PDA

View Full Version : Where's Rouser2? Check this out...


Dr. Imago
5th April 2005, 03:26 PM
Half of All Cancer Deaths Preventable: Report

By Maggie Fox

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than 60 percent of all cancer deaths could be prevented if Americans stopped smoking, exercised more, ate healthier food and underwent recommended cancer screenings, the American Cancer Society reported on Thursday.

...

For instance, breast cancer, which kills 40,000 women and men in the United States every year, can usually be easily treated if caught before it spreads. In February a team at Harvard Medical School calculated that if every woman aged between 50 and 79 got a mammogram every year, it would reduce deaths from breast cancer by 37 percent.

Colon cancer and prostate cancer, two other top cancer killers, are also easily detected early with proper screening.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2005-03-31T155751Z_01_B181151_RTRIDST_0_HEALTH-CANCER-PREVENTION-DC.XML

Of course, this would mean having to go to the big, bad, scary doctor and have some big, bad, scary tests. But, in the minds of some, I guess ignorance is bliss...

-TT

Mojo
5th April 2005, 03:29 PM
This is obviously some evil gubmint/medical profession plot.:D

Dr. Imago
5th April 2005, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Mojo
This is obviously some evil gubmint/medical profession plot.:D

Obviously. Because we don't really care about our patients and we don't want people to be well because we have a vested interest in keeping them sick and bilking them for tests and surgeries and advice they don't need and scaring them and still getting it wrong most of the time...

:rolleyes:

-TT

anonimouse
5th April 2005, 04:38 PM
Everyone knows doctors rig these tests to convince you that you have cancer so they can "treat" you with chemotherapy and radiation. Oh yeah, and then they'll vaccinate you. Bastards.

Terry
5th April 2005, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by ThirdTwin
Of course, this would mean having to go to the big, bad, scary doctor and have some big, bad, scary tests.

You know, for some people it is scary having tests. I'm not suggesting this is a reason to avoid evidence-based medicine, but I wonder if physicians are actually aware of this, based on the way I have observed some of them to behave.

--Terry.

Edit for taggies... T.

Eos of the Eons
5th April 2005, 07:40 PM
Rouser is too busy bashing doctors in the Schiavo threads to be bothered to come here and waste time on serious discussion where he has to defend his baseless beliefs.

Kumar
5th April 2005, 08:47 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than 60 percent of all cancer deaths could be prevented if Americans stopped smoking, exercised more, ate healthier food

Does it mean if they adopt [n]natural[/b] habits? What triggered the cancer to spread his legs so much? Nature or prefered/attuned modern lifestyles & environment? Are we learning now, by experiance?

Dr. Imago
5th April 2005, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Terry
You know, for some people it is scary having tests. I'm not suggesting this is a reason to avoid evidence-based medicine, but I wonder if physicians are actually aware of this, based on the way I have observed some of them to behave.

--Terry.

Edit for taggies... T.

The tests, I believe, are scarier when they aren't explained. Most are painless (e.g., mammograms... although women may disagree with that ;) ) or are administered with concomitant medicines (e.g., light sedation for colonoscopies) that make them bearable. I agree, though, that the communication is not always that great between the doctor and the patient, and false (or simply incorrect) expectations on the patient's part can add to the angst. Then again, there is also the fear of the outcome of the test.

But, on the whole, we strive to make the tests as comfortable for the patient as possible. A local biopsy may involve administration of a local anesthetic - and that is often the worst part - but the perception of "scary"... I'm just not sure I agree nor is that a good enough reason to stay away from what might be the inevitable, although I recognize that this often becomes the case for some (i.e., folks like Rouser2, who seem to have almost a pathologic fear of doctors and medicine and look for any reasons, even hyperbolizing risks, to avoid both).

That's one of the big reasons why I'm going into the "happy medicine" part of the medical field. :)

-TT

Dr. Imago
5th April 2005, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by Kumar
Does it mean if they adopt [n]natural habits? What triggered the cancer to spread his legs so much? Nature or prefered/attuned modern lifestyles & environment? Are we learning now, by experiance? [/B]

Blah... blah... blah... What are you babbling about?

Just remember this old adage:

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

-Benjamin Franklin

That's all we're getting at (and the entire medical profession has been advocating for decades), KumarBot™.

-TT

Kumar
5th April 2005, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by ThirdTwin
Blah... blah... blah... What are you babbling about?

Just remember this old adage:

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

-Benjamin Franklin

That's all we're getting at (and the entire medical profession has been advocating for decades), KumarBot™.

-TT

Or may be;

"An ounce of self, placebo or least adverse healing can be worth more than a pound than treatment with adversites."

Why advocating it as inconvinient, when medicines can do all/most? Do you still prefer naturals or with least adversities?

athon
6th April 2005, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by Kumar
Or may be;

"An ounce of self, placebo or least adverse healing can be worth more than a pound than treatment with adversites."

Why advocating it as inconvinient, when medicines can do all/most? Do you still prefer naturals or with least adversities?

Kumar, did you even read the bloody quote? Or do you enjoy the sound of your own insanity?

TT is saying that with the right lifestyle and early diagnosis, treatment of any sort is decreased. Placebo is then not required, healing is not required and I sure as hell don't know what your definition of 'self' is in relation to your babbling.

It's like there's some bizarre language filter between your psychosis and our universe.

Athon

Mojo
6th April 2005, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by Kumar
Does it mean if they adopt [n]natural habits? What triggered the cancer to spread his legs so much? Nature or prefered/attuned modern lifestyles & environment? Are we learning now, by experiance? [/B]If there has been an increase in diagnosis of cancer over the past century, it is largely because, as a result of modern medicine, fewer people are dying as a result of diseases and conditions that are now easily treated or prevented.

By the way, I notice that you didn't quote the entire sentence. You missed the bit about the recommended cancer screenings. ;)

Kumar
6th April 2005, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by Mojo
If there has been an increase in diagnosis of cancer over the past century, it is largely because, as a result of modern medicine, fewer people are dying as a result of diseases and conditions that are now easily treated or prevented.



Some snips:

..The number of new cases of cancer in the United States is increasing each year. People of all ages get cancer, but nearly all types are more common in middle-aged and elderly people than in young people. ..

Cancer develops gradually as a result of a complex mix of factors related to environment, lifestyle, and heredity.

They estimate that about 80 percent of all cancers are related to the use of tobacco products, to what we eat and drink, or, to a lesser extent, to exposure to radiation or cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) in the environment and the workplace.

[b]Read how these facors are being encouraged & what encouraged these:-Tobacco, Diet, Sunlight, Alcohol, Radiations, Chemicals and Other Substances, Hormone Replacement Therapy, Diethylstilbestrol (DES)

http://www.medicinenet.com/cancer_causes/page2.htm

Whether modern lifstyle & environment in big cities is natural/normal, if no, can't this lead to epidemic type spread of cancer, diabetes, hypertentions.. etc?

Tez
6th April 2005, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by ThirdTwin
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2005-03-31T155751Z_01_B181151_RTRIDST_0_HEALTH-CANCER-PREVENTION-DC.XML

Of course, this would mean having to go to the big, bad, scary doctor and have some big, bad, scary tests. But, in the minds of some, I guess ignorance is bliss...

-TT

Hmmm - presumably theres some sort of lower bound on the age at which the benfit is actually significant?

Mojo
6th April 2005, 04:39 AM
Originally posted by Kumar
Whether modern lifstyle & environment in big cities is natural/normal, if no, can't this lead to epidemic type spread of cancer, diabetes, hypertentions.. etc?Here's part of what you just quoted:People of all ages get cancer, but nearly all types are more common in middle-aged and elderly people than in young people.Environmental factors and heredity are important as far as causation goes. But there have always been carcinogens in the environment in some quantity (many carcinogens are naturally produced, and tobacco was introduced into Europe in the 16th century, for example), and people are no more genetically predisposed to cancer than they've ever been. A significant part of the increase in cancers diagnosed is because people are living longer thanks to modern medicine (part of the "modern lifestyle"). Note the part of the above quotation I have put in bold.

Kumar
6th April 2005, 05:02 AM
Mojo,

I was sure you will take it.

"more common in middle-aged and elderly people"

But it can also be due to its slow growth. How can you say that older people, middle-aged and elderly, were also getting similarily but were dying & now also getting similarily, but not dying?

Suezoled
6th April 2005, 05:23 AM
Third Twin, I wish you'd just admit that it's those tests that catch the cancers that cause the cancers. And they might catch some that were there before, but they'll also give you another sort while it catches the other one.

Lousy razza frazzin' doctors just out to make money and poison people...

rwguinn
6th April 2005, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by Kumar
Mojo,

I was sure you will take it.

"more common in middle-aged and elderly people"

But it can also be due to its slow growth. How can you say that older people, middle-aged and elderly, were also getting similarily but were dying & now also getting similarily, but not dying?

Take a look at your history. In the 1830's to 1850, a person reaching 50 years of age was a true survivor. in 1836, age 40 was OLD! Accident, misfortune, cholera, dysentary, typhoid... He!!, a broken leg could be fatal back then, and often was. These problems are mostly all history now.

Mojo
6th April 2005, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by rwguinn
Take a look at your history. In the 1830's to 1850, a person reaching 50 years of age was a true survivor. in 1836, age 40 was OLD! Accident, misfortune, cholera, dysentary, typhoid... He!!, a broken leg could be fatal back then, and often was. These problems are mostly all history now. And, of course, childbirth was a major hazard for about 50% of the population.

Hence, Kumar, more people are now living to an age ("middle-aged and elderly") where they are in the group more likely to have developed cancer. All thanks to "modern lifestyle."

CurtC
6th April 2005, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Mojo
Environmental factors and heredity are important as far as causation goes.Important? Wouldn't it be true that for causation, environment and heredity are the only possible choices? What else could there be?

Originally posted by rwguinn
Take a look at your history. In the 1830's to 1850, a person reaching 50 years of age was a true survivor. in 1836, age 40 was OLD! Accident, misfortune, cholera, dysentary, typhoid... He!!, a broken leg could be fatal back then, and often was. These problems are mostly all history now.Back then, they lost a large number of people in their early lives that we do now, but I still have the impression that the cross-section of the population wouldn't look that much different then than now. It'd be skewed more to younger people, but someone who was 40 was not old. Think of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, etc. People back then did commonly live to what we even now consider old age.

athon
6th April 2005, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by rwguinn
Take a look at your history. In the 1830's to 1850, a person reaching 50 years of age was a true survivor. in 1836, age 40 was OLD! Accident, misfortune, cholera, dysentary, typhoid... He!!, a broken leg could be fatal back then, and often was. These problems are mostly all history now.

Be careful with statements like these; they are misleading and really only partially true.

First of all, a lot of life expectancy estimates are off for one very basic reason - they erroneously take into account infant mortality. Hence the old 'people died at 40 during the Middle Ages' myth. Not really true, it's just a high IM rate that dragged down the expectancy.

Secondly, the variation in life expectancy across social groups was enormous. Simply put, social class and occupation influenced nutrition, contact with foreign pathogens (killed more soldiers than war ever did) and injury (even taking into account recent medical advances, this is a much bigger killer today than at any other stage in history). Clergy and to a lesser extent nobility often lived into their 80's, and even older in common recorded cases.

What's true now pretty much was true then too; the older you got, the greater the chance of living longer.

Some estimates of average life expectancy amongst lower classes in early 19th century England, excluding infant mortality, range from as low as 45 to as high as 60, depending on who you listen to.

Athon

rwguinn
6th April 2005, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by athon
Be careful with statements like these; they are misleading and really only partially true.

First of all, a lot of life expectancy estimates are off for one very basic reason - they erroneously take into account infant mortality. Hence the old 'people died at 40 during the Middle Ages' myth. Not really true, it's just a high IM rate that dragged down the expectancy.

Secondly, the variation in life expectancy across social groups was enormous. Simply put, social class and occupation influenced nutrition, contact with foreign pathogens (killed more soldiers than war ever did) and injury (even taking into account recent medical advances, this is a much bigger killer today than at any other stage in history). Clergy and to a lesser extent nobility often lived into their 80's, and even older in common recorded cases.

What's true now pretty much was true then too; the older you got, the greater the chance of living longer.

Some estimates of average life expectancy amongst lower classes in early 19th century England, excluding infant mortality, range from as low as 45 to as high as 60, depending on who you listen to.

Athon
Granted.
I use as my basis the American West, where misfortune and disease were primary contributors to death at an earlier age.
While it is true than some men (Jim Bridger, for instance) lived to a ripe old age--in their 60's, the life was much harsher and the chances of surviving past your 50's was considerably lower.
Also, a factor in the "fewer Cancer Deaths" catagory was lack of recognition. When was cancer identified? How many people died of "the vapors" and/or similar ailments whose cause was "unknown".
Heck-bacteria and germs weren't even identified untill the late 1800's! And even then, many physicians didn't believe that they could cause harm.