MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : Why the "war on cancer" can't be won now.
Choose another message board
View All Messages
  Prev Message  Next Message       
Reply
 Message 32 of 47 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  in response to Message 31Sent: 6/27/2007 9:44 PM
A new report sheds light on how the "war on cancer" is being lost:

QUOTE: ...Dr. Caron and colleagues conducted a study to assess the total burden of adverse health outcomes (adverse events) following childhood cancer and evaluated treatment-related risk factors. The study included 1,362 five-year survivors of childhood cancer treated in a single institution in the Netherlands between 1966 and 1996. All survivors were invited to a clinic for medical assessment of adverse events. Medical follow-up was completed for 94.3 percent of survivors (median [midpoint] follow-up, 17.0 years). At the end of follow-up the median age of the survivors was 24.4 years, with 88 percent of survivors younger than 35 years.

The researchers found that of the 1,362 survivors, 19.8 percent had no adverse events, 74.5 percent had one or more events and 24.6 percent had five or more events. Additionally, 36.8 percent of the survivors had at least one severe or life-threatening or disabling disorder, and 3.2 percent died due to an adverse event. Almost 22 percent of adverse events were severe, life-threatening or disabling, or caused death. Of those events, orthopedic disorders occurred most often, followed by second tumors, obesity, fertility disorders, psychosocial or cognitive disorders, neurologic disorders and endocrine disorders.

Of all patients treated with radiotherapy only, 55 percent had a high or severe burden of events (defined as at least two severe events or one or more life-threatening or disabling event), compared with 15 percent of patients treated with chemotherapy only and 25 percent of patients who had surgery only. Survivors of bone tumors most often had a high or severe burden of events (64 percent), while survivors of leukemia or Wilms tumor (tumor of the kidney) least often had a high or severe burden of events (12 percent each).

"In conclusion, childhood cancer survivors are at increased risk of many severe health problems, resulting in a high burden of disease during young adulthood. This will inevitably affect the survivors' quality of life and also will ultimately reduce their life expectancy... UNQUOTE.

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070626115406.htm


Replies to This Message The number of members that recommended this message.    
     re: Why the "war on cancer" can't be won now.   MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  6/30/2007 6:11 AM