
more accurate method developed by researchers at the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. Improvements in the new model include use of data
from a much larger percentage of the US population, allowance for geographical variation in cancer incidence, adjustment for delays in reporting, and the inclusion of many
socio-demographic, medical facility, lifestyle, and cancer screening behavior variables. Comparisons of estimates produced by the old and new methods.
were generally similar for all cancers combined but differ substantially for some sites. "
Now you have to laugh. All those dollars donated for all these decades and people are still dying at a pretty good clip. No cure, just treatment, then death. Sound familiar?
However, one question led to another for me and I had to ask, "what do they really consider smoker related cancer?" Google gave me this site-
Smoking Related Cancer What Are Smoking Related Cancers
The only direct relationship to cancer from smoking were in 5 types of cancer with innuendo directed at a number of others. The big five were lung, ovarian, stomach, Esophageal and kidney. Percentages were provided like lung cancer had an estimate of between 80 and 90% smoker related. I chose to use 85% to estimate the cancers in those big 5 attributed to smoking.
Well after tabling 7 years of data and using lungcancer's percentages, I got an average of just about 28% of all cancers attributed to smoking which means 72% were not. Considering that you are classified as being a smoker if you smoked more than 99 cigarettes in your life, that number is probably a lot higher than actual. They are SAMMEC (Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Morbidity, and Economic Costs) estimates based on plugged numbers afterall. The range for those seven years ran between a low of 27.32% (the estimate for 2011) and 28.49% (the estimate for 2006). See all those millions devoted to getting people to use pharma products are certainly paying off.
Rant over.
U.S. cancer deaths fall for second year in row / Bay Area doctors say report reflects real progress against disease, is no mere fluke - SFGate
The numbers I saw quoted were as follows- 2002 557,271
2003 556,902
2004 553,888
Flashy headline and glowing reports on the success of "the movement".
Now you may ask why it took so long to determine this (two years) and why there wasn't a similar news story in 2008. At least that was my thought so I started digging. Well based on data found on cancer.org (yes, our friends at ACS who released the good news), that was the last year that cancer deaths dropped.
Instead of the number of deaths dropping, NOW it's the cancer rate dropping-
Annual Report: Rates of New Cancers, Cancer Deaths, Dropping
Well, that sounds real good, until you look at population growth over the last 10 years-
Population; total in the United States
The crude estimate is that there is about a 6% increase in population by births compared to deaths meaning the rate would logically fall since the total number of people keeps growing, even if the number of deaths keeps increasing. Plus you are replacing older people with babies.
Now why didn't the ACS come out and state that although the RATE is decreasing, then number of deaths is INCREASING.
2005 Est. 570,280
2006 Est. 564,830
2007 * 559,650
2008 Est. 565,650
2009 Est. 562,340
2010 Est. 569,490
2011 Est. 571,950
Now I suppose that perhaps the ACS got a little nervous after their earlier propaganda was met with a change in direction so in 2007 they added the NOTE-
"* Caution: It is very important to note that beginning with Cancer Facts & Figures 2007, estimated new cancer cases in the current year were computed using a new,
more accurate method developed by researchers at the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. Improvements in the new model include use of data
from a much larger percentage of the US population, allowance for geographical variation in cancer incidence, adjustment for delays in reporting, and the inclusion of many
socio-demographic, medical facility, lifestyle, and cancer screening behavior variables. Comparisons of estimates produced by the old and new methods.
were generally similar for all cancers combined but differ substantially for some sites. "
Now you have to laugh. All those dollars donated for all these decades and people are still dying at a pretty good clip. No cure, just treatment, then death. Sound familiar?
However, one question led to another for me and I had to ask, "what do they really consider smoker related cancer?" Google gave me this site-
Smoking Related Cancer What Are Smoking Related Cancers
The only direct relationship to cancer from smoking were in 5 types of cancer with innuendo directed at a number of others. The big five were lung, ovarian, stomach, Esophageal and kidney. Percentages were provided like lung cancer had an estimate of between 80 and 90% smoker related. I chose to use 85% to estimate the cancers in those big 5 attributed to smoking.
Well after tabling 7 years of data and using lungcancer's percentages, I got an average of just about 28% of all cancers attributed to smoking which means 72% were not. Considering that you are classified as being a smoker if you smoked more than 99 cigarettes in your life, that number is probably a lot higher than actual. They are SAMMEC (Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Morbidity, and Economic Costs) estimates based on plugged numbers afterall. The range for those seven years ran between a low of 27.32% (the estimate for 2011) and 28.49% (the estimate for 2006). See all those millions devoted to getting people to use pharma products are certainly paying off.
Rant over.
