ACS: Cancer Mortality Continues Steady Decline, Driven by Progress against Lung Cancer

[China]

Cancer Mortality Continues Steady Decline, Driven by Progress against Lung Cancer

 

The cancer death rate declined by 29% from 1991 to 2017, including a 2.2% drop from 2016 to 2017, the largest single-year drop in cancer mortality ever reported. The news comes from Cancer Statistics, 2020, the latest edition of the American Cancer Society’s annual report on cancer rates and trends.

 

 

The steady 26-year decline in overall cancer mortality is driven by long-term drops in death rates for the four major cancers – lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate, although recent trends are mixed. The pace of mortality reductions for lung cancer – the leading cause of cancer death – accelerated in recent years (from 2% per year to 4% overall) spurring the record one-year drop in overall cancer mortality. In contrast, progress slowed for colorectal, breast, and prostate cancers. The article appears early online in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, and is accompanied by a consumer version, Cancer Facts & Figures 2020.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

 

[PleaseBlitz]

11 hours ago, China said:

the four major cancers – lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate,

 

Man, they gotta figure out butts. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Anyone who knows me knows I am a big fan of Darwinism.  I wonder at what point we should be letting nature take it’s course and stop trying to heal everything.  Or does that take this thread too much off the rails?

[Captain Wiggles]

Why am I not surprised Trump is taking credit for this.

[Renegade7]

12 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Anyone who knows me knows I am a big fan of Darwinism.  I wonder at what point we should be letting nature take it’s course and stop trying to heal everything.  Or does that take this thread too much off the rails?

 

The body is designed to die no matter what we do, its written into our DNA to encourage evolution.  Don't worry, birth rates are plummeting all over the world, for all we know in the not to distant future the population will stabilize, or start to shrink overall.

[TheGreatBuzz]

19 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

The body is designed to die no matter what we do, its written into our DNA to encourage evolution.

I’d agree that the body is designed to die.  I’m talking about how hard we work to change when that happens.

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I’d agree that the body is designed to die.  I’m talking about how hard we work to change when that happens.

 

I'd say it only really matters if we try to all stay on same planet, which is unsubstainable.  So many solutions to the problem you raise backfire, like Chinas one child policy. 

 

Does any other species ask if it's become too successful and maybe should scale back versus adapting to that as well?  That's opposite of what you talking about nature taking its course via evolution.  

 

It's hard for me to have the conversation about trying too hard to solve the worlds health issues without thinking how that will eventually affect me or my family.  Our default position as a species should be to try and figure it out or if we dont, nature will do it for us.  I cant with a straight face say we should rethink how hard we go after cancer after watching what my dad went through seeing both his parents die from it.

[TheGreatBuzz]

18 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Does any other species ask if it's become too successful and maybe should scale back versus adapting to that as well?  That's opposite of what you talking about nature taking its course via evolution.  

 

No other species has succeeded like we have.  I also admit my thinking comes from a place with not a whole lot of in-depth knowledge on the subject.

 

I use imaginary diseases to keep it from getting to personal for people.  Imagine disease “XYZ” affects .1% of usually infants up to children age 5 and has a 70% mortality rate.  Do you keep pouring in time and money for research trying to keep them alive and get through the disease?  Or let it run it’s course through that .1% to where the only babies born are not susceptible to that disease?

 

I know this is a very cold, poorly written example but hopefully you get the idea of what I’m saying.  I’ve gotta go do some other stuff though.  I’ll be back in a bit.

[twa]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Anyone who knows me knows I am a big fan of Darwinism.  I wonder at what point we should be letting nature take it’s course and stop trying to heal everything.  Or does that take this thread too much off the rails?

 

Do you feel the same about injuries?

 

[PeterMP]

19 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

No other species has succeeded like we have.  I also admit my thinking comes from a place with not a whole lot of in-depth knowledge on the subject.

 

I use imaginary diseases to keep it from getting to personal for people.  Imagine disease “XYZ” affects .1% of usually infants up to children age 5 and has a 70% mortality rate.  Do you keep pouring in time and money for research trying to keep them alive and get through the disease?  Or let it run it’s course through that .1% to where the only babies born are not susceptible to that disease?

 

I know this is a very cold, poorly written example but hopefully you get the idea of what I’m saying.  I’ve gotta go do some other stuff though.  I’ll be back in a bit.

 

I'm a little confused as to your point here.

 

Are you saying that we shouldn't treat diseases with the hopes that the human population will become disease free?

 

Are you hoping that if we don't treat babies with XYZ, we'll get to a point where nobody has XYZ?

[Hersh]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Anyone who knows me knows I am a big fan of Darwinism.  I wonder at what point we should be letting nature take it’s course and stop trying to heal everything.  Or does that take this thread too much off the rails?

 

Isn't the ability to cure cancer part of the natural selection process in that humans have developed the ability to take on such complex issues whereas other species have not? 

 

This probably does take this thread off the rails too much, but I find it a very interested conversation. I guess I'd have to let you expand further on "heal everything" and whatever else your position is as it relates to Darwinism. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, twa said:

Do you feel the same about injuries?

 

For the most part.

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm a little confused as to your point here.

 

Are you saying that we shouldn't treat diseases with the hopes that the human population will become disease free?

 

Are you hoping that if we don't treat babies with XYZ, we'll get to a point where nobody has XYZ?

I’m a little confused also.  That’s why I want to have the discussion.  😁

 

I think I’m saying there should be a line where we stop trying to fix/cure everything and accept that not everyone is meant to survive to 100.  Admittedly I’m jaded by my family history.  Seeing someone with major dementia get treated for pneumonia just to be an angry, crazy person for a few more years.  Seeing a child that sucks up all family resources knowing the child is in a state to not ever be capable of having a “meaningful” life.  Just seems wrong to me.  And I think you could extend that feeling to other diseases/illnesses, etc.

 

1 hour ago, Hersh said:

Isn't the ability to cure cancer part of the natural selection process in that humans have developed the ability to take on such complex issues whereas other species have not? 

I don’t think so.  I guess you could argue that it is for natural selection viewing the species as a whole but not on the individual level.  Hypothetically (and I am in no way smart enough to answer this), if we took out the side effects of population size and stuff, if we NEVER treated anyone’s cancer, would humans evolve to a point where cancer wasn’t a thing anymore?

 

Again, I think it is an interesting talk and I have no clue where lines should be.  I’m not advocating death panels or never treating anything.  Just asking if there is a line, and if so where is it, where we need to stop treating and let things run run there course.

 

If the OP or a mod says this is too far off topic, I’ll let it go.  But I think it fits in well with us lowering mortality rates of a common disease.

[Riggo-toni]

3 hours ago, clietas said:

Why am I not surprised Trump is taking credit for this.

Well, in fairness, there are probably at least a dozen women who no longer have the urge to smoke a cigarette thanks to Pumpkinhead.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

For the most part.

 

I’m a little confused also.  That’s why I want to have the discussion.  😁

 

I think I’m saying there should be a line where we stop trying to fix/cure everything and accept that not everyone is meant to survive to 100.  Admittedly I’m jaded by my family history.  Seeing someone with major dementia get treated for pneumonia just to be an angry, crazy person for a few more years.  Seeing a child that sucks up all family resources knowing the child is in a state to not ever be capable of having a “meaningful” life.  Just seems wrong to me.  And I think you could extend that feeling to other diseases/illnesses, etc.

 

I don’t think so.  I guess you could argue that it is for natural selection viewing the species as a whole but not on the individual level.  Hypothetically (and I am in no way smart enough to answer this), if we took out the side effects of population size and stuff, if we NEVER treated anyone’s cancer, would humans evolve to a point where cancer wasn’t a thing anymore?

 

Again, I think it is an interesting talk and I have no clue where lines should be.  I’m not advocating death panels or never treating anything.  Just asking if there is a line, and if so where is it, where we need to stop treating and let things run run there course.

 

If the OP or a mod says this is too far off topic, I’ll let it go.  But I think it fits in well with us lowering mortality rates of a common disease.

 

1.  As per your response, strictly to me, that's an ethical question.  What is the value of a human life?  That is obviously going to depend on the life and the person answering the question.

 

2.  As to your question about humans evolving to where there is no cancer (which is what I was trying to figure out if that's what you were asking), that's exceedingly unlikely.  There's a couple of issues:

 

1.  Diseases that occur mostly after the time where you are in your child producing age, especially in today's society, don't really matter too much in terms of evolution.  Evolution happens at the level of produced viable off spring that can and do reproduce themselves.  If you live to be 150, but don't leave behind children that have children from an evolutionary stand point you are a failure.  If you only to live to 30, but leave behind 10 kids that all have 10 kids, you are a success.

 

In fact, there's a school of thought that says the old dying is because it was an evolutionary advantage.  You get beyond your child bearing/raising/productive work years and you die so that you are no longer  burden to your kids and grandkids, which share your genes.  At least historically (in a hunter/gather society) once you were no longer productive dying helped allow your genes to pass on because you weren't burdening your family.

 

2.  For the most part, you have two copies of each gene.  One from your mother and one from your father.  There can be mutations that are neutral or even advantageous as long as it is only one gene that is being affected, but if you have both copies with the mutation you have a disease and a big issue.

 

The classical textbook example of this is sickle cell anemia.  As long as you only have the sickle cell mutation in one gene, you are essentially a healthy individual (Ryan Clark anybody) AND your chances of getting a significant infection by the parasite that causes malaria are decreased so your less likely to get malaria.  If you have a mutation in both genes though, you have sickle cell anemia.  The mutation is beneficial (if you live somewhere with the parasite) as long as you only have one copy.  In those sorts of cases, the disease causing mutation isn't going to be lost.

 

3.  Even beyond, whether something is good or bad is the result of a complex set of environmental conditions and luck.  The CCR5 gene that was altered in the kids in China that had their genomes edited using CRISPR/CAS.  The mutation makes your more resistant to HIV.  There's also some evidence that the mutation also makes you more intelligent.  And it also appears to make you more susceptible to other diseases and might shorten your life span.    If you are exposed to HIV, then having the CCR5 mutation is good.  If not, then it might be bad.  Most "cancer genes" don't mean that you'll get cancer.  If you have the "breast cancer gene", it just means you are at a higher risk for getting breast cancer.  But even those mutations are believed to have benefits (under some conditions). 

 

And viruses are a contributing factor to a lot of cancers and bacteria contribute to other diseases beyond basic and obvious bacterial infections (and they are now even saying maybe things like Alzheimer's).  We aren't going to out evolve all viruses and bacteria.

 

More generally, evolution is a slow and on going process that responds to the environment, but the environment is also always changing and especially today where we are changing our environment pretty quickly (introducing new chemicals and now technology), evolution is always going to lag behind.  Things never evolve perfectly to their environment.  At any given time, there are going to be disadvantageous mutations because of changes in the environment.

 

(Now, there is an issue of what we are evolving too.  In general wealthier non-fundamental religious cultures/societies/individuals are having fewer kids than poorer more fundamental religious cultures/societies/individuals.  But simultaneous to that religion seems to be on a decline, but that's a shorter term thing and might be a function of people that were loosely associated with religion falling away and the number of people that identify as a religion might not be a true measure of the religiosity of the society.  It is possible that even as religion appears to be losing its popularity in society (as a fast process) we are actually (slowly) evolving to a more (fundamental) religious society.)

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I think I’m saying there should be a line where we stop trying to fix/cure everything and accept that not everyone is meant to survive to 100.  Admittedly I’m jaded by my family history.  Seeing someone with major dementia get treated for pneumonia just to be an angry, crazy person for a few more years.  Seeing a child that sucks up all family resources knowing the child is in a state to not ever be capable of having a “meaningful” life.  Just seems wrong to me.  And I think you could extend that feeling to other diseases/illnesses, etc.

 

It seems somewhat hypocritically that you feel this way yet still (presumably) consumer healthcare in any form.  Like, set the example.  In you get pneumonia, well, tough that **** out on your own and if you die, then you die.  

[twa]

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

It seems somewhat hypocritically that you feel this way yet still (presumably) consumer healthcare in any form.  Like, set the example.  

 

He didn't mean set the line there 

 

we all got limits, even if we exceed them at times.

[PleaseBlitz]

Right, set the line where it doesn't effect him, just those other people.  

[dfitzo53]

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

For the most part.

 

I’m a little confused also.  That’s why I want to have the discussion.  😁

 

I think I’m saying there should be a line where we stop trying to fix/cure everything and accept that not everyone is meant to survive to 100.  Admittedly I’m jaded by my family history.  Seeing someone with major dementia get treated for pneumonia just to be an angry, crazy person for a few more years.  Seeing a child that sucks up all family resources knowing the child is in a state to not ever be capable of having a “meaningful” life.  Just seems wrong to me.  And I think you could extend that feeling to other diseases/illnesses, etc.

 

I don’t think so.  I guess you could argue that it is for natural selection viewing the species as a whole but not on the individual level.  Hypothetically (and I am in no way smart enough to answer this), if we took out the side effects of population size and stuff, if we NEVER treated anyone’s cancer, would humans evolve to a point where cancer wasn’t a thing anymore?

 

Again, I think it is an interesting talk and I have no clue where lines should be.  I’m not advocating death panels or never treating anything.  Just asking if there is a line, and if so where is it, where we need to stop treating and let things run run there course.

 

If the OP or a mod says this is too far off topic, I’ll let it go.  But I think it fits in well with us lowering mortality rates of a common disease.

I'm not sure what benefit there is to throwing up our hands and letting cancer run its course. Most cancers don't happen until after child bearing age, so even if it were possible for natural selection to impact them it seems vanishingly unlikely.

 

I also can't imagine a connection between the virtue of someone's life and whether they get cancer. I could understand where you're coming from if cancer was associated with some kind of dangerous traits like sociopathy or violent tendencies or something but I've never read anything that makes any sort of connection like that. So if you just accept cancer as "natural selection", you're not actually selecting for or against anything particularly relevant.

 

Granted, this affects me quite personally. My mom and wife are both cancer survivors. Still, I can't see any real merit behind it.

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

It seems somewhat hypocritically that you feel this way yet still (presumably) consumer healthcare in any form.  Like, set the example.  In you get pneumonia, well, tough that **** out on your own and if you die, then you die.  

I never said all or nothing.  I asked where the line should be and was trying to spur discussion on that line.

 

3 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Right, set the line where it doesn't effect him, just those other people.  

I admitted that my opinion was jaded by family history and gave two examples.  It most certainly effects me.  Maybe you should learn to read first and until then respond.  Until then, well I don’t want to get banned so use your imagination.

 

2 hours ago, dfitzo53 said:

Granted, this affects me quite personally. My mom and wife are both cancer survivors. Still, I can't see any real merit behind it.

My dad died of cancer when I was a kid.  In choosing which treatment path, he chose quantity over quality.  I have vowed since then to not make that mistake.  (It always shocks me how much religious people are scared to die.  But that’s for another thread.)

 

@PeterMP Thanks for your response.  You seem like a good example of a person that I like to have this type of conversation with because you lay it out well and are knowledgeable in it.  I had to read it a few times but thought it brought up a lot of good points.  I’m curious to hear where you think the ethical lines are?

[PleaseBlitz]

11 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I never said all or nothing.  I asked where the line should be and was trying to spur discussion on that line.

 

I admitted that my opinion was jaded by family history and gave two examples.  It most certainly effects me.  Maybe you should learn to read first and until then respond.  Until then, well I don’t want to get banned so use your imagination.

 

 

I read it. It’s a ****ing stupid position. Childish. I very much stand by what I posted. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

 

I read it. It’s a ****ing stupid position. Childish. I very much stand by what I posted. 

Well then you are just posting lies.  I posted how it has affected me.  And I never said we should never treat anything.  I asked about where the lines should be.  If you are incapable of having an honest, adult conversation about it, then you should bow out and try to save your credibility.  

[PleaseBlitz]

16 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Well then you are just posting lies.  I posted how it has affected me.  And I never said we should never treat anything.  I asked about where the lines should be.  If you are incapable of having an honest, adult conversation about it, then you should bow out and try to save your credibility.  

I understand you posted how it affected you. Others have disagreed and posted about how it has affected them. Those posts evidently had no impact, but sure, you’re the one trying to have an honest adult conversation here. I’m just having a hard time finding any intellectual consistency with your position. Maybe have a spouse or a child faced with some of these issues, not somebody already at the end of their life, then talk about how hard you are for darwinism. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Right, set the line where it doesn't effect him, just those other people

 

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I understand you posted how it affected you

So I guess that go cleared up.

 

6 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Those posts evidently had no impact,

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

7 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

’m just having a hard time finding any intellectual consistency with your position.

Maybe because I don’t know my own position.  I admitted such.  See......

6 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I’m a little confused also.  That’s why I want to have the discussion.

Reading is fundamental.

 

8 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Maybe have a spouse or a child faced with some of these issues, not somebody already at the end of their life. 

Can’t have children.  Spouse has had her own issues.  As I have had my own.  And my dad was 52.  Not exactly the end of his life.  Well I guess actually it was but not at an age that it normally would have been.

[PleaseBlitz]

13 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

So I guess that go cleared up.

 

 

Not really. One post was about your opinion of rare diseases that you think should be ignored and the other was in reference to your specific family situation.  LOL. Honest, adult conversations and all that. 
 

Quote

 

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

From you ignoring multiple posts. 

 

Quote

 

Maybe because I don’t know my own position.  I admitted such.  See......

Reading is fundamental.

 

Think more, post less. 

 

Quote

 

Can’t have children.  Spouse has had her own issues.  As I have had my own.  And my dad was 52.  Not exactly the end of his life.  Well I guess actually it was but not at an age that it normally would have been.

My condolences. None of those things should prevent you from having some compassion for others. 

 

in any event, you have a wife. If she, god forbid, got cancer, can you see yourself wondering if she should even be treated?  After all, “.I wonder at what point we should be letting nature take it’s course and stop trying to heal everything..”  Your quote.