Are you fed up with cancer wreaking havoc on our lives?

It is an epidemic. I too have wondered what we’ve seen out of the billions of dollars per year that have gone into cancer research. I appreciate that it is difficult and perhaps unsolvable and that there have been great advances, but I’ve wondered nonetheless.

But—we do know that a diagnosis of cancer used to be an automatic death sentence. Now I know many survivors, several in my own family and many in my wider network. People regain years of life, and life with quality, not as invalids. Many will live to die of something else entirely. So real progress has been made. Your efforts and those of others can help it continue, and maybe one day it will be enough.

First off, I want to say to you that I’m sorry…

My Mom passed away a few years ago. My sister lost her best friend a few years before that. My Dad lost his best male friend a month ago. It’s all around our family. I’m not kidding you when I say that each and every month, I hear of someone who is sick and dying of cancer.

I was bitter, too.

I formed a team for the Relay for Life a month after my Mom died. As difficult as it was (emotionally), I did it. So many from my family participated and friends, as well. And, you know what? It turned out to be the most beautiful thing. An amazing thing to be apart of. Tears, the love, and our family coming together and walking for my Mom (we were “Wynnie’s Warriors). I knew that she would’ve proud of us. I’m tearing up as I type this. We were there to support others, as well. Cheering on the survivors and there with others who had lost their loved one to that merciless disease.

It was worth it to me. You are helping others. The nurses who took care of my Mom at both hospitals (General Hospital and Palliative Care) were amazing. Such compassion. Beautiful people. What a job they have, you know?

The research, it’s all worth it.

I really do hope that you meet you goal! Stick with it! And, good luck!

This is a hard thing to deal with. One thing that helps me is to stop and realize that everyone in the world dies eventually. I think that’s the real human helplessness. Wehther it’s cancer or a car accident, everyone is going to die, including you and me. I hope that that helps, rather than makes it worse, but the more comfortable we become with that fact the easier it becomes to deal with life’s problems (I think). Again, I hope that actually helps. I really don’t want to depress you more!

@jmah @Jeruba . Thanks for those answers. It makes me feel better about continuing. What really got me was an old friend of mine whose grandaughter just died of neuroblastoma this week, in addition to the news of my sister-in-law. I am thinking my health will enable me to battle this thing via this ride, so I can say I am lucky. I feel for all, though, affected. It is so sad, so much suffering. Sorry to be feeling such a way tonight.

So sorry about that news. I, by no means, am trying to make light of the situation, but I read this “comic” recently about this same idea of helplessness: cancer research
Keep helping these cancer research groups and keep participating anyway you can. As that “comic” says, researchers are not dealing with one, single “cancer”, they have to battle thousands upon thousands of versions of a disease. The answers will come, but it will take time.

In the meantime, I wish you and your family the best. Stay positive and keep doing what you’re doing.

The real problem with research is that only research that does not threaten existing avenues of revenue is seriously followed. Much industry simply hides the carcinogenic aspects of their industry. The food additives and electro/chemical/technology areas of life that seem to be possibly high risk are ignored in the name of profit,

Now that it is common for pets to be fed foods that are prepared and treated in the same manner as food for human consumption, the incidence of pet cancer (particularly dogs) has experienced a massive increase. That should tell us something. Dogs and animals in the wild have no similar increase.

Pretty striking findings, @DarkScribe. Can you cite some sources?

Cancer, aside from other things, is also a disease of old age. I’ve heard several doctors say that if you don’t die from anything else, the most likely thing to get you is cancer. As the population continues to live longer, we will notice more and more people getting cancer. If cancer were eliminated and people lived even longer, I’m sure we would find another “old age” disease becoming and “epidemic” (Alzheimer’s, maybe?).

@drdoombot Has a fairly accurate description of the body. Just like a car can have issues within a few years (i.e. rare cancers that occur at a young age), keep it around for 30 years and it will be breaking down for sure. The human body is far more complex than a car, and it is a wonder that we don’t have more “breakdowns” than we do.
@DarkScribe You describe a fairly nefarious scenario that isn’t in line with available epidemiologic evidence. In the past 150 years, average human life expectancy has “doubled” from ~38 years to ~76 years. Much of this is due to improvements in public health and medicines. Increased cancer rates owe much to increased detection and old age. Beyond that is pure speculation.

It does seem like an epidemic. I’m fed up with it, but I feel just as hopeless about finding answers as I feel about all the other things that I’m fed up with that are out of my control. I think the best way to deal with it is prepare mentally for getting the bad news one day.

@shilolo You describe a fairly nefarious scenario that isn’t in line with available epidemiologic evidence

I don’t describe any scenario, just reiterate well established fact. I give no finite reasons for it, but logic leads to some conclusions. It is WELL in line with all manner of evidence – just not with any indisputable conclusions.

Life span increases have nothing to do with average health – we are already looking at the first generation expected to live for less time than their parents. Live span is to do with issues that are not related to modern disease. We are safer, warmer have “trauma” help available etc. As for the rest – well they have yet to cure a common cold or flu. They can’t cure cancer – just treat it, and most diseases are controlled and contained – not cured.

@DarkScribe: It is one thing to say there’s evidence, and another thing altogether to provide it. I have never seen any evidence for any of the following statements:

1. Only research that does not threaten existing avenues of revenue is seriously followed
2. Much industry simply hides the carcinogenic aspects of their industry
3. Now that it is common for pets to be fed foods that are prepared and treated in the same manner as food for human consumption, the incidence of pet cancer (particularly dogs) has experienced a massive increase.
4. Life span increases have nothing to do with average health
5. We are already looking at the first generation expected to live for less time than their parents.
6. Live span is to do with issues that are not related to modern disease.
7. Most diseases are controlled and contained – not cured.

I apologize for derailing the original thread. I spent this evening listening to a talk by my boss at a cancer treatment center. It was thrilling, honestly, to see patients and scientists and clinicians come together to talk about cancer. I saw a lot of hope on all sides.

Cures for cancer won’t happen easily or quickly, but they will happen. Here are some statistics from the American Cancer Society: Only a few decades ago, the prognosis (outlook) for people facing cancer was not nearly as favorable as it is today. During the 1970s, the 1 out of 2 people diagnosed with cancer survived at least five years. Now, more than 2 out of 3 survive that long. Today there are about 11 million cancer survivors in the United States.

Everyone can help contribute to curing cancer by raising money, advocating for change, or volunteering your time. @dannyc, it sounds like you are doing everything you can. I hope good things come from it.

@nikipedia I have never seen any evidence for any of the following statements:

Look harder. I am sure that if you really try you’ll find it.

@DarkScribe: Why are you opposed to showing evidence for what you’re saying?

@nikipedia Why are you opposed to showing evidence for what you’re saying?

I am not – I just can’t be bothered. Everything that I say is well supported – if you really want to you can find it. Try Google. There have been several recent documentaries on the fact that we are looking at the first young generation with a lower expected lifespan than their parents. It isn’t a secret.

Isn’t the burden of proof on the person who makes the claims?

I was especially interested in the part about the health of pets versus their counterparts in the wild and a correlation with their diets.

@Jeruba Isn’t the burden of proof on the person who makes the claims?

Only if they are interested in scoring points or winning an argument. I am not. If someone does not keep up with current events I am hardly going to educate them. All of this information is readily available.

As for the pets, (dogs in my case) that comes from the local RSPCA (Royal Society For the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) vets, they have noted for several years that city dwelling pets have a rapidly increasing cancer rate, while working dogs on farms have not changed. Farmers don’t use pet food. Wild dogs (Dingoes here) also are not getting cancer.

It is an observation, not the results of an empirical study, but it is an observation that is being noted all over the world. I have lost three dogs to cancer in the past fifteen years, although all were well cared for. When I was a kid a dog getting cancer was unheard of – now it is common.

Our Koala and Tasmanian devil population are being decimated (or more decimate is only ten percent) by Chlamydia. That has never happened before. There is a Chlamydia epidemic among teenage girls – many of whom have not had sex. That is noted but not understood – no studies completed yet.

We are doing a lot of things that are very likely not good for us, but until forced to, no big industry takes notice. First it was smoking that they claimed was harmless, now it is all manner of things. Mobile phones is one. I don’t know if they are bad, but after the years of tobacco lobby insistence that cigarettes were safe – I have my doubts. When I was in the Navy one ship that I served on, HMAS Sydney, a carrier, ended up with more than sixty percent of the crew contracting cancer. I am one of them. The Navy claims that it was agent Orange in the water – oncologists claim that it was radiation from a faulty radar system. Radiation on a similar frequency to modern mobiles. They didn’t start to develop cancer for more than twenty-five years.

I am skeptical of all areas of life that offer profit to others.

@DarkScribe, thanks for amplifying your remarks. That’s a little more to go on.

> I am skeptical of all areas of life that offer profit to others.

I’m with you there 100%. I am downright suspicious of anything that has a profit potential.

I am especially concerned about the plastic bottle debate. Virtually every liquid I consume comes in plastic and nothing is being done to change that. But I have read so many different articles from different sources that say the polycarbinates leech into the contents, especially if the bottles get warm and that is a carcinogenic.

Makes me wonder and I have started to carry a stainless steel water bottle and try not to use water from bottles. When I drink soda, I usually buy a can, of course there discussion about aluminum causing the increase in Altzheimers.

Jeez is anything safe anymore???

@rooeytoo Jeez is anything safe anymore???

Very little that is new. I also use a stainless steel canteen rather than plastic water bottles. If you put a plastic bottle in direct sunlight, say a window sill, and look at it after a few minutes with a UV light, you can SEE fumes coming off it. I use a microwave but only glass or ceramic containers in it, and I have cloth or leather in my car for trim. The film on the inside glass is from vinyl fumes when the car gets hot. Might be harmless – but why risk it. I am recovering from cancer – I wasn’t recovering when using conventional medicine, surgery and chemo, but using alternative (not new age – medically proven in another country though not accepted here) I am getting over it. The long term effect is an intense awareness of the possible causes. Not just for me, but for many I met in Oncology Outpatients clinics.
I take as few chances as I can. No preservatives in food, nothing that is not time tested and proved.

@DarkScribe Ah, the defense of people who lack actual information “I’m not going to look it up for you…” or “It’s obvious”. That, is not information, it’s opinion. As for your statement “Live span is to do with issues that are not related to modern disease”, nothing could be further from the truth. Clean water (removal of pathogens), vaccination (removal of serious diseases of childhood), antibiotics (curing many infections), treatments for chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease, and overall public health measures have had great effect. It is all about prevention and treatment of modern diseases. Finally, there are in fact, cures for cancer. Depending on the form of cancer (lymphoma, leukemia, testicular, breast and even lung), many have been cured. I would be happy to provide studies from reputable journals for each of my statements. Can you?

Sorry but this question sounds a little like raililg at the gods for there unjust treatment of humans. Cancer can be caused by a combination of things that we cannot/will not control. Being the egocentric creatures we are we demand a “cure” when no magic pill will ever appear.

The things that can contribute to cancer include genes, age, environmental pollutants, lifestyle choices. So you can probably defeat cancer by preventing people with genetic histories from having children, lowering life expectancy to get rid age related cancers, stay indoors all our lives to prevent skin cancers, limiting ourselves to one lifetime intimate partner to prevent utarine/ovarian/etc cancers, ban sugar, fat, processed and cooked food consumption, outlaw the use of all fossil fuels and related substances like plastics and on and on.

We could go back to the Paleolithic era, where there was basically only melanoma and lung cancer, but we did have to deal with traumatic injury that led to agonizing infection and death, starvation and environmental poisoning.

What I am saying is we are all going to die, if not from cancer then from something else. So far we are holding our own against cancer. In the last 50 years we have gone from abt 25% survival to 67% survival. As a stage 2 cancer survivor, the advantages of modern life are worth it.

@shilolo the defense of people who lack actual information

No, it is the response of people who aren’t interested in debating something with someone who is lacking current knowledge in the area that they are keen to dispute and who argues against things that were not said.

>“Live span is to do with issues that are not related to modern disease”,

I didn’t make that statement – read it again. I said average health – which is in decline for the first time in recorded history. Obesity, diabetes, cancer, antibiotic resistant microorganisms, pollution, all are on the increase.

If you wish to doubt, then go right ahead. I am not concerned with your erudition.

@DarkScribe I’m sure that I am not someone “lacking in current knowledge” about medicine in general or cancer therapeutics in particular. Your unwillingness to debate but willingness to make “factual” statements indicates a lack of knowledge. Lots of people can be confidently wrong about their ideas. In fact, confidence alone does not equal factual correctness and frequently is used to mask confusion or ignorance. I AM RIGHT DAMMIT! I DON’T NEED TO PROVE IT TO ANYONE!”.......

We’re just living longer and avoiding diseases that would kill us sooner – basically the reason why we have to deal with cancer is because we’re still alive – technically speaking once we reproduce or are past the reproducing age, our bodies go downhill, because we’re still slaves to evolution – our DNA suffers many mutations and eventually something’s gotta give – cancer is very common but it’s not out to get us…in that it doesn’t care who it gets, how old they are or anything…I have dealt with a lot of cancer in my family, I conducted cancer research, I work for the American Cancer Society…I’m pretty sure I’ll have cancer eventually…this is just part of our reality, part of our times…it’s merciless and we have to try harder to reach more people, to get more screenings.

@shilolo I’m sure that I am not someone “lacking in current knowledge” about medicine in general or cancer therapeutics in particular.

That’s ok, I am quite sure that you are. If you are not lacking in such knowledge then why are you arguing? I am not making claims, I am repeating them. They originate with places like Johns Hopkins, the Harvard School of Health, in fact the earliest reports back in 2005 were from the New England Medical Journal – but you in all your experience and health wisdom have apparently remained quite unaware. You certainly seem to lack the ability to do simple research or you wouldn’t be expecting me to do it for you.

Here, I’ll give you a start – it took about fifteen to twenty seconds to find several thousand hits on reduced longevity in the current generation. These include some of the very first – back five years or so. (Would you like someone to show you how to do searches?)

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1976173

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/children-likely-to-live-shorter-lives-than-their-parents-634237.html

http://www.river949.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=387:kids-will-live-shorter-lives-than-their-parents&catid=40:homefamily&Itemid=135

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/17/health/17obese.html

Now why don’t you wander off and argue with all of these nice Doctors, researchers and scientists who apparently know less that you do.

When you have finished with that, do some REAL research on the current cancer stats.

like a boil on my side.

Cancer has always been here. A process of life.

@eponymoushipster holy damn, @DarkScribe‘s douchebaggedness only increases with this thread.

Yep – people who listen but don’t hear bring that out in me.

@DarkScribe well, you know, you can trust everything you find on the internet there, bub.~

Because, obviously, doctors don’t know what they’re talking about, but you do. you’re a champ.

@eponymoushipster obviously, doctors don’t know what they’re talking about, but you do.

???

I am not arguing against Doctors? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Nor do I trust the internet unless it is supported by reputable sources in number.

DarkScribe – GA across the board.

@DarkScribe @shilolo is a doctor.

@eponymoushipster shilolo is a doctor.

So am I, but not of Medicine.

If he is an MD, then it explains a lot about a number of things in modern life. How could he be unaware of the issues that he is arguing against? Most MDs read the medical Journals – which is where I get most of my information.

No, I really doubt it. He couldn’t be that unaware. That’s the problem with the internet, anyone can lay claim to anything. He doesn’t talk the talk, and he is far from walking the walk.

@DarkScribe I don’t really need to prove anything to you, quite frankly. I’ve been here quite a while, and most would agree (though apparently not you), that I present cogent, well-cited responses to science and medicine questions in line with my PhD in Immunology and MD (with specialization in Infectious Diseases).

What you are confused about is the notion that you can simply state something inflammatory without citing sources. No “doctor” or whatever you claim to be would be so poorly trained. As far as obesity goes (which you have slyly converted into your straw man), there is no question that a Western diet and sedentary lifestyle contribute heavily. What that has to do with cancer (which is the topic of this thread) remains unclear. Yes, obesity is a growing epidemic; yes, obesity is tied to many chronic diseases; yes, those chronic diseases may shorten life expectancy (where is cancer in here?).

The bottom line is that cancer is more common today because we are privileged to live in a modern era where food is abundant, water is (for the most part) devoid of diseases, major infectious epidemics are under surveillance (i.e. influenza) or under control (plague, smallpox, meningitis), and sophisticated medical treatments keep us alive long enough to develop cancer. In addition, earlier and more sensitive diagnostic tests lead to more diagnoses of cancer than any time in history. We are seeing more cancer because we are outstripping the body’s capacity to protect itself from DNA damage by living longer. If people only had the good sense to die of gangrene, pneumonia or influenza, we wouldn’t be talking about increased cancer rates at all.

For more historical information
Data on improved survival rates

@shilolo I don’t really need to prove anything to you, quite frankly.

Probably as well as you are unlikely to succeed.

As for your theory regarding the reason for increased incidences of cancer, it is a nice theory but it doesn’t hold up to any form of examination. Why are cancer rates increasing among children and younger women if it is related to our good fortune in living longer? They are well below the lifespan median in biblical times let alone current times. Why are animals that are NOT experiencing increased lifespans suddenly becoming affected with diseases and cancers that have never before been prominent among them? Why are some demographics not affected by these recent increases?

My original comments, which you rejected in toto, related to research into disease, primarily the funding for it, and that has a strong bias that tends to preclude anything negative to those doing the funding.

If you were correct, then we would be seeing an increase in cancer and chronic disease primarily among the aged population, not throughout the general population. Walk through any oncology ward and look at the occupants, they are not mostly old. I spend a lot of time in them – I would assume that if you are truly an MD that you would be familiar with them as well.

Why are we getting increasingly frequent reports of “cancer clusters” often among younger women and children if the increase is only related to longevity and not negative aspects of modern lifestyle?

I can go on, but you have illustrated quite clearly that you don’t listen, you just talk. I am not a medical researcher, but I am an experienced researcher and I do have a very strong interest in the results of medical research. Mostly from Europe and Japan, not too much from the US. Can you guess why not the US?

France, Denmark, Germany and Japan all seem to be consistent in results and often in conflict with US research. Do you think that is has to do with law regarding autonomy in research? There are a few studies, rather small when judged against things like the Framingham Study, from places like Denmark that are offering insight in fascinating directions that are very different to those from current US “Industry Funded” research organisations. If you were more open minded it would possibly have been interesting to discuss them. At the moment I have no such inclination.

There is little point in continuing this, I am suspicious of US research and claimed findings, and you seem to be unaware of any of those that don’t concur with your existing beliefs. We are not likely to agree, and are just wasting each other’s time.

@DarkScribe I think if you are going to engage me, at least demonstrate an understanding of data and epidemiology. My “theory” isn’t really a theory. It is backed by solid epidemiologic data. Here is the data from the National Cancer Institute of the NIH. What it shows is that cancer rates for individuals <20 and 20–49 are static, while those for individuals between 50–64 have risen slightly, and >65 have the highest increase. Notice too that the actual incidence for older individuals >50 is much higher than for the younger cohort. Put another way, cancer incidence by age at diagnosis is highest for the oldest population.

As for the rest of your comments, they are factually incorrect or incoherent ranting. However, in the interest of thoroughness, let me debunk them, one by one.

Why are cancer rates increasing among children and younger women if it is related to our good fortune in living longer? They are not Or, show me the hard data.

Why are animals that are NOT experiencing increased lifespans suddenly becoming affected with diseases and cancers that have never before been prominent among them? Many animals suffer from extreme inbreeding, which results in selection for aberrant tumor suppressor genes. The same thing occurs in humans. Humans with Familial adenomatous polyposis or inherited retinoblatoma develop cancers owing to inherited mutations.

If you were correct, then we would be seeing an increase in cancer and chronic disease primarily among the aged population, not throughout the general population. As I showed above through (gasp) actual statistics, we are.

Walk through any oncology ward and look at the occupants, they are not mostly old. I’m not sure what your definition of old is, but cancer is much more common in the elderly. Cancer wards are full of relatively younger patients (50–75) because they can tolerate and are more willing to undergo the treatment. Older patients are neither good candidates nor willing to go through complex chemo/radiation regimens.

Why are we getting increasingly frequent reports of “cancer clusters” often among younger women and children if the increase is only related to longevity and not negative aspects of modern lifestyle? These occur frequently, but often statistical analysis shows that these are nothing more than blips (i.e. not real). Occasionally, they can be tied to an environmental carcinogen, but this is very rare, and certainly wouldn’t explain your “hypothesis”.

France, Denmark, Germany and Japan all seem to be consistent in results and often in conflict with US research. Do you think that is has to do with law regarding autonomy in research? Really? I’m not sure what you are saying here, but it is well known that US biomedical research is at the forefront. Why else would the majority of Nobel Prizes in chemistry and physiology-medicine be awarded to Americans? Are the Swedes in on it too?

I am suspicious of US research and claimed findings. Ok. Here is the cancer incidence data from Germany, Denmark (taken from here) and Japan (taken from here). All show a dramatically higher incidence of cancer with increasing age. I guess they are in cahoots with the US research mafia too?

In the future, if you want to debate an issue, come prepared with actual data. Until then, your views can be best described as highly-speculative opinion.

@shilolo

I am waiting for that debunk you promised.

What has incidence data to do with anything? I did not claim that they were proposing a lower incidence, they are proposing different causes.

A well constructed answer if I’ve ever seen one. Now I know what your degree is in… But, just to remind you, these are some of the comments you made, which I demonstrated are wrong using real, hard, legitimate data.

Why are cancer rates increasing among children and younger women if it is related to our good fortune in living longer?

If you were correct, then we would be seeing an increase in cancer and chronic disease primarily among the aged population, not throughout the general population.

@shilolo Now I know what your degree is in…

Which degree? I have several.

I have looked at your profile the other day and it was amusing if nothing else. Not credible, but amusing.

I am a scientist with hopes of curing serious infectious diseases.

What reality are you living in? You hope to cure “diseases”? You are not a part of a research team focusing all their attention for several years on one single disease – you are the lone ranger out to get the lot of them?

You seem to be living in a 1950’s B grade movie plot.

I spend at least eighty hours a week in front of a computer and can on occasion – a few days a month when it is quiet – spend some time here. Even so I cannot match the time you spend on Fluther. Disease fighting must not take up too much of your time.

Quite simply I don’t find it plausible that you are a Doctor or a research scientist. Possibly a lab tech or similar – but none of the rest rings true. Anyone can claim anything on the net. I could claim to be something far more glamorous than a rather mundane editor. Maybe I should tell everyone that I am Donald Trump’s financial advisor? An astronaut? How about a medical research scientist specialising in contagious hypochondria?

If you truly were a scientist – why would you care for a moment about the fact that I choose to give more credence to other research teams’ findings and suppositions than I do to your supposed research? I am not doing medical research, I am simply finding the results from some research organisations more credible than others.

I don’t agree with you, I doubt that you are genuine or experienced. Get over it – it isn’t likely to change.

c’mon, you’re both correct in that obesity and cancer are both issues we need to focus on, but all that’s happening right now is a very boring pissing contest, dear doctors of philosophy and medicine

@DarkScribe: It sounds like you are having trouble constructing a valid argument to respond to the evidence @shilolo presented. You might find this link helpful.

I think plenty of us here at Fluther know @shilolo well enough to creepily stalk him all over the internet. He’s the real deal, which you should be able to figure out yourself by the quality of his answers.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Isn’t it so human to want clear and simple answers to solve all problems and keep us safe. X is more prevalent today, cancer is also more common. If we could just avoid X we would all live forever!

@galileogirl Death is part of our human life. We must embrace it. I know that sounds morbid but that’s how it goes in nature.

@dannyc: I just found out today that one of my favorite professors, whom I’ve known for years, has breast cancer. You’re not alone.

And can everyone please lay off the bickering not directly related to the OPs question. It’s really not very polite, considering the nature of the question.

@La_chica_gomela . So sorry to hear that. I will add that hope of her recovery to my quest to inspire my Ride. I remain committed to my goal. The discussion did reveal things of importance, whether related or not. I thank you for your input to my question. It is such a horrible disease. I wish all afflicted the comfort of all of our support.

@nikipedia It sounds like you are having trouble constructing a valid argument to respond to the evidence

No, no trouble at all. I choose to give credence to known unbiased or un-influenced scientists and researchers and not to him. My choice. He seems to have a problem with that – I have no idea why other than ego on his part.

As for your suggestion regarding ad hominen response – look it up. I responded to what he has claimed about himself, not to him in any personal sense. I do not believe that he is what he says he is – he lacks credibility, he doesn’t ring true – for me. If you choose to believe anything he says, that is your choice – unlike him I have no uncontrollable urge to have everyone fall into line with my opinions. You are genuinely more than welcome to yours – just don’t try to discredit those researchers who I do respect – which is what agreeing with him would be doing.

I have cancer – I am successfully recovering from metastatic Melanoma – not many people do. I have been closely involved with the subject since the eighties. I have heard all manner of theories – and at the moment that’s all any of them are, as to why we have a steady increase in various disease including cancer – and I choose to disregard his opinions and support the opinions of others. My recovery is also based on little known and often disparaged – but nonetheless fully medically based practices – sufficient to earn not one but several Nobel Prize nominations. You can’t argue when it works – unless you are a US based organisation making billions out of conventional cancer treatment and therapy. People with cancer are cash cows to some.

My opinion is based on my observation of and exposure to research data as well as empirical – for me – experience. Someone on the net who describes himself as a scientist hoping to cure the world of all manner of disease – apparently in a first person sense, and has far more time on regular basis for Fluther than most is not about to change it. After this weekend I am unlikely to be able to spare more than a few minutes here for several weeks. I have a lot of deadlines coming up. Curiously I would have expected someone working in critical area of applied science to have less time than I.

I love it. I’ve been swift-boated. Unable to debate facts, you choose to disparage my credibility with the hopes that that somehow will undermine my position. Fine. I’m a medical student-technician-whatever. The literature I cited comes from the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Mayo Clinic and the national health institutes of Germany, Japan and Denmark. In addition, nothing I said was ever actually disproven by you, and you never provided any information to support your outlandish assertions (except of course, for citations about your straw man, obesity). Because you cannot debate the facts, you attempt ad hominem attacks. It’s ok. I know when I’ve been beaten.~

This has become very long and convoluted. As I see it, darkscribe believes that cancer and other serious health problems are increasing because of negative things in our lives, while shilolo contends that nothing has really changed other than we are now living long enough for these things that have always been there to act on more people. That there really isn’t an increase in serious disease just in the apparent effect of it due to increased longevity.

Is that a fair summation?

@Girl_Powered: Why are you summarizing it at all? The purpose of this thread is to answer the original question asked by @dannyc.

@DarkScribe you win