Slashdot Mirror

Saying it has a 41% increased risk is a meaningless statement unless some context is provided regarding how likely it was to get it in the first place. If the odds are 1-in-a-trillion and we increase that by 41% that is just statistical noise, representative of nothing. Any headline that spouts a percentage risk increase without a context is nothing but clickbait.

So to put some facts to this, your lifetime risk of contracting Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is around 1/42 if you are a man and 1/54 if you are a woman. It accounts for about 4% of all cancer in the US and about 70,000 people in the US are expected to be diagnosed this year. So a 41% increase risk turns out to be a substantial risk factor if the study results can be confirmed/replicated.

Cancer existed in 1 out of 100 humans a century ago.

Yeah, no. "Read up. "Anti-cancer drugs made their entrance in the 1940s."(from second) Very nice step-by-step timeline of all the milestones in the second.

We simply detect much more of it earlier and are more successful in the treatment now.

> There isn't anything particularly cancerous about tobacco.

Other than the carcinogens you mean?

There's an interesting quirk in human psychology that makes negative facts and news seem more salient than positive ones. For media that thrives on reader attention (and that's both new and old media), this naturally leads to more emphasis on the negative.

I think this is a bias worth noting and pushing back on. The world is pretty far from perfect, but there's also huge helpings of good news all around us.

• Continuing the trend, nearly 70M people in dire poverty gain access to electricity
• Extreme global poverty continues its decline, although it's getting harder to make progress on that front
• The US death rate from cancer continues its steady yearly drop. Cumulatively, this has prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths
• The pack of criminals who made a wholesale business of taking sex slaves in war lost their last city
• The world continues its steady march towards universal literacy. You can't embed pictures in /. (for reaaaalllly goatse reasons) but the figures here are really striking
• The Long Peace continues for another year, meaning millions of lives impacted
• Cigarette smoking, a leading cause of totally preventable death, fell to its lowest rate in the US
• Automobile deaths per vehicle mile continued to drop

Most of these (Daesh not withstanding, but threw them in just because they were really vile) follow the same pattern: slow but steady progress. It's hardly clickbait -- in fact these are not even specific events you can point to, they are trends seen on the scale of decades. And on the scale of decades, the world is consistently becoming a less-bad place.

Fellow HAM here (General license). As we both know, radio burn is a potential hazard with any frequency. We also both know that some frequencies (such as VHF frequencies) are more hazardous than others. So, the question isn't whether radio burn with Bluetooth (2.45 GHz) is a possibility - of course it is - but what exposure levels are safe. There's been precious little research on this topic, but the prevailing consensus seems to be that using a Bluetooth headset presents less of a cancer hazard than holding a cell phone against one's head. (See for example the American Cancer Society's guidance on cell phones). 73.

Theres a lot of reasons to dislike Monsanto, but this probably isn't one of them. Glycophosphate isn't new, it has been used in tremendous quantity all over the US for more than half a century.

It was introduced in 1974, but its popularity really took off in the 1980s. Interestingly, cancer incidence in the United States has been on a steady climb in the U.S. since about 1980. That increased incidence could entirely be a side effect of better detection, or Monsanto could be responsible for one of the biggest public health crises in our nation's history, or anything in between.

It is unlikely that Smartphone RF causes cancer. It's just not ionizing radiation.

I find the argument that non-ionizing radiation can't cause cancer a bit tired. Cancer is a very complex (set of) disease(s), with a multitude of risk factors, of which ionizing radiation is but one.

RF causes tissue heating, which is linked to cancer in other contexts (e.g. repeated intake of very hot drinks have been linked to esophageal cancer). If the power, frequency and duration of exposure is just right, RF almost certainly can cause cancer. Is cell phone RF anywhere near the "danger zone"? Probably not, but given proliferation of RF sources over the last half a century, I don't mind scientists double checking.

My next door neighbours car most likely raises my chance of having cancer. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/...

The warnings are due to Proposition 65 - a citizen's ballot initiative which passed in 1986. It mandates a ridiculously low non-scientific threshold for requiring a cancer warning - a 1 in 100,000 chance of getting cancer due to exposure. By comparison, your lifetime odds of being killed by car is 1 in 114. By a pool is 1 in 5772. By falling from a ladder is 1 in 7707. By dog attack is 1 in 112,400. By lightning is 1 in 161,856. So we're talking about cancer risk levels which are minuscule compared to other risks you face during your lifetime.

But that's the threshold Prop 65 requires. So practically everything ends up requiring a Prop 65 warning label, including silly things like coffee. The judge can disagree with it, but has to comply with it because the text of the law is very specific. I've often joked that every door leading outside should have a Prop 65 warning above it because sunlight is known to cause cancer (about 1 in 43 people will get skin cancer in their lifetime).

About the only purpose Prop 65 serves is to enrich lawyers who go around finding businesses without the warning sing, and suing them for non-compliance, then settling the lawsuit for a few thousand dollars. The usual victim is an immigrant small business owner who never would've dreamed that such a silly law exists.

A New York Times article stated that this drug was developed with three other non-viable drugs for a total cost of $388,000,000. Dividing by the stated cost of $143,000 dollars, 2,713 patients have to be treated with this drug for 1 year to recover development costs.
This drug treats Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL). Approximately 20,000 people are diagnosed with CLL each year, and those people have an average age of 71 years. Approximately 4,500 people die each year from CLL. Your lifetime risk of developing CLL is 1 in 175.

Cancer.org lists 5 other treatments (Obliersenn, Lumiliximab, HA22, Lenalidomide, 'standard' chemotherapy) for CLL , and mentions dozens of drugs are in testing for CLL treatment.

You now have more information to discuss alternative treatments, their costs, and why folks would choose one over the other, as well as a greater ability to evaluate the potential profitability of this drug (Imbruvica) at any price point.

Acrylamide and Cancer Risk

No, cell towers don't emit ultraviolet radiation. It is UV that causes cancer.

You say the war on cancer isn't winnable, and there's some merit to the claim.

However, we have learned to delay and delay and delay the victory of cancer, often until something else kills us first. That may not be "winning", strictly speaking, but if I die of something else and have a good quality of life it makes no practical difference to me.

https://www.cancer.org/latest-...

We've also learned how to prevent a lot of cases of cancer. I don't smoke, I eat high fiber, avoid overindulging in processed meat, I don't binge drink, I get regular exercise, keep my weight reasonable, and I protect my skin from too much sun. All of these reduce my risk of cancer by a good deal. Not to zero, but all these actions reduce my odds of getting cancer. Again, not "winning the war" but considerable progress.

--PM

Sadly, there is a correlation to radiation exposure, though there are many other factors that increase risk.

Still, it's plausible he died doing his job many years hence.

And colon cancer is on the rise among young adults. It's possible these two things are linked.

Has anybody looked at who FUNDED this "study"?... could it have been https://www.sugar.org/ ???
For example, people have been trying to demonize Aspertame for YEARS.
But the American Cancer Society finds no ill effects https://www.cancer.org/cancer/...
There are other examples if you search.

HPV can also cause penile cancer. Do you want dick cancer? If no, get the HPV vaccine.

Also, your parenthetical is a really weird strawman that takes away from the rest of your comment.

Colon cancer rates dropped thirty percent by 2012 from where it was 10 years earlier. It's been attributed to better screening technology, which can detect and even eliminate pre-cancerous growths....

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/n...

Somebody trying to raise page views no doubt. There was a time it worked so well site got "slash dotted". Now, not so much. Here is the link that should have been used for this piece...
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/cancer-facts-and-figures-death-rate-down-25-since-1991

Right, but a small mention of "Entire family wiped out in car crash" pales in comparison to the news coverage that a Tesla just scraped a parked car .

This shows the the level of media attention does not correlate to the appropriate levels of concern. Just like the terrorist attacks. Tobacco companies kill far more Americans than terrorists. Do not ramble on on the argument that smokers choose to risk their health and life, I'm talking about second hand smoke.

Tesla's autopilot will save many lives on the motor ways. It doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be statistically better than you or I. Even though this technology is in its infancy, it is already a better than you are, statistically.

1. Secondhand Smoke Harms Children and Adults
2. There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure; even brief exposure can be harmful to health.1,2,6
3. Since 1964, approximately 2,500,000 nonsmokers have died from health problems caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.1

1. Health Effects in Children
2. In children, secondhand smoke causes the following:1,2,3
3. Ear infections
4. More frequent and severe asthma attacks
5. Respiratory symptoms (for example, coughing, sneezing, and shortness of breath)
6. Respiratory infections (bronchitis and pneumonia)
7. A greater risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

Health Effects in Adults

1. In adults who have never smoked, secondhand smoke can cause:
2. Heart disease
3. For nonsmokers, breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the heart and blood vessels.1,3
4. It is estimated that secondhand smoke caused nearly 34,000 heart disease deaths each year during 2005â"2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.1
5. Lung cancer1,7
6. Secondhand smoke exposure caused more than 7,300 lung cancer deaths each year during 2005â"2009 among adult nonsmokers in the United States.1
7. Stroke1

From the American Cancer Society

But go ahead, claim all their science is junk and you're smarter than the experts. That seems to be a symptom of people who can't admit facts.

Most cancers occur in later (post childbearing) years? This is according to the American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/acs/grou...

I think it's always good to look at an problem from different perspectives and while thinking of cancer as an evolutionary protection against passing down defective genes is interesting, I'm not sure that it's a valid hypothesis.

I thought /. readership was educated and largely from the STEM fields of study. Apparently the readership demographic has shifted to the "womyns studies" folks. A hypothesis is neither valid nor invalid until experiments are conducted which prove or disprove a particular hypothesis.

Full Definition of hypothesis
plural hypothesesplay play \-sz\
1
a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2
: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3
: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis

Most cancers occur in later (post childbearing) years? This is according to the American Cancer Society: http://www.cancer.org/acs/grou...

I think it's always good to look at an problem from different perspectives and while thinking of cancer as an evolutionary protection against passing down defective genes is interesting, I'm not sure that it's a valid hypothesis.

Speaking of treatments that are awesome, Bacillus Calmette-Guerin therapy is fantastic.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/b...

It's surprising that there are VERY few places where this treatment is performed. The reason often has to do with the fact that it's labor-intensive and there is no surgery involved.

The other thing to consider is smoking related diseases usually kill you pretty quick

Yes, and the people around them, too.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/c...

There have been numerous studies on second hand smoke and it has been shown to be quite dangerous. Even a small amount is bad and has been shown that it can cause long-term health issues.

More than 50 people die in accidents on European roads on average per day. These terrorist attacks are horrible, but we need to deal with them as a problem, not let our countries deteriorate in a frightened panic.

A quick calculation shows it takes a total of about 2 days for that many Americans to die from gun related homicides. According to cancer.org there are about 596,690 cancer deaths a year, so cancer does that many in just under an hour.

And if you look at the details on those "studies" you may find that those "gun related homicides" include Police Officers shooting armed robbers, attempted murders, etc... If it starts with a "study"...look into the actual details of the study, who administered said study, and who has what to gain by fudging the numbers.

More than 50 people die in accidents on European roads on average per day. These terrorist attacks are horrible, but we need to deal with them as a problem, not let our countries deteriorate in a frightened panic.

A quick calculation shows it takes a total of about 2 days for that many Americans to die from gun related homicides. According to cancer.org there are about 596,690 cancer deaths a year, so cancer does that many in just under an hour.

Um... AIDS is a cancer of the immune system, and is transmissable.

There's a monkey version of the HIV virus (SIV) that is more tolerated, but also causes leukemia. There's a
cow version (Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus). There is a cat version (Feline IV).

Then there's Kaposi's sarcoma, also caused by a virus.

And the's a handy list of infectious agents that cause cancer.

But perhaps you're talking about the cancer cells themselves causing the transmission, rather than an infectious agent. These are often called clonally transmissable cancers. There's a second one that's been discovered in Tasmanian Devils. It's an active area of research. Thankfully, unlike Tasmanian Devils, we don't go around biting each other on the face or, generally, exposing our bodily fluids to each other (well ...).

Well, statistics of 1 is not really statistics, anything can happen.

But let me give you a more numeric anecdotal story. An old farmer died of prostate cancer few years ago, and he told me that almost every farmer in the region that he had known had died of prostate cancer too. We are talking about 20-30 people.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/c...

So normalized data shows 15% chance, but for older farmers based on that farmer's testimony, it's about 80% if you ignore heart disease deaths.

So yes, I believe we'll kill ourselves with the chemicals we produce and spray on ourselves. Anecdotal evidence shows that too. But studies? Which company would fund long term studies into cancer rates of their products? And which government would do that? They don't even acknowledge that Agent Orange fucked up Vietnam.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.snopes.com/photos/m...

Your link says that 65% of the time it's caused by "random mutation", which means we don't know what caused it. Was it a cosmic ray? Something you ate? Some toxic perfume you wore?

None of the above. afxgrin already answered this for you.

Something that leached into your bottled water, since all (yes, all) plastic bottles leach toxics into their contents over time? It doesn't support your assertion.

LOL, so now you're believing everything you read in those chain emails? Hate to piss in your cheerios, but those emails are chock full of urban myth:

http://www.cancer.org/aboutus/...

Um, no. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/p...

Some prostrate cancers are so slow growing and happen so late in life, the recommended treatment option is... nothing. Monitor the situation and realize it may take more years then you have left before it becomes a problem. Also, the side effects of treatment might be more debilitating than the cancer itself. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/p...

~~

Like this? http://wikimediafoundation.org...

There are things to dislike in the report, but I don't get the "new Wikipediocracy blog post (study) reveals" breathlessness. It's an annual nonprofit report - read it. You might also be surprised to know that other major charities usually have a bunch of their own dirty laundry. Take the American Cancer Society: of the $890M it takes in, it only passes on about $680M, and it even has to worry about an employee pension system. http://www.cancer.org/acs/grou...

If any particular charity's overhead bugs you...go find another charity, or start your own. There will never be shortage of needs.

From cancer.org "There is still concern that marijuana may cause toxic side effects in some people, and any benefits must be carefully weighed against its potential risks.
A number of reviewers have concluded that the scientific evidence does not support smoking marijuana as a medicine because of problems with dosing and the variable amounts of any one compound that might be delivered. "
It goes on to list a number of other side effects, including loss of intelligence, impairment of driving, paranoia, low blood pressure, fast heartbeat, dizziness, slow reaction time, lung infections, heart palpitations.likelihood of heightening of existing psychosis, increased risk of heart attack, etc.

Estrogen replacement therapy in women (about the closest equivalent to testosterone therapy in men) was shown to increase the risk of breast cancer.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. People get old, and there is no magic bullet to stop it.

But not harmful: the coating is PTFE which is very inert and non toxic.

...until it is heated. The major health effect linked with Teflon is the potential release of dangerous fumes from coated pans that are overheated. These fumes can cause flu-like symptoms in humans (a condition known as polymer fume fever) and can be fatal to birds. Note the use of the weasel word "potential". If you overheat your pan, it happens. Now the question you have to ask yourself is, do I actually have to let the smoke out for this to happen? And I, for one, do not trust our corporate overlords.

Aluminium can leach with acidic foods but doesn't generally with non acidic ones. My pressure cooker is aluminium.

It's stupid easy to scratch, though, and a lot of people are just cooking in Aluminum pans with metal implements because hey, it's metal, so metal tools are OK, right?

if you're starting out, a good set of even pretty cheap stainless pans is not a bad way to go.

If you have skills, you can even get stuff not to stick. My mileage varies, though.

When Feynman was a kid he played around dipping his hands in benzine as part of his "chemistry magic" show.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/c...

You know, most of the things they stopped putting in chemistry sets are dangerous to handle, and not just if you eat it. Is it really so "cool" that it is worth getting cancer?

And you can still buy strong acids at art supply stores. I worked with acids for etching glass in middle school in the 80s, and that stuff is still available now.

It may very well be that customers (the parents) didn't want the acid in the kit, and that is the only reason it was removed. That is perfectly normal. It doesn't mean that kids whose parents will let them have it can't go to the store and buy it themselves. You may need ID to buy some brands of cough syrup, but you don't need ID to buy strong acids.

When my dad was a kid, shoe stores had x-ray machines, so you could look at the bones in your feet. The kids really loved them! They didn't bother making prints, the way x-rays were later used, they just blasted your feet with a steady stream of x-rays and showed it through a view port.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
http://gizmodo.com/the-insane-...

Yeah, my parents had the "cool" stuff.

As an aside, lemon juice teaches the chemical properties of an acid just as well as a stronger acid; probably better, because instead of getting distracted melting stuff, which doesn't have much value in understanding the chemistry, you'll have to make use of electrical properties to do anything cool. And electrical potential is the whole point of those lessons. Heck, even a potato probably teaches that easier than a strong acid. We made a potato-powered electrical motor in my 4th grade class.

The main proponent of sodium bicarbonate as an alternative cancer treatment is Tullio Simoncini, MD. ..

According to the Cancer Treatment Watch Web site, "[Dr. Simoncini] has been using unsubstantiated cancer treatments for 15 years in 2003, his [Italian] license to practice medicine was withdrawn, and in 2006 he was convicted by an Italian judge for wrongful death and swindling"

Commercial websites are designed to sell products, which is why they are generally not considered a credible source of information for the purposes of research.

Science is generally done at educational institutions as well as through recognized scientific organizations and publications.

So yes, there are some commercial sites which might be considered credible, because they are run by credible publishers like Nature Publishing Group, which runs the peer-reviewed journal www.nature.com and the popular science magazine www.scientificamerican.com.

But some commercial website, hawking a diet, is not a credible source.

It is impossible to prove that a substance does not cause cancer. Your argument is invalid because there is no food in existence which we can show absolutely does not increase cancer risk. What we can say, for example, is that extensive testing has been done on substances like aspartame with no clear evidence of any increased cancer risk in humans. We cannot say, by contrast, that extensive testing has been done on organic apples or most other "natural" foods, since only artificial substances require testing to be approved for human consumption.

It is simply an illogical argument you are making because it could be made for absolutely any food or substance. If you are claiming that it increases the risk of cancer, the onus is on you to back up your beliefs by citing high quality peer reviewed research.

The scientific consensus is not that aspartame causes cancer and I defy you to actually provide valid evidence to support your claim. The scientific literature clearly shows the opposite is true. [1] Also, your claims about aspartame's insulin boosting effects is based on a small number of pilot studies, not on large scale, high quality human studies showing a real-world negative effect on human health. There is no compelling scientific evidence to demonstrate that aspartame actually causes weight-gain and I would defy you to provide it if you believe otherwise.

Finally, as I already stated, this commercial website you keep raving about is not a credible source. I am not going to waste my time reading random internet websites. You need to support your claims with credible science published in legitimate peer reviewed journals and you need to make a proper citation to the actual paper, journal, title, and date, not just say, "look at this diet website that is selling diet products". That is not a credible reference.

It is not my job to "google" scientific data to support your claims. That is a shifting the burden of proof logical fallacy. It is the job of the person making the original claim to provide credible evidence to support it, and in the case of science, that means citations to peer-reviewed publications, not writing , "Google it", or "look at this website selling diet products".

For instance, here are a couple of properly cited scientific references from the article I used as my source:

Council on Scientific Affairs. Aspartame: review of safety issues. JAMA. 1985;254:400-402.

European Food Safety Authority. Opinion on a request from the European Commission related to the 2nd ERF carcinogenicity study on aspartame. 2009. Accessed at www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/scdoc/945.htm on April 13, 2010.

Notice how the first one properly cites a publication in one of the world's most respected peer-reviewed medical journals and the second one properly cites a publication of the European Food Safety Authority. If I were to follow your example, I might just cite www.sugar.org. If you want to talk about science, you need to actually read and cite credible scientific sources, not diet websites.

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.cancer.org/cancer/c...

From the Jezebel article you link:

"Another editor slapped a guy when "he told me he thought he had breast cancer." (Okay, that one made us laugh really hard.)"

Men can get breast cancer.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/b...

So, it seems like the editors on that site are violent and ignorant, and I should hate you for making me read it.

Hasn't held true for 30+ years? Success rate of 90% and up? Where are you pulling these numbers from? Citation please.

Testicular cancer has a 95.3% survival rate.
Melanoma, 91.3%.
Thyroid, 97.8%.
Prostate, 98.9%.
Breast, only 89.2%.
Overall, cancer today has a 66.1% survival rate.

You'll also notice I very specifically said "and caught early enough"... While the SEER stats (above) include all diagnoses of that type of cancer, the rates drastically improve when caught early. I mentioned bladder cancer as a good example of that - despite having an overall survival rate of only 77.4%, According to the ACS, that goes up to 88% if caught at stage I and 98% if caught at stage 0.

I think that's more of an attitude question than a placebo effect. Take for example, the 5 year surivival rate for untreated breast cancer, according to this NIH study it's under 20%, however, according to the American Cancer Society the 5 year survival rate for stage 0 and stage 1 intervention is 100%.

So. iIf a pacebo-based treatment were to delay a woman from seeking intervention from stage 1 to stage 2, her survival rate drops from 100% to 93%, if gets to stage 3, it drops to 72%, if she waits until stage 4, it drops to 22%, and if she never seeks any treatment it drops to less than 20% for 5 years (and around 4% after 10 years). That's the danger of treatments that rely on the placebo effect, they can delay the application of real timely medical treatment. In the worst case, the placebo treatment has effectively killed 96% of the people taking it by preventing them from seeking out real treatments.

Interestingly, it seems that having a positive attitude doesn't seem to have any measurable effect on breast cancer survival rates, and even if it did, the detrimental effect of not seeking a real treatment would almost always be worse. Of course, this is all much simpler than I'm making it out to be. After all, what would be better? Getting real life-saving treatment and having a positive attitude or getting nothing and having a positive attitude?

It's a proven fact that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, throat cancer and many other diseases and ailments.

What? NO scientific or medical cites? Or anything else that is actually credible?

A simply google search for the claim would have produce more than enough support for it. But I'm betting you didn't even bother reading the post long enough to see what was written so doing something on your own is definitely out of the question. Amiright?

If you don't get one those you will get another. Cigarette smoking is a health hazard for the smoker and everyone around them.

I never said it wasn't. I said people are like you, inflating the evidence.

Using legal citations is NOT proof of ANY science because the standards of proof are completely different. And the Heartland Institute is just a "think tank" that is pretty much a propaganda machine for industry and corporate America. Tobacco.org is a front for the tobacco industry - more corporate propaganda and lies.

Ahh.. Yes, the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN defense. Well, I guess it is better then the chewbacca defense. No one who isn't a true believer is allowed to criticize anything about the situation else it is automatically fake, false, fraudulent, and anything else you can think of right?

I understand why you posted as an AC. I wouldn't want any online identity associated with a post like that either.

Just for added giggles to debunk the organic movement, have a look at this from the American Cancer Society:

Are foods labeled "organic" more effective in lowering cancer risk?

The term organic is popularly used to designate plant foods grown without pesticides and genetic modifications. At this time, no research exists to demonstrate whether such foods are more effective in reducing cancer risk than are similar foods produced by other farming methods.

Do pesticides in foods cause cancer?

Pesticides and herbicides can be toxic when used improperly in industrial, agricultural, or other occupational settings. Although vegetables and fruits sometimes contain low levels of these chemicals, overwhelming scientific evidence supports the overall health benefits and cancer-protective effects of eating vegetables and fruits. At present there is no evidence that residues of pesticides and herbicides at the low doses found in foods increase the risk of cancer, but fruits and vegetables should be washed thoroughly before eating.

http://www.cancer.org/healthy/eathealthygetactive/acsguidelinesonnutritionphysicalactivityforcancerprevention/acs-guidelines-on-nutrition-and-physical-activity-for-cancer-prevention-diet-cancer-questions

If you just object to the idea of pesticides, then organic isn't your solution either, as virtually ALL organic farmers who sell their crops commercially use pesticides. Rather instead of synthetic pesticides, they use much larger quantities of "natural" (and I use that term loosely) pesticides.

The anti-GMO movement is every bit as destructive as the anti-vaccine movement, perhaps more so. They basically want to take the green revolution, which has ended famine in SOO many countries, and throw it away just because it makes them feel better about themselves. Sure, they might have the money to blow on organic food that costs a lot more and has no scientifically proven benefits, but poor people do not.

the only universal truth about cancers is that the earlier they are caught, the better the response to treatment.

Except that this isn't even remotely true. That was a nice hypothesis a couple of decades ago, but it's turned out to be much more complicated than that. Some cancers can be treated very late in the game, some early, some it doesn't seem to make a difference when you do it. It's a very reasonable supposition, just happens not to be a correct one.

[citation needed]

I will respectfully disagree. Yes, I agree some cancers can be treated in later stages, but I did not say that they can't. As you will see in almost every cancer, there is a precipitous decline in survival based on major staging (denoted by the roman numeral). There are a few *subtypes* in colorectal cancer that have variable survival (likely multifactorial due to changing definitions, evolving treatment protocols, and lower numbers of patients due to the subdivisions of the group), but I think you can see the trend. In fact, let's conduct a little experiment. Look me up when you get a diagnosis of cancer, we'll wait until you're stage IV until treatment is started. And we'll see what your outcome is. Granted the n will be 1, but methinks you will not be happy with _your_ outcome. Now, here are my examples, please cite yours. I will warn you I do not accept data that can not be reproduced or is not peer-reviewed

Breast:

Stage 5-year Survival Rate

0 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 93%

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 88%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxx 81%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxx 67%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxx 41%

IIIC xxxxxxxxxxxxx 49%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 15%

Colon:

Stage 5-year Observed Survival Rate

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 67%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 59%

IIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 37%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 73%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 46%

IIIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 28%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6%

Rectal:

Stage 5-year Observed Survival Rate

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 65%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 52%

IIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 32%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 45%

IIIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 33%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6%

Non-small cell lung cancer:

Stage 5-year Survival Rate

IA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 49%

IB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 45%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 30%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 31%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 14%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1%

Small cell lung cancer:

Stage 5-year Relative Survival Rate

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 31%

II xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 19%

III xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 8%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2%

Similar statistics exist for: bladder cancer, cervial cancer, endomertrial cance

the only universal truth about cancers is that the earlier they are caught, the better the response to treatment.

Except that this isn't even remotely true. That was a nice hypothesis a couple of decades ago, but it's turned out to be much more complicated than that. Some cancers can be treated very late in the game, some early, some it doesn't seem to make a difference when you do it. It's a very reasonable supposition, just happens not to be a correct one.

[citation needed]

I will respectfully disagree. Yes, I agree some cancers can be treated in later stages, but I did not say that they can't. As you will see in almost every cancer, there is a precipitous decline in survival based on major staging (denoted by the roman numeral). There are a few *subtypes* in colorectal cancer that have variable survival (likely multifactorial due to changing definitions, evolving treatment protocols, and lower numbers of patients due to the subdivisions of the group), but I think you can see the trend. In fact, let's conduct a little experiment. Look me up when you get a diagnosis of cancer, we'll wait until you're stage IV until treatment is started. And we'll see what your outcome is. Granted the n will be 1, but methinks you will not be happy with _your_ outcome. Now, here are my examples, please cite yours. I will warn you I do not accept data that can not be reproduced or is not peer-reviewed

Breast:

Stage 5-year Survival Rate

0 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 93%

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 88%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxx 81%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxx 67%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxx 41%

IIIC xxxxxxxxxxxxx 49%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 15%

Colon:

Stage 5-year Observed Survival Rate

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 67%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 59%

IIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 37%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 73%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 46%

IIIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 28%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6%

Rectal:

Stage 5-year Observed Survival Rate

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 65%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 52%

IIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 32%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 45%

IIIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 33%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6%

Non-small cell lung cancer:

Stage 5-year Survival Rate

IA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 49%

IB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 45%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 30%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 31%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 14%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1%

Small cell lung cancer:

Stage 5-year Relative Survival Rate

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 31%

II xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 19%

III xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 8%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2%

Similar statistics exist for: bladder cancer, cervial cancer, endomertrial cance

the only universal truth about cancers is that the earlier they are caught, the better the response to treatment.

Except that this isn't even remotely true. That was a nice hypothesis a couple of decades ago, but it's turned out to be much more complicated than that. Some cancers can be treated very late in the game, some early, some it doesn't seem to make a difference when you do it. It's a very reasonable supposition, just happens not to be a correct one.

[citation needed]

I will respectfully disagree. Yes, I agree some cancers can be treated in later stages, but I did not say that they can't. As you will see in almost every cancer, there is a precipitous decline in survival based on major staging (denoted by the roman numeral). There are a few *subtypes* in colorectal cancer that have variable survival (likely multifactorial due to changing definitions, evolving treatment protocols, and lower numbers of patients due to the subdivisions of the group), but I think you can see the trend. In fact, let's conduct a little experiment. Look me up when you get a diagnosis of cancer, we'll wait until you're stage IV until treatment is started. And we'll see what your outcome is. Granted the n will be 1, but methinks you will not be happy with _your_ outcome. Now, here are my examples, please cite yours. I will warn you I do not accept data that can not be reproduced or is not peer-reviewed

Breast:

Stage 5-year Survival Rate

0 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 93%

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 88%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxx 81%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxx 67%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxx 41%

IIIC xxxxxxxxxxxxx 49%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 15%

Colon:

Stage 5-year Observed Survival Rate

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 67%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 59%

IIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 37%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 73%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 46%

IIIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 28%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6%

Rectal:

Stage 5-year Observed Survival Rate

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 65%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 52%

IIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 32%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 45%

IIIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 33%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6%

Non-small cell lung cancer:

Stage 5-year Survival Rate

IA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 49%

IB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 45%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 30%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 31%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 14%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1%

Small cell lung cancer:

Stage 5-year Relative Survival Rate

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 31%

II xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 19%

III xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 8%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2%

Similar statistics exist for: bladder cancer, cervial cancer, endomertrial cance

the only universal truth about cancers is that the earlier they are caught, the better the response to treatment.

Except that this isn't even remotely true. That was a nice hypothesis a couple of decades ago, but it's turned out to be much more complicated than that. Some cancers can be treated very late in the game, some early, some it doesn't seem to make a difference when you do it. It's a very reasonable supposition, just happens not to be a correct one.

[citation needed]

I will respectfully disagree. Yes, I agree some cancers can be treated in later stages, but I did not say that they can't. As you will see in almost every cancer, there is a precipitous decline in survival based on major staging (denoted by the roman numeral). There are a few *subtypes* in colorectal cancer that have variable survival (likely multifactorial due to changing definitions, evolving treatment protocols, and lower numbers of patients due to the subdivisions of the group), but I think you can see the trend. In fact, let's conduct a little experiment. Look me up when you get a diagnosis of cancer, we'll wait until you're stage IV until treatment is started. And we'll see what your outcome is. Granted the n will be 1, but methinks you will not be happy with _your_ outcome. Now, here are my examples, please cite yours. I will warn you I do not accept data that can not be reproduced or is not peer-reviewed

Breast:

Stage 5-year Survival Rate

0 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 93%

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 88%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxx 81%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxx 67%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxx 41%

IIIC xxxxxxxxxxxxx 49%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 15%

Colon:

Stage 5-year Observed Survival Rate

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 67%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 59%

IIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 37%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 73%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 46%

IIIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 28%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6%

Rectal:

Stage 5-year Observed Survival Rate

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 65%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 52%

IIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 32%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 45%

IIIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 33%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6%

Non-small cell lung cancer:

Stage 5-year Survival Rate

IA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 49%

IB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 45%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 30%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 31%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 14%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1%

Small cell lung cancer:

Stage 5-year Relative Survival Rate

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 31%

II xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 19%

III xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 8%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2%

Similar statistics exist for: bladder cancer, cervial cancer, endomertrial cance

the only universal truth about cancers is that the earlier they are caught, the better the response to treatment.

Except that this isn't even remotely true. That was a nice hypothesis a couple of decades ago, but it's turned out to be much more complicated than that. Some cancers can be treated very late in the game, some early, some it doesn't seem to make a difference when you do it. It's a very reasonable supposition, just happens not to be a correct one.

[citation needed]

I will respectfully disagree. Yes, I agree some cancers can be treated in later stages, but I did not say that they can't. As you will see in almost every cancer, there is a precipitous decline in survival based on major staging (denoted by the roman numeral). There are a few *subtypes* in colorectal cancer that have variable survival (likely multifactorial due to changing definitions, evolving treatment protocols, and lower numbers of patients due to the subdivisions of the group), but I think you can see the trend. In fact, let's conduct a little experiment. Look me up when you get a diagnosis of cancer, we'll wait until you're stage IV until treatment is started. And we'll see what your outcome is. Granted the n will be 1, but methinks you will not be happy with _your_ outcome. Now, here are my examples, please cite yours. I will warn you I do not accept data that can not be reproduced or is not peer-reviewed

Breast:

Stage 5-year Survival Rate

0 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 93%

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 88%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxx 81%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxx 67%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxx 41%

IIIC xxxxxxxxxxxxx 49%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 15%

Colon:

Stage 5-year Observed Survival Rate

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 67%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 59%

IIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 37%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 73%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 46%

IIIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 28%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6%

Rectal:

Stage 5-year Observed Survival Rate

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 65%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 52%

IIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 32%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 74%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 45%

IIIC xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 33%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6%

Non-small cell lung cancer:

Stage 5-year Survival Rate

IA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 49%

IB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 45%

IIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 30%

IIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 31%

IIIA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 14%

IIIB xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1%

Small cell lung cancer:

Stage 5-year Relative Survival Rate

I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 31%

II xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 19%

III xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 8%

IV xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2%

Similar statistics exist for: bladder cancer, cervial cancer, endomertrial cance