5 ms·

Unfortunately this is the kind of garbage claims people make to try and sway others into going against "the establishment" or in this case "medical orthodoxy".

Unfortunately this is the kind of garbage claims people make to try and sway others into going against "the establishment" or in this case "medical orthodoxy". It is how they get people to go along with claims with limited or zero scientific support. Just attack doctors as the enemy, claim they are lying for profit, or hiding some cure, and then peddle some fanciful claim of their own. Its great that people are researching the affects of fasting and all these bits, but none of these fringe diets/theories has come out yet as a surefire way to do health and wellness. If the claims seem unbelievable, they probably are. Of course you are more likely to survive cancer now than in the 50's. There is not a credible person that would claim otherwise... "credible" being the proper claim. Look at any cancer survival rate and you'll see improvement. That whole statement makes me question every word he/she wrote because it is just so false. At this point his/her words need serious references for proof. [Edited for spelling mistakes]

SteveCoast 10y ago
I didn't believe it either until I went and looked at the data (see my other comment). Rates are basically flat for most cancer for the last 50-100 years. Compared with any other chronic disease survivability over the same time, it's insane. For more, as I suggested, see Prof. Seyfried's book and Travis Christoffersen's book, Tripping Over the Truth.
- bkmartin 10y ago
  These come from medical orthodoxy resources so caution abound /s https://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/viewfactsheet.aspx?csid=75 https://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/viewfactsheet.aspx?csid... https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics And one more piece of reading about Dr. Seyfried... https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-hype-versus-science/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-...
  - SteveCoast 10y ago
    From your first link, quote: * In 1975, the incidence rate for all cancers combined in the United States was 400 new cases for every 100,000 people in the population; the mortality rate was 199 deaths for every 100,000 persons. * In 2007, the latest year for which we have updated statistics, the U.S. incidence rate for all cancers combined was 461 new cases diagnosed for every 100,000 people in the population; the mortality rate was 178 deaths for every 100,000 persons. ... The improvements in survival seen since the mid-1970s reflect progress in diagnosing certain cancers, such as prostate cancer, at earlier stages and improvements in treatment. /end quote They're saying almost exactly what I was: Incidence hasn't changed much, and the survival rate improvement is just from early detection. Actual ability survive, treat or cure cancer _itself_ hasn't changed.
    - derefr 10y ago
      Most cancer therapies have focused on making people with cancer live longer, not on "curing" cancer†. A cancer that kills you after 30 years instead of 3 is still technically "a fatality caused by cancer", but add up two or three of those and you've saved one whole person-lifetime. † The HPV vaccine has somewhat "cured" cervical cancer, but that was effectively an accident!
      - SteveCoast 10y ago
        You're right in that specific case, I'd love to live 10 times longer, but it's very rare. As an example, here's a random graph showing longevity post-diagnosis from 1971 to 2007 for 9 types of cancer: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/22/article-2064659-0EE66CA900000578-440_634x451.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/22/article-2064659-0E... (You can find these graphs with some simple google images searches) Notice that most cancers, the longevity doesn't change much at all in that ~40 year period. Personally I was expecting some dramatic improvements like the one you allude to (going from 3 to 30 years). It doesn't happen. I think generally we somehow assume that because there's lots of money being spent on cancer and fancy machines and so on that everything must be better, when in the graphs we only see these various marginal improvements in some specific cancers. I think probably the number one reason for this mismatch is nobody likes to talk about cancer.
- jghn 10y ago
  As someone who has worked in the cancer research field, anyone making this claim is at best misunderstanding the data available to them.

SteveCoast 10y ago

I didn't believe it either until I went and looked at the data (see my other comment). Rates are basically flat for most cancer for the last 50-100 years. Compared with any other chronic disease survivability over the same time, it's insane. For more, as I suggested, see Prof. Seyfried's book and Travis Christoffersen's book, Tripping Over the Truth.

bkmartin 10y ago
These come from medical orthodoxy resources so caution abound /s https://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/viewfactsheet.aspx?csid=75 https://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/viewfactsheet.aspx?csid... https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics And one more piece of reading about Dr. Seyfried... https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-hype-versus-science/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ketogenic-diets-for-cancer-...
- SteveCoast 10y ago
  From your first link, quote: * In 1975, the incidence rate for all cancers combined in the United States was 400 new cases for every 100,000 people in the population; the mortality rate was 199 deaths for every 100,000 persons. * In 2007, the latest year for which we have updated statistics, the U.S. incidence rate for all cancers combined was 461 new cases diagnosed for every 100,000 people in the population; the mortality rate was 178 deaths for every 100,000 persons. ... The improvements in survival seen since the mid-1970s reflect progress in diagnosing certain cancers, such as prostate cancer, at earlier stages and improvements in treatment. /end quote They're saying almost exactly what I was: Incidence hasn't changed much, and the survival rate improvement is just from early detection. Actual ability survive, treat or cure cancer _itself_ hasn't changed.
  - derefr 10y ago
    Most cancer therapies have focused on making people with cancer live longer, not on "curing" cancer†. A cancer that kills you after 30 years instead of 3 is still technically "a fatality caused by cancer", but add up two or three of those and you've saved one whole person-lifetime. † The HPV vaccine has somewhat "cured" cervical cancer, but that was effectively an accident!
    - SteveCoast 10y ago
      You're right in that specific case, I'd love to live 10 times longer, but it's very rare. As an example, here's a random graph showing longevity post-diagnosis from 1971 to 2007 for 9 types of cancer: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/22/article-2064659-0EE66CA900000578-440_634x451.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/22/article-2064659-0E... (You can find these graphs with some simple google images searches) Notice that most cancers, the longevity doesn't change much at all in that ~40 year period. Personally I was expecting some dramatic improvements like the one you allude to (going from 3 to 30 years). It doesn't happen. I think generally we somehow assume that because there's lots of money being spent on cancer and fancy machines and so on that everything must be better, when in the graphs we only see these various marginal improvements in some specific cancers. I think probably the number one reason for this mismatch is nobody likes to talk about cancer.
jghn 10y ago
As someone who has worked in the cancer research field, anyone making this claim is at best misunderstanding the data available to them.