This absolutely should be taken with a grain of salt.
First realize that these statistics are calculated via an entire field, known as “medical statistics” not surprisingly, that has enormous controversies inside of it.
Using a variety of mathematical calculations and formulas, they arrive at something called the “average death rate” that is supposed to massage out the differences between geographic regions and populations to determine the final number.
Devra Davis, Ph.D., M.P.H., wrote about this to tragic degree of detail in her book “The Secret History of the War on Cancer”. For background she was Director of the Center for Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and is still also a Professor of Epidemiology there.
The cancer death rate has not budged that much in 40 years. Survivability has extended, absolutely, and that is worth something, but not more than a few years. Compared to AIDS, a disease also without a real cure but that has extended survivability by decades this is unacceptable.
The amount of brilliant researchers driven out of the field, the failure of the Susan G Komen foundation to invest in actual research (this can be seen as more of a problem with the nonprofit industrial complex though and not per se cancer research), the null hypothesis requirement failures at NIH, and just the general climate of unethicalness and neoliberalism that began emerging in the mid 1970’s are all blamed, and there is truth in most of those arguments.
There is an old joke about how many white upper middle class cancer patients does it take to screw in a light bulb? Two, one to do it, and the other to write a book about it.
I go back and forth about whether that joke is inappropriate, and Mark Nepo is one such person who falls into that category but has written moving essays about the experience, but every time I read Barbara Ehrenreich’s “Cancerland” it makes me incredibly bitter. And I say that as a person who really likes Tony Robbins for the most part but who still is disgusted by the whole forced optimism cure through hope that the entire industry has turned into in lieu of actual breakthrough achievements. The fact that the latest and even somewhat exciting area of research in cancer treatment is the investigation on the role and use of viruses, a soviet innovation that has been investigated by the Russians since Stalin was alive even though they were mercilessly mocked for decades for this, is just tragic.
> The cancer death rate has not budged that much in 40 years. Survivability has extended, absolutely, and that is worth something, but not more than a few years. Compared to AIDS, a disease also without a real cure but that has extended survivability by decades this is unacceptable.
Ignoring the fact that cancer is a much harder problem than HIV, extending survivability is how the cancer death rate changes. Everyone who doesn't die by other causes would eventually get cancer because DNA replication can only happen so many times before accumulated replication errors trigger it. In a sense, curing HIV means more people will die of cancer (other things equal).
Also, cancer is not one thing. You have a particular type (like NSCLC), but also your particular genetic mutations may be unique or nearly so, affecting different combinations of oncogenes and tumor suppressors in different ways. This makes it extremely difficult to treat. Even broadly useful approaches like cancer immunology work better for some than others.
> There is an old joke about how many white upper middle class cancer patients does it take to screw in a light bulb? Two, one to do it, and the other to write a book about it. I go back and forth about whether that joke is inappropriate,...
IDK about inappropriate, but maybe find an outlet for your anger other than cancer patients?
There are lies, dammed lies and then there are statistics. The -mab treatments are amazing if they work as they are so targeted the impact/side effect ratio is amazing (getting Dupilumab for dermatitis, it is a miracle drug for me). But everyone hearing the good news about the cancer stats has to ask themselves - the US life expectancy has inched down recently so do these numbers square up with this probably more accurately measured life expectancy number?
Cancer death rates and overall life expectancy are both accurately measured and have been for decades. There's no reason to doubt either number. There's no mystery about the decline in life expectancy: it has been extensively studied and the major factors include increases in suicides, substance abuse, and obesity.
First realize that these statistics are calculated via an entire field, known as “medical statistics” not surprisingly, that has enormous controversies inside of it.
Using a variety of mathematical calculations and formulas, they arrive at something called the “average death rate” that is supposed to massage out the differences between geographic regions and populations to determine the final number.
Devra Davis, Ph.D., M.P.H., wrote about this to tragic degree of detail in her book “The Secret History of the War on Cancer”. For background she was Director of the Center for Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and is still also a Professor of Epidemiology there.
The cancer death rate has not budged that much in 40 years. Survivability has extended, absolutely, and that is worth something, but not more than a few years. Compared to AIDS, a disease also without a real cure but that has extended survivability by decades this is unacceptable.
The amount of brilliant researchers driven out of the field, the failure of the Susan G Komen foundation to invest in actual research (this can be seen as more of a problem with the nonprofit industrial complex though and not per se cancer research), the null hypothesis requirement failures at NIH, and just the general climate of unethicalness and neoliberalism that began emerging in the mid 1970’s are all blamed, and there is truth in most of those arguments.
There is an old joke about how many white upper middle class cancer patients does it take to screw in a light bulb? Two, one to do it, and the other to write a book about it.
I go back and forth about whether that joke is inappropriate, and Mark Nepo is one such person who falls into that category but has written moving essays about the experience, but every time I read Barbara Ehrenreich’s “Cancerland” it makes me incredibly bitter. And I say that as a person who really likes Tony Robbins for the most part but who still is disgusted by the whole forced optimism cure through hope that the entire industry has turned into in lieu of actual breakthrough achievements. The fact that the latest and even somewhat exciting area of research in cancer treatment is the investigation on the role and use of viruses, a soviet innovation that has been investigated by the Russians since Stalin was alive even though they were mercilessly mocked for decades for this, is just tragic.