cancer research and funding

[strollingbones]

Cancer Type 2010 Spending
(in millions)
2011 Spending
(in millions)
2012 Spending
(in millions)
Lung $281.9 $296.8 $314.6
Prostate 300.5 288.3 265.1
Breast 631.2 625.1 602.7
Colorectal 270.4 265.1 256.3
Bladder 22.6 20.6 23.4
Melanoma 102.3 115.6 121.2
Non-Hodgkin
Lymphoma122.4 126.4 119.5
Kidney 44.6 46.2 49.0
Thyroid 15.6 16.2 16.5
Endometrial
(Uterine) 14.2 15.9 19.1


the first col is 2010..then 2011 then 2012


Cancer Research Funding - National Cancer Institute

cancer research is boggling to me....look at st jude's and the work they do as a private charity....they are making leaps and bounds in children's cancer research....

 

[Alfalfa]

Nobody's trying to cure cancer, research and treatment is a 100 billion dollar a year industry.

 

[Alfalfa]

Then when research finds a new treatment based on the billions in donations of theclueless, the principals patent it and make and couple hundred million off it.

After driving the cost of it up as high as they can go.

 

[g5000]

Cancer Type 2010 Spending
(in millions)
2011 Spending
(in millions)
2012 Spending
(in millions)
Lung $281.9 $296.8 $314.6
Prostate 300.5 288.3 265.1
Breast 631.2 625.1 602.7
Colorectal 270.4 265.1 256.3
Bladder 22.6 20.6 23.4
Melanoma 102.3 115.6 121.2
Non-Hodgkin
Lymphoma122.4 126.4 119.5
Kidney 44.6 46.2 49.0
Thyroid 15.6 16.2 16.5
Endometrial
(Uterine) 14.2 15.9 19.1


the first col is 2010..then 2011 then 2012


Cancer Research Funding - National Cancer Institute

cancer research is boggling to me....look at st jude's and the work they do as a private charity....they are making leaps and bounds in children's cancer research....

Top ten deadliest cancers, annual deaths:

1. Lung and bronchial cancer: 792,495 lives

2. Colon and rectal cancer: 268,783 lives

3. Breast cancer: 206,983 lives

4. Pancreatic cancer: 162,878 lives

5. Prostate cancer: 144,926 lives

6. Leukemia: 108,740 lives

7. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma: 104,407 lives

8. Liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer: 79,773 lives

9. Ovarian cancer: 73,638 lives

10. Esophageal cancer: 66,659 lives

 

[g5000]

Nobody's trying to cure cancer, research and treatment is a 100 billion dollar a year industry.

Unmitigated bullshit.

Far more people are surviving cancer than did in the past.

 

[frances]

Pancreatic cancers gets under 1 percent associated with cancers study funding through the Nation's Cancer malignancy
Analysis Start even with becoming the particular fifth-highest source of cancers deaths in britain : right after lung, intestinal, busts along with prostate varieties of cancer : and contains some sort of five-year tactical rate associated with simply just 3. 4  per nickle.Which means that whilst 8, 500 Britons tend to be told they have the condition each and every year, the idea states the particular day-to-day lives associated with just about 8, 000 individuals. Pancreatic cancers has been unnoticed : almost as if it truly is too much to face. Having pancreatic cancers, five-year tactical is just not even talked
about, along with young children and can 50  per nickle associated with individuals hadn't got word of pancreatic cancers before their own analysis. Perhaps the particular one-year tactical rate can be within 20 percent.

 

[Politico]

There is no cure for cancer. Even if they were wanting to cure it they would need to know what causes it first.

 

[waltky]

Gonna take a concerted effort...

WHO: We Can't Beat Cancer With Drugs Alone
February 03, 2014 — Governments must make better use of vaccines and preventative public health policies in the fight against cancer as treatment alone cannot stem the disease, a World Health Organization (WHO) agency said on Monday.

The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said cancer was growing "at an alarming pace" worldwide and new strategies were needed to curb the sometimes fatal and often costly disease. "It's untenable to think we can treat our way out of the cancer problem. That alone will not be a sufficient response," Christopher Wild, IARC's director and co-editor of its World Cancer Report 2014, told reporters at a London briefing. "More commitment to prevention and early detection is desperately needed... to complement improved treatments and address the alarming rise in the cancer burden globally."

A researcher works near a blood test machine recently developed that is so sensitive it can spot a single cancer cell lurking among a billion healthy ones

The World Cancer Report, which is only produced roughly once every five years, involved a collaboration of around 250 scientists from more than 40 countries. It said access to effective and relatively inexpensive cancer drugs would significantly cut death rates, even in places where health-care services are less well developed.

The spiraling costs of cancer are hurting the economies of even the richest countries and are often way beyond the reach of poorer nations. In 2010, the total annual economic cost of cancer was estimated at around $1.16 trillion. Yet around half of all cancers could be avoided if current knowledge about cancer prevention was properly implemented, Wild told reporters.

Sharp Rise in Cases Expected

See also:

Excess Sugar Linked With Heart Disease Death
February 03, 2014 ~ A new study links consumption of more sugary foods with a higher risk of death from heart disease.

The assessment is the latest addition to a growing body of evidence that “too much sugar does not just make us fat, it can also make us sick,” according to health policy professor Laura Schmidt at the University of California, San Francisco. Schmidt wrote a commentary accompanying the new study in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. The study focuses on sugar added to foods as opposed to those occurring naturally in fruits and vegetables.

Sugary drinks

Those who ate the most added sugar - making up more than one-fifth of their daily calories - were twice as likely to die from heart disease as those who ate a healthy diet with less than 10 percent added sugar. Soda, energy drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages were the biggest sources. One can of soda contains about 140 calories, or about 7 percent of an average, 2,000-calorie diet.

The researchers used data from a large, ongoing national study on all kinds of health issues. Thousands of people across the country answer questions about their diet and other health behaviors and get a physical. The researchers also check to see if participants show up in national death records.

While other studies have looked at the link between added sugar and obesity, diabetes, heart disease and more, “this paper is the first to look at death from heart disease,” said nutrition professor Rachel Johnson at the University of Vermont, “so, sort of the ultimate end point.” Johnson heads the nutrition committee for the American Heart Association but was not involved with this research.

Average consumption, elevated risk

 

[waltky]

Granny cuttin' possum back on his balogna sammiches...

Study: Processed Meat Raises Colorectal Cancer Risk
April 17, 2014 ~ Many studies have shown that eating too much red meat is bad for your health; but, a new study has found that eating processed meat significantly increases the risk of colorectal cancer in some people.

Eating five or more servings per week of processed meat more than doubles the risk of colorectal cancer in people who have certain variants of a specific gene, according to Jane Figueiredo of the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine. Colorectal cancer is a leading form of cancer disease and death worldwide. The findings are based on a meta-analysis of 10 earlier studies involving 18,000 people in the United States, Canada, Australia and Europe, which looked at the health effects of eating meats that contain nitrates as preservatives. "It's anything that is cured, dried, smoked, cooked [or] packaged. And so the most common items around the countries we were studying would include bacon, ham, hot dogs, sausages, pate, cold cuts," said Figueiredo.

The scientists compared the blood samples of some 9,000 people with colorectal cancer to 9,000 people without the disease, looking at one particular region of the genome. Colorectal cancer is a complex illness with some 30 genetic variations tied to an increased risk of developing it. The researchers found the people with two of the genetic variants that were the focus of the study, and who ate processed meats almost every day, had the highest risk for colorectal cancer. Figueiredo says the potentially harmful alleles - or changes in a specific gene - are extremely common. “It happens in one in three individuals; that these individuals are actually at even at higher risk of the carcinogenic effects in processed meat," she said.

Does that mean that people with two copies of the genetic variants can eat more bacon and ham than those at the highest cancer risk? “People have asked me that and I think that we should also limit our consumption of processed meat. It still more modestly increases risk at least in individuals that don’t have this variant allele. But it still is a small effect. It's just a much larger effect in individuals that carry certain genetic changes," said Figueiredo.

Her team systematically sifted through millions of genetic variants of the study participants, identifying those that are associated with the effects of meat, fiber, fruit and vegetable consumption. Figueiredo says the investigation is the first to look at whether genes modify the impact of food on health. The study by Jane Figueiredo and colleagues is published in the journal PLoS Genetics.

Study: Processed Meat Raises Colorectal Cancer Risk