Latest Breaking News

Orrex

(67,084 posts)

20. Indeed, critical thinking is essential. Let me help you:

Fri Jan 2, 2015, 09:46 AM

Jan 2015

Here are some numbers for you:

In 1900, the average life expectancy was 46.3 males and 48.3 females. By 1998 it had increased to 73.8 and 79.5 respectively.

Median age when cancer is diagnosed is 67.

So if the average life expectancy had people dying 20 years before the average age of diagnosis, does it not seem likely that we'd see fewer diagnoses? And with people now surviving, on average, long enough to reach the average age of diagnosis, it would follow that more diagnoses occur.

In short, claiming that the numbers are tainted by "shills working for polluters" isn't an argument; it's a spouting of propaganda. It's akin to the wacky claims of Dr. Oz and others who insist that we need to "detoxify," etc.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Most cancer types 'just bad luck' [View all] bemildred Jan 2015 OP

Each cell in the body is a ticket in the cancer lottery. JEFF9K Jan 2015 #1

Is there a known correlation between body size and cancer rates? Helen Borg Jan 2015 #9

Recent studies have shown a somewhat shocking correlation between cancer rates ... JEFF9K Jan 2015 #34

But it should be "volume" not just height.. Helen Borg Jan 2015 #35

Thomas Samaras specializes in the corellation between height and longevity. JEFF9K Jan 2015 #36

Yay! I knew that being vegan was worth it!! Helen Borg Jan 2015 #37

More cells, more chances to 'win' a cancer? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jan 2015 #52

Cancer will kill you if nothing else gets you first jeff47 Jan 2015 #2

Oh, neat. blkmusclmachine Jan 2015 #55

Any statistical spread spike91nz Jan 2015 #3

Yes. Yes. Yes. Or another way of saying it - truedelphi Jan 2015 #5

So many things I am sensitive to years later I will see an article saying it is linked lunasun Jan 2015 #7

I wonder if asthma, add, colitis, alzheimer's and autism are just bad luck? appalachiablue Jan 2015 #4

Bad luck due to environmental toxins in the case of glinda Jan 2015 #6

what's mds? n/t loudsue Jan 2015 #11

Marylands. Orrex Jan 2015 #12

doctors. progree Jan 2015 #21

MDS = Myelodysplastic Syndrome... rexcat Jan 2015 #48

Exactly. And there will tons of those coming up soon. glinda Jan 2015 #62

I guess people were just luckier 100 years ago CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #8

It seems likely that a lot of cancer deaths were undiagnosed a century ago Orrex Jan 2015 #13

I'm sure that's true in some cases CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #16

I'd need to see hard numbers Orrex Jan 2015 #18

One of the reasons for the rise of cancer rates sarge43 Jan 2015 #25

So you explain it by a vast network of scientists shilling for industries and making false reports.. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #26

Surely you don't deny the existence of industry shills CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #44

Cancer was not far more rare, per capita, 100 years ago than today, some types were, but there are reasons. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #14

There are scientists and then there are shills working for polluters CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #17

Indeed, critical thinking is essential. Let me help you: Orrex Jan 2015 #20

I would be interested Betty Jan 2015 #29

Plus there's the problem of our ability to save "unhealthy" people. jeff47 Jan 2015 #31

That *median* life expectancy was due largely to child and infant mortality CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #40

the increased BC in younger women is linked with late or no childbearing zazen Jan 2015 #49

No way CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #50

as a premenopausal BC survivor who might have had more kids, I've read a lot about this too zazen Jan 2015 #51

I don't see how that would explain the huge increase in BC rates CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #56

What was the rate of diagnosis of breast cancer a century ago? Orrex Jan 2015 #53

Why don't you assign yourself some homework CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #57

I posted links that destroyed your erstwhile point Orrex Jan 2015 #59

The hell you did! OMG, you can't be serious CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #60

FYI, stomping your feet and storming off is a poor substitute for argument Orrex Jan 2015 #61

And how many more carcinogens, pathogens, and polluted air & lakes are there now vs. ancient greece? Elmer S. E. Dump Jan 2015 #24

Not to mention smoking rates, obesity, no exercise, toxins, living longer, sun exposure, etc. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #27

No, we died from something else first 100 years ago. jeff47 Jan 2015 #28

Many died in childhood and infancy CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #42

I wasn't talking about median life expentancy jeff47 Jan 2015 #45

This is where I throw up my hands... CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #46

No, I'm saying we can't do an easy, direct comparison. jeff47 Jan 2015 #47

Most didn't live long enough to get cancer hack89 Jan 2015 #32

100-200 years ago, people in cities breathed a toxic soup of coal ash NickB79 Jan 2015 #64

Being born is the cause of all the bad luck. Helen Borg Jan 2015 #10

Now this is a real example of ...... nolabels Jan 2015 #63

IMO this article is misleading or better yet Bull Shit watoos Jan 2015 #15

The problem with anecdotes is that you can't set up controls for a sample size of one. evirus Jan 2015 #19

Did prehistoric humans work around methyl chloride and tin tetrachloride? jeff47 Jan 2015 #30

Methyl chloride and tin tetrachloride killed the dinosaurs Orrex Jan 2015 #33

Um, It DIDN'T happen. Those are far from the only carcinogens in existance but GreatGazoo Jan 2015 #38

They aren't wrong. You're not understanding what they're doing. jeff47 Jan 2015 #39

You're saying, if I understand you correctly, that the body evolved a separate system to fight GreatGazoo Jan 2015 #41

No, it doesn't preclude those drugs jeff47 Jan 2015 #43

Bladder Cancer PADemD Jan 2015 #22

2/3rds. joshcryer Jan 2015 #23

, blkmusclmachine Jan 2015 #54

Does this mean doctors will quit trying to act like cancer is some moral failing on our parts? Jamastiene Jan 2015 #58