By Audrey Quinn
Posting in Cancer
Why cancer rates will likely fall dramatically in the coming years.
This week the British cancer research institution Cancer Research UK published new data on projected cancer rates, reports BBC News. Their numbers forecast a 17 percent fall in cancer rates by 2030. The BBC's James Gallagher explains:
About 170 UK deaths per 100,000 of population were from cancer in 2010, and this figure is predicted to fall to 142 out of every 100,000. Some of the biggest killers - lung, breast, bowel, and prostate cancer - are part of the trend. The biggest fall is projected to be in ovarian cancer, with death rates dropping by 43%.
Here's those numbers in graph form:
The research group credits the predicted drop in cancer rates (in the UK) to:
The United States currently spends around $70,000 per cancer patient (pdf), or $90 billion per year in 2008. If cancers in the U.S. fell at a similar rate to what's projected in the UK, that would save the U.S. healthcare system (and patients) over $15 billion, which could help counteract the $750 billion the industry reportedly wastes annually.
[via BBC News]
Graph: Research UK
Sep 24, 2012
Certain suppliers are attorneys particular in including clients to get keep of their patents and indicating and getting actions on all problems and the procedure of the certain rules. [url=http://moiche.com/reviews/aquaponics-4-you-review/]http://moiche.com/reviews/aquaponics-4-you-review/[/url]
Patent providers are lawyers specific in comprising customers to get hold of their patents and suggesting and taking activities on all issues and the process of the certain rules.http://nineforums.com
You're talking about two different things. You say "cancer rates" but the charts are all about death rates from cancer, which is not the same thing.
Actually, this story is totally illogical, misleading - if not completely erroneous. While these cancer rates will decline, it will be from the reduction in the one factor that causes all of them - inflammation. Diet - especially the intake of imbalanced fats (omega 3/6 ratios ) reducing arachidonic acid cascade bi-product levels, excess sugar (processed simple carbohydrates) - the resulting obesity, and yes obviously smoking - all produce the inflammation that cause the bulk of these cancers - and diabetes. It won't be the screening programs that reduce the cancer rates - screening has no impact on cancer development - just survival rates once you have it.
Add to that comment that the cost spent per person doesn't necessary decrease due to higher survival rates. In fact, logically, if those people don't die they will surely incur additional health costs in the future. There is no savings in survival. There is savings in prevention.