The "Cost" of Cancer

Health, well-being, medicine, aging.
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 62903
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by Fancy »

Survival
Survival is an estimate of the percentage of people who are alive at some point in time after their cancer diagnosis. There are many different ways of measuring and reporting cancer survival statistics. Most survival statistics are reported for a specific time period, namely 5 years.

Based on 2006–2008 estimates, over 60% of Canadians diagnosed with cancer are expected to survive for 5 years or more after a cancer diagnosis.

Survival rates vary from low to high depending on the type of cancer. For example, based on 2006–2008 estimates:

The 5-year net survival rate for lung cancer is low (17%).
The 5-year net survival rate for colorectal cancer is about average (64%).
The 5-year net survival rate is high for prostate cancer (95%) and breast cancer (87%).
Between 1992–1994 and 2006–2008, survival rates increased from 53% to 60% for all cancers combined.


https://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-informa ... ?region=on

https://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/prov ... eSupport=1
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
Silverstarqueen
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 20449
Joined: Jul 22nd, 2012, 8:02 pm

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by Silverstarqueen »

The way "survival" is calculated has always seemed misleading to me. In the example of say, breast cancer, it used to be a woman might be diagnosed, somewhat late in the cancer's progression at say age 60. She might live two years with or without treatment, survival would be counted as two years past diagnosis. Now, with earlier detection, same woman might be diagnosed at age 55 (called "early detection"), with or without treatment she lives to same age, 62. This is counted as a 7 year survival. No difference except that she went thru seven years of hell instead of two. Then the whole "increased survival time" is hailed as a miracle of modern medicine, and public announcements will point to this as to why "early detection" improves survival. "Look at that 87% survival for five years!"
IF you look at the overall statistics as to how many women are dying per year of breast cancer, they are not that much lower than years gone by. If treatments were working so wonderfully, the mortality rate should be wayyyy lower than in the past. jThere was a slight dip in mortality around about when women ditched a lot of hormonal prescriptions, and when birth control pills had their dosages reduced.

https://breast-cancer.ca/diag-chnces/

"Over-diagnosis" of breast cancer:
Say what? how can you "over diagnose" breast cancer? Either you have it, and it seems it should be treated with every possible means in the arsenal against cancer, or you will die, or you don't have it, and you don't need diagnosis or treatment.
https://nordic.cochrane.org/news/new-st ... rdiagnosis
"Results:
Screening was not associated with lower incidence of advanced tumors. The incidence of nonadvanced tumors increased in the screening versus prescreening periods (incidence rate ratio, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.43 to 1.54]). The first estimation approach found that 271 invasive breast cancer tumors and 179 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions were overdiagnosed in 2010 (overdiagnosis rate of 24.4% [including DCIS] and 14.7% [excluding DCIS]). The second approach, which accounted for regional differences in women younger than the screening age, found that 711 invasive tumors and 180 cases of DCIS were overdiagnosed in 2010 (overdiagnosis rate of 48.3% [including DCIS] and 38.6% [excluding DCIS])."

Incidentally 45,000 Canadians die tobacco related deaths every year at a cost of $16 Billion, seems that would be a good place to reduce costs, still tobacco is easily available everywhere.
User avatar
seahawks2884
Fledgling
Posts: 213
Joined: Apr 9th, 2006, 12:10 am

Many types of cancer cured with this drug!

Post by seahawks2884 »

Please read this amazing uplifting story of one mans journey to cure his incurable Cancer! Quote: . I have TWO cases of 4th stage Pancreatic cancer, each given 3 months to live. In each case, their tumors haven't disappeared but they have shrunk almost to non-existence and they are living a normal lifestyle, which is unheard of. One of these cases predates me and my story by several years (and proves that there is an underground that knows about this stuff before me). The other case is a referral by me and she is in TX and just called me 3 weeks ago in tears, as all of her cancer had receded materially.: end quote.
Quote: My continued #1 Frustration? People that call me and tell me they wished they hadn't waited until it was too late. Some people are reluctant to try something so far afield from traditional chemo and radiation until they are told to hire hospice. The downside risk is minimal, if any, so people playing the waiting game with such a deadly disease is frustrating.End quote:
https://www.mycancerstory.rocks/single-post/2016/08/22/Shake-up-your-life-how-to-change-your-own-perspective
http://fenbendazole.s3.amazonaws.com/A-Cure-for-Cancer-Hidden-in-Plain-Sight-July-2019-Dr-David-Williams.pdf
Great man amazing insight into curing the incurables!
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 62903
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: Many types of cancer cured with this drug!

Post by Fancy »

That link and Fenbendazole already being discussed here:
viewtopic.php?f=95&t=81227&start=15
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
seahawks2884
Fledgling
Posts: 213
Joined: Apr 9th, 2006, 12:10 am

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by seahawks2884 »

Strange that now Mebendazole the human form of fenbendazole price has shot up 40,000 % Quote: Mebendazole is just one price-hike example, but in this case, there could be a specific reason: mebendazole could help fight cancer.

"As soon as there was some data that potentially this class of medication can have anti-cancer benefits, that's where literally the sale happened and the prices went up 40,000 percent, you know, so, they have to be linked," Soleymani told News4Jax.
"end quote" Crazy!!!!!!
https://www.news4jax.com/consumer/pinworm-prescription-jumps-from-3-to-up-to-600-a-pill?fbclid=IwAR0RTBJOoQqFvI9SjmzbuI5_KeJNm9q6R-EhT3znypPaCby_VKxJrwrNGC0
Lots of people now trying febendazle being used as cancer treatment!
https://community.breastcancer.org/forum/8/topics/871246?page=1 32 pages of new talk on fenbendazole. Stay tuned for more!
User avatar
Fancy
Insanely Prolific
Posts: 62903
Joined: Apr 15th, 2006, 6:23 pm

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by Fancy »

seahawks2884 wrote:Strange that now Mebendazole the human form of fenbendazole price has shot up 40,000 %

Not sure why you would find that strange - supply and demand.
Truths can be backed up by facts - do you have any?
Fancy this, Fancy that and by the way, T*t for Tat
User avatar
seahawks2884
Fledgling
Posts: 213
Joined: Apr 9th, 2006, 12:10 am

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by seahawks2884 »

Supply and demand of a possible cancer killer! Are you OK with BIG F price gouging when peoples lives are at stake? :-X
User avatar
Poindexter
Guru
Posts: 6265
Joined: May 26th, 2008, 11:44 am

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by Poindexter »

Fancy wrote:
seahawks2884 wrote:Strange that now Mebendazole the human form of fenbendazole price has shot up 40,000 %

Not sure why you would find that strange - supply and demand.



I know what your saying but that's not what's happening here. As you know, pharmaceutical companies are granted a monopoly on new drugs they patent so supply and demand is not the only factor when setting prices. While it's reasonable to expect they'd want to recoup their research investment and earn a strong return from their discovery before that monopoly ends, that's also not what's happening here. Greed is the only explanation that could explain an increase of 40,000%, not market forces.
Remember: Humans are 99% chimp.
pureblissyoga
Posts: 16
Joined: Nov 24th, 2014, 7:06 am

Re: The "Cost" of Cancer

Post by pureblissyoga »

1) The Charitable Cancer Organizations have collected billions of tax free revenues spent on for profit research industry that conducts studies aimed at the development of new pharmaceutical drug treatments which clearly support pharmaceutical corporations (like those drugs mentioned in comments that cost thousands of dollars). Clearly patients haven't benefitted from groundbreaking research discoveries considering cancer treatment still relies on 70 year old WWII Nazi chemical warfare chemo and radiation. I have personally donated and fundraised thousands of dollars for a few of these charities because I thought they helped people with financial support and other supports they need with diseases that threaten their lives don't end up threatening to destroy the rest of their lives too. Perhaps a class action civil tort defence lawsuit should be filed at this point in time!

2) Our healthcare is for treating disease and systemically denies us access to disease prevention. Genetic testing is a low cost method for providing a person with invaluable insight to ones health risk factors and even diagnosis in some cases. I'm glad they decided for all of us that the risk to our health from genetic testing is far greater than any benefits from the knowledge. Ugh
3) Apparently cancer diagnosis can be "overdiagnosed" I honestly don't even know what to say about this one, lol I just can't even. Here is an excerpt from The Canadian Tax Force on Preventative Medicine website, this one is specific to breast cancer screening however the website is filled with recommendations for your reading pleasure:

" Low-certainty evidence indicates that screening for breast cancer with mammography results in a modest reduction in breast cancer mortality for women aged 40 to 74 years with the absolute benefit lowest for women less than 50 years of age. Screening leads to overdiagnosis resulting in unnecessary treatment of cancer that would not have caused harm in a woman’s lifetime, as well as physical and psychological consequences from false positives. Women less than 50 years of age are at greater risk of these harms than older women."
https://canadiantaskforce.ca/guidelines ... er-update/

From what I understand the diagnosis of breast cancer in woman under the age of 50 is cancer that isn't harmful and poses no risks to our health basically the harmful effects of breast cancer depends on age to activate its death grip? Must have been one of those useful research studies that discovered this mind-blowing news about the disease!

I can write a whole book on this subject considering all the woman in my life mom grandma aunts already died from cancer (colon, ovarian, breast, lung, bone) in my opinion the costs of cancer are paid with Canadian lives.

Return to “Health”