4 ms·
It's hard to take this very seriously when the claim is that it's "only" due to advances in the treatment of lung cancer. Given that lung cancer rates are almos
by tempsy 7y ago
It's hard to take this very seriously when the claim is that it's "only" due to advances in the treatment of lung cancer. Given that lung cancer rates are almost surely driven by smoking rates, and that the rate of adults who smoke regularly has dropped significantly over the last couple decades, how could the fact that there are fewer adult smokers not also be a significant factor in declining lung cancer rates?
To claim this is only driven by treatment innovation and not public policy changes is wildly misleading.
- db48x 7y agoThe rate has been declining for years, but this year the decline is larger than expected. They're talking about that increase in the reduction of the rate.
- tempsy 7y agoWhat's your point? The YoY decline in smoking rates since 1970s is not linear. This stat is effectively meaningless without accounting for the rate of the US pop that develops lung cancer in the first place. If you want to measure treatment effectiveness, then the right measurement is something like '% of US population that develops lung cancer who are effectively treated/cured' and not 'overall cancer death rate'. The fact this headline is so broad when it's really about lung cancer and not all cancers and doesn't account for any factors outside of 'treatment innovation' leads me to believe this was pushed by some healthcare trade group.
- hirako2000 7y agoThanks for this counter argument. I do wonder why people jump in the comments and drop name pharmaceutical companies and their products.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ekianjo 7y agoThe claim is not about cancer rates but cancer death rates which is already when you look at people who have cancer.