If there is no known cure for cancer and affects 1 in 3

[Guy Fawkes]

It is probably impossible to find out but it makes you wonder if cancer rates in humans have always remained at this sort of rate (1in 3) or is it higher now because we know to look for it or that people now live a lot longer and it has more time to strike?



I wonder if rates have been affected by the fall out from Chernobyl which fell on this country shortly after the accident too? Contamination of farmland, etc. Or whether levels were always so low as to make no difference. Contaminants build up in other wildlife and can gradually lead to poisoning as a result of their bodies not being able to remove it after ingestion so could something similar happen to us (even if from things like using plastics to store food and drink rather than radioactivity as a separate thought)

 

[Guy Fawkes]

That has to be one of the best predictive text errors .... "Goldfish" !!!

Yep - should be Goodish - now corrected, thanks

 

[Codner pharmaceuticals]

Cannabis cures cancer. Pharmaceutical companies are the problem.

I agree - we are all evil. I'm prepared to give it all up though if you can lend me the billion pounds it will take to develop and license your new cannabis based drug for cancer. Shall I PM you my bank details?

 

[pasty]

If he had been seen a tiny bit sooner he would have probably seen the amex.so guys please as crude as it sounds if your shitting any blood get yourself down the docs asap it might just save your life.UP THE ALBION.

Big fat this. And ladies too.

Some 12 years ago, Mrs P found a lump in her breast and immediately went to her GP. It was confirmed to be cancer and she ended up having to have 2 lumpectomy ops (fortunately managed to avoid a mastectomy), chemotherapy and radiotherapy, but now she is cancer free.

My point is, she was told in no uncertain terms, if she hadn't caught the lump when she did, she would not be here today.

CHECK. CHECK. CHECK.

 

[beorhthelm]

It is probably impossible to find out but it makes you wonder if cancer rates in humans have always remained at this sort of rate (1in 3) or is it higher now because we know to look for it or that people now live a lot longer and it has more time to strike?

i fairly certain (i haven't gone off to find corroborating papers) that its known that cancer rates have risen due to detection and old age. people used to die of ailments before cancer took hold, or was contracted. a lot of modern living raises the numbers too of course, but then a lot of health changes also reduce the incidence.

 

[beorhthelm]

"Chemotherapy" simply means the use of chemicals (ie - drugs) to treat something.

funny thing is, this applies to the cannabis claims, it is in effect self-medicating chemo. when a chap in his kitchen extracts chemicals from a plant, its natural, when a multi-national company does the same in a lab, its monstrous.

 

[Megazone]

Who cares about cancer? Looks like we've got bigger things to worry about.

I think the estimate is we probably have about 400 years left in total, with life changing irreparably in about a hundred years. The following 300 years, ruling out nuclear war, will be a slow decline towards extinction of the human race with war, food shortages and natural disasters mopping up the dregs of humanity. Still, least it's Friday eh!!

Thank god for NSC!

 

[DIFFBROOK]

Surveillance is also very important.

I suffered from Ulcerative colitis. It increases your risk of getting bowl cancer. Surveillance is done by endoscopy (camera up your bum) and checking for abnormal polyps.

Not the most comfortable of procedures, but not painful. Unfortunately, quite a few people with UC don't bother with the 3 yearly check ups. I did and thank God. 2 years ago they found a polyp that was on its way to becoming a tumour.

So please get checked out if you are in this higher risk group.

 

[Megazone]

I agree - we are all evil.

I disagree.

 

[Megazone]

To anyone who doesn't trigger off Schizophrenia or suffer from Drug psychosis when consuming Cannabis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997295/#!po=3.33333

 

[Husty]

So all that money people have donated to, say, Cancer Research UK has had no effect on our ability to cure cancer? Rubbish! Survival rates are far higher than they were in the fifties.
As an example, survival rates for breast cancer were 53% in 1972; by 2010 they were up to 86% -
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/cstream-node/surv_5yr_breast.pdf

5 year survival rates have improved because we diagnose cancer much better and earlier than in the past, but actual mortality rates and life years lost? That's stayed pretty static.

 

[Husty]

It is probably impossible to find out but it makes you wonder if cancer rates in humans have always remained at this sort of rate (1in 3) or is it higher now because we know to look for it or that people now live a lot longer and it has more time to strike?



I wonder if rates have been affected by the fall out from Chernobyl which fell on this country shortly after the accident too? Contamination of farmland, etc. Or whether levels were always so low as to make no difference. Contaminants build up in other wildlife and can gradually lead to poisoning as a result of their bodies not being able to remove it after ingestion so could something similar happen to us (even if from things like using plastics to store food and drink rather than radioactivity as a separate thought)

Cancer rates are rising because cancer is a disease of age, it takes time for the multiple specific genetic mutations necessary to initiate tumour growth to accumulate in cells. It wasn't as prevalent 100 years ago because most people lived shorter lives and died of something else first. Same with dementia

 

[Husty]

"Chemotherapy" simply means the use of chemicals (ie - drugs) to treat something. Our ability to treat cancers with drugs has improved massively in the last 60 years, as has diagnosis and surgical techniques. 1950's chemotherapy is very different from 2015 chemotherapy, and I know which one I'd choose.

Since the 50s? Yeh ok but since the 80s? In terms of treating the cancer more effectively? Not particularly. Much of the reason for that is that the most effective chemo drugs interact with lots of other drugs, limiting out ability to add additional ones to the cocktail used to treat cancer.

 

[GT49er]

5 year survival rates have improved because we diagnose cancer much better and earlier than in the past, but actual mortality rates and life years lost? That's stayed pretty static.

Even if it's still chemotherapy, it's MUCH BETTER chemotherapy! That's progress! And more and more people ARE beating cancer, including it would seem some on here (and me).

 

[Husty]

Even if it's still chemotherapy, it's MUCH BETTER chemotherapy! That's progress! And more and more people ARE beating cancer, including it would seem some on here (and me).

That's brilliant to hear, for you and everyone else. And your right, it is better chemotherapy, the side effects, whilst still very severe are much better than in the past. Of course everyone wants to make progress in treating cancers - I studied a degree in genetics because I wanted to do just that, I'm simply pointing out that it isn't true that we can cure more than a handful of cancers.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

That's brilliant to hear, for you and everyone else. And your right, it is better chemotherapy, the side effects, whilst still very severe are much better than in the past. Of course everyone wants to make progress in treating cancers - I studied a degree in genetics because I wanted to do just that, I'm simply pointing out that it isn't true that we can cure more than a handful of cancers.

Speaking of genetics, I think there is a tendency for cancer to run in families. I know breast cancer is more likely if a close female relative has had it.
My mother is still alive at 85, but has lost two younger sisters and an older brother to cancer.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Since the 50s? Yeh ok but since the 80s? In terms of treating the cancer more effectively? Not particularly. Much of the reason for that is that the most effective chemo drugs interact with lots of other drugs, limiting out ability to add additional ones to the cocktail used to treat cancer.

So the availability of 5-HT3 antagonists (introduced in the 1990's) hasn't enabled cancer to be treated more effectively? Really?

 

[goldstone68]

6 years ago at the age of 54 I was told I had prostate cancer, needless to say I was totally shocked as I had no symptoms prior going to the docs other than my flow slowing up about 2 weeks before seeing him, which is why I went. As it was on the verge of breaking out from the offensive gland they could not remove it, so I was put straight on drugs, injections and radiotherapy. At the moment thanks to cancer research and modern treatments which keep improving all the time I am still here, if I was born much earlier I doubt if I would be.
So its a big thanks from me to all involved in finding cures for all sorts of cancer, carry on the good work.