Largest-Ever Recorded Decline in Cancer Deaths

[underpants]

Report: American Cancer Deaths Dropped by More Than 3,000 Between 2003 and 2004
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/story?id=2801232&page=1

Jan. 17, 2007 — The number of deaths from cancer underwent the largest drop ever recorded between 2003 and 2004, according to an American Cancer Society (ACS) report released today.

The report found that there were 3,014 fewer cancer deaths in the United States in 2004 than there were in 2003 — 1,160 fewer in men and 1,854 fewer in women. The figures were compiled using data gathered by the National Center for Health Statistics in 2004, the most recent year for which statistics on cancer deaths are available.

"This success is the outcome of an investment made by the U.S. and other governments in medical research," said Dr. Richard Pestell, director of the Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia.

But whether the improvements continue could hinge on availability of government funding, according to ACS officers. The importance of this funding may have been underscored by a scheduling change in the release of the figures in order to coincide with a visit by President Bush to the National Institutes of Health.

"The drops…come at a time of great concern about future progress," said Dr. Richard Wender, national volunteer president of the ACS, in a press release issued today. "hese gains are threatened by cutbacks in funding for research and prevention programs. A few years after our nation doubled its investment in medical research, Congress cut cancer funding for the first time in more than a decade.

[sakabatou]

1. Wow!

[Horse with no Name]

2. I don't believe it

I don't.
I know more people with cancer than at any other time in my life.
I can list 20 or more people off the top of my head that have died of cancer.
I have no doubt the numbers were cooked so that they could claim a victory and cut the budget.
No doubt at all.

[onenote]

3. why would the American Cancer SOciety want to cut funding?

[Horse with no Name]

5. They get their figures from the NIH

'nuf said.

[onenote]

13. Not exactly

First, the methodology used in deriving the statistics in the ACS report is described in detail at page 50 of the report:http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2007PWSecured.pdf WHile the report indicates it gets data from the NCHS and CDC it does not mention NIH. Its interesting to note that this report is linked to on the ACS website but not the NIH website.

Second,the report does not advocate cutting budgets for cancer research or treatment.

Third,the report predicts a greater number of new cancer cases in 2007 than it predicted for 2006. It is the number of cancer deaths that appears to be declining, at least for some types of cancers.

Fourth, the report makes clear that cancer deaths are increasing for certain types of cancers.

Fifth, I can play the anecdotal game too. I know more people with cancer than ever before as well. I also know more cancer survivors than ever before.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Right.

Because anecdotal evidence is always better than an actual count.

[Horse with no Name]

7. Any count done by anyone associated with the Bushistas is going to be wrong

They don't have a clue what honesty is.
This gives them room to cut the budget without people coming unglued.
See...we are making progress. Mission Accomplished.:puke:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Sure.

That means the NIH, and that means all of the science that NIH funds. Which is just about everything.

Those damn scientists!

[pampango]

21. You must not have gotten the memo.

Any good news is the result of cooked government statistics. Any statistics revealing bad news are objective proof from honest government agencies of how are society is going down the tubes.

[zonkers]

4. But what are the stats for people "living with cancer"? Could it just be that

more patients are staying alive by managing their illness?

[VegasWolf]

8. Typical news media hype. ACS figures for 2004 show approx 1500 deaths

per DAY from cancer. 3,000 less deaths for the year is not even a rounding error. Never get your medical information from the news media.

[Horse with no Name]

9. It is propaganda to justify the budget cut

It is all it is.

[VegasWolf]

12. No, it is simply some reporter filling a column with happy news and sloppy research. nt

[Rainscents]

11. This info is so full of crap.

I know more getting cancer now, including my family member. I have no idea, where, they they getting there info from.

[onenote]

14. it doesn't say fewer people are getting cancer

It says survival rates are up. People are living longer with many kinds of cancer due to early detection, improved treatment, etc.

Not a reason to cut budgets, but evidence that spending money produces results.

[Rainscents]

19. 3000? Come on...

If 3000 more people are living longer, how many more actually die from and diagnose with it every day? I just don't buy into this info. Remember, poor people with cancer who die from it, due to no insurance, believe me, they are NOT counted.

[VegasWolf]

15. Sloppy reporting, ACS numbers show 10 million people living with cancer, 1.5 million

new each year. You would need a microscope to spot a savings aof 3,000 people out approx 10 million. They can write if the savings ever become significant.

[onenote]

17. sloppy reading

Yes, more and more people are surviving cancer. Not surprisingly, the number of people reported to have died of cancer in the past couple of years appears to be declining. Why is that hard to understand?

Neither the article nor the report said that the number of people getting cancer is declining. But its quite clear that early detection, improved treatments etc. are allowing people to live longer with certain types of cancers.

[VegasWolf]

20. What the hell are you talking about? No one has said that the number is not declining,

I said that the decline is not significant with respect to overall cancer rates.

Sounds like you are guilty of sloppy reading of other peoples posts.

[jilln]

22. Last year it was reported that cancer had become the #1 killer of Americans

having overtaken heart disease...

So this news surprises me, I can't help but feel there is something more to the story.

[onenote]

23. that's because heart disease deaths are dropping even faster

not because cancer deaths are increasing

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/01/20/cancer_tops_heart_disease_in_fatalities_officials_say/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+National+News

[hughee99]

25. Damn straight...

Three thousand lives isn't a significant number, or at least the administration doesn't think so when it comes to Iraq.

[slackmaster]

16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows drop of 3,009

Per WISQARS, there were 556,815 deaths from malignant neoplasms in 2003, and 553,806.

The cited drop of 3,014 is obviously a politically motivated exaggeration for some nefarious purpose.

:eyes:

Roll your own query at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

(ETA the change in count is probably not statistically significant. There may be a drop in the cancer death RATE due to increasing population.)

[underpants]

18. This reminds me of the talk to reintroduce lead to gasoline

the thinking ;-) there was that it has been very effective soooo we can stop doing it

[daleo]

24. Hormone Replacement Therapy was causing a lot of cancers

There is speculation that a lot of the drop in female breast cancer was due to the large reduction in the use of HRT. I am not sure about men, but the reduction in smoking among men over the last 20 years may be showing up in these figures as less deaths from cancer.