America's 40 year war on cancer

[Queen K]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/health/ca ... index.html

Confusing article. Cancer rates are going down but then the population of the USA declined as well. They say pockets of areas have increasing cancer rates but no one bothered to find out why.

Along the Mississippi, breast cancer lights up the maps, and no one studied why. No one wants the EPA to have to tell river polluters to clean up and quite using the river as a garbage/chemical chute, that's why.

Kentucky has huge rates of cancer. I was thinking, why Kentucky? What do they got that no one else got? Huge vast expanses of green land sprayed with chemicals to keep the weeds down? Is that why the Monarch Butterfly numbers are down? Too many chemicals being sprayed in the South? This article highlights the South as being a bastion of cancer rates being high.

[w84u2]

Kentucky Whiskey?

[Queen K]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 4-0070.pdf

Last column, cancer rates decline when pesticide use is reduced. Study? Israel. That's all we need.

What 40 year war on Cancer? It's a joke run by the chemical companies.

[zzontar]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 4-0070.pdf

Last column, cancer rates decline when pesticide use is reduced. Study? Israel. That's all we need.

What 40 year war on Cancer? It's a joke run by the chemical companies.

It's a bigger joke when the chemical companies are owned by big pharma.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... -food.aspx

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, is the most used agricultural chemical in history.

In 2014, farmers sprayed enough glyphosate to apply 0.8 pounds of the chemical to every acre of cultivated cropland in the U.S. and nearly 0.5 a pound of glyphosate to all cropland worldwide.1

Yet, mysteriously, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Residue Program, which is tasked with monitoring pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply, does not test for glyphosate residues.

As more health risks emerge — in March 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined glyphosate is a "probable carcinogen" — more people are starting to wonder just how much glyphosate is in our food.

The signs so far are not reassuring. Glyphosate has been detected in blood, breastmilk and urine samples.

Further, U.S. women had maximum glyphosate levels that were more than eight times higher than levels found in urine of Europeans, according to laboratory testing commissioned by the organizations Moms Across America and Sustainable Pulse.2

The Alliance for Natural Health (ANH) recently conducted its own research to determine if glyphosate is found in commonly consumed breakfast foods and their tests revealed the worst — that "our food system has been saturated with glyphosate, reaching even into some organic products."3

[w84u2]

removed.

[zzontar]

removed

[Fancy]

Another point of view:

In March 2015, an IARC monograph concluded that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic." Yet seven months later the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), an independent agency funded by the EU, published a different assessment, saying glyphosate is "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans."

http://www.agprofessional.com/news/glyp ... nic-or-not

[Fancy]

And a study on the two studies (sort of):
http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2016/ ... 07005.full

[zzontar]

http://www.collective-evolution.com/201 ... ied-crops/

“Children today are sicker than they were a generation ago. From childhood cancers to autism, birth defects and asthma, a wide range of childhood diseases and disorders are on the rise. Our assessment of the latest science leaves little room for doubt; pesticides are one key driver of this sobering trend.”

When you get different studies, some saying ingesting pesticides is bad and some saying it's okay, I'm more likely to believe the first.

[zzontar]

Here's an easy way to see why the war on cancer is more like a stalemate. Scroll down to charts 1 and 2.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/1 ... 03-eng.htm

[Queen K]

And the other way is to start counting all the cancer patients I see today as opposed to twenty five years ago. And at younger ages, so it's not just the elderly.

[rustled]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/health/ca ... index.html

Confusing article. Cancer rates are going down but then the population of the USA declined as well. They say pockets of areas have increasing cancer rates but no one bothered to find out why.

Along the Mississippi, breast cancer lights up the maps, and no one studied why. No one wants the EPA to have to tell river polluters to clean up and quite using the river as a garbage/chemical chute, that's why.

Kentucky has huge rates of cancer. I was thinking, why Kentucky? What do they got that no one else got? Huge vast expanses of green land sprayed with chemicals to keep the weeds down? Is that why the Monarch Butterfly numbers are down? Too many chemicals being sprayed in the South? This article highlights the South as being a bastion of cancer rates being high.

Have you visited the South, Queen K? We were surprised how different the food was. Seems everything's deep fried or barbecued or both. Lots of fat, lots of salt, not much salad. It's probably a combination of things, but I'd think diet is likely a contributing factor.

[Queen K]

I've been to North Carolina and Tennessee and could not abide their food. We stayed at Falls Creek Falls State Park, TN, oh sure the smorg looked good, until you sat down to eat any of it. We tried some fast food places we didn't have here in Canada, I hope we never get them. The metallic chemical taste in my mouth was hard to get rid of, for days. On the up side, their Costcos have large organic sections and their huge grocery stores have larger fruit and veggie sections, I went with our host to one in Harrisburg outside of Charlotte, NC. Upshot though? Their food is also killing them. So yes, agreed.

While in WA and OR we hit as many mexican food restaurants as possible, had no issues. Totally different.

So yes agreed.

[rustled]

I've been to North Carolina and Tennessee and could not abide their food. We stayed at Falls Creek Falls State Park, TN, oh sure the smorg looked good, until you sat down to eat any of it. We tried some fast food places we didn't have here in Canada, I hope we never get them. The metallic chemical taste in my mouth was hard to get rid of, for days. On the up side, their Costcos have large organic sections and their huge grocery stores have larger fruit and veggie sections, I went with our host to one in Harrisburg outside of Charlotte, NC. Upshot though? Their food is also killing them. So yes, agreed.

While in WA and OR we hit as many mexican food restaurants as possible, had no issues. Totally different.

So yes agreed.

We really enjoyed some of the local cuisine, in moderation.

[Queen K]

Hundreds of people quit taking the expensive anti-cancer medications prescribed to them!
What a shocking surprise. Not.
And all that money we donate, donate and donate again is going to towards research? For what? To assist researchers make and create and vet drugs only the rich can pay for:

Here's the article, disgusting. Financial toxicity, awful.

http://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2017/0 ... t=20170224

Excerpt:

Researchers found that, compared to other patients, those with cancer are more likely to leave prescriptions unfilled or delay filling prescriptions, skip medication doses to save money, ask doctors to prescribe cheaper drugs, or seek out alternatives to the regimens recommended by their oncologists.

The study found that financial toxicity is more common among recently diagnosed cancer patients. This is likely a reflection of the growing cost of cancer drugs, insurance policies that put more cost burden on patients, or both.

The study didn’t measure the consequences of financial toxicity, but its lead author, Ahmedin Jemal of the American Cancer Society, says it’s likely some patients are dying because they don’t get timely or recommended treatments since "some of them are definitely life-saving."

Take adults with a form of leukemia for which there is now a highly effective -- but costly -- drug therapy. Separate research has found that patients who took at least 90 percent of their doses had complete disappearance of the disease. But those who took only three out of four prescribed doses had much poorer responses.