Post by ShadowPost by Jeff LiebermannPost by ShadowDeath rate by cancer is actually falling. What is rising is
the number of cases of cancer diagnosed.
<https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/age>
The longer people live, the more new cancer cases in old age.
Exactly what I said.
Nope. You wrote:
"Death rate by cancer is actually falling."
Death rate is measured in fatalities per 100,000 population. All
other things being equal, an increase in population will produce a
corresponding increase in cancer fatalities and therefore no change in
death rate. If you double the population, the number of cancer
fatalities will also double, and the death rate (per 100,000) will
remain constant. (Note that this doesn't work well with communicable
diseases).
You also wrote:
"What is rising is the number of cases of cancer diagnosed."
That translates into the number of *NEW* cancer cases diagnosed. If
the population increases, we should see more new cancer cases
diagnosed. This also applies to the age distribution. Most cancers
appear after we're 60 years old, peaking at about 80 years. As we
live longer, the age distribution moves upwards, again resulting in
additional cancer cases.
<https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/age>
I noticed that you left out the traditional "age adjusted" when
discussion cancer rates. The idea behind adjusting cancer rates for
increased frequency with age is to remove age from the equation when
one is discussing a specific cause of the cancer. In theory,
adjusting for age removes the large peak at 80 leaving only the
cancers caused by cell phones or whatever.
Incidentally, I've been doing this for quite some time. These are
from old data, but still apply:
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/Cellular%20and%20cancer.pdf>
<
Loading Image...
>
<
Loading Image...
>
If you want, I can update the numbers and graphs to current numbers.
Note that "current" means "before Covid-19". Covid really made a mess
of the statistics.
<https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2823296>
Please read "conclusions" at bottom of page.
Post by ShadowAnd even though risk OF CANCER increases
with age you are much more likely to die from a heart attack or an
isquemic brain episode or even an infection like pneumonia because
people SURVIVE cancer long enough to die from something else.....
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/17988/>
I'm enjoying this. When I gave talks on the topic (about 10 years
ago), there was always someone from the audience to bring up potential
delayed effects after exposure. There are cancers where this is true
(i.e. sun exposure and skin cancer). The question was "how many years
before we start seeing delayed cancers caused RF exposure. It turned
out that delayed exposure follows the traditional bell curve. Some
people ("RF sensitive") will see an effect almost immediately. Others
take much longer. Since were talking about many decades, new people
are constantly introduced into the study population. The result will
therefore be a steady increase followed a leveling at some high rate
after being adjusted for age. That should be easy to see on the brain
and CNS numbers:
<https://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/crud/brain-CNS-cancer.jpg>
Hmmm... not much of a rise and no leveling off. Cell phone use really
took off in about 1990. That's where I would expect to see the start
of the steady increase. What really happened was that the late 1980's
was when PET, CT and MRI diagnostic methods became popular resulting
in earlier cancer diagnosis. That's the rising part of the curve.
Eventually the early diagnosis time became the normal time, and the
curve switched direction and started to decrease.
Incidentally, the usual reply from the audience was that the delay
between RF exposure and cancer was XX number of years. I usually
asked for a number. The last time I did this, someone claimed a 15
year delay. I'm still waiting for the mythical surge in new cancer
cases.
I could go on with this, but I'm late and have a few things to repair
that need immediate attention. If you want to continue, please leave
your conspiracy theories at home.
Post by ShadowPost by Jeff LiebermannPost by ShadowThis tendency has been going on for at least 15 years.
Why? People are more obese, eat more trash food, do less
exercise etc than they did 20 years ago. They also use unsafe
medicines. The FDA was handed over to Big Pharma by baby Bush. Use to
be controlled by doctors before that. The "market" should never be
allowed to decide what is dangerous or not.
And the machinery used to diagnose cancer is getting cheaper
and better every year. 20 years ago a MRI was a luxury. And the
quality of the results sufferable. Now a doctor would probably prefer
an MRI over a chest X-Ray if you complain of a persistent cough, and
that MRI has a much higher chance of picking up small tumors.
Nope. The overall improvements in PET (positron emission tomography)
machines diagnose more cancers earlier resulting in a temporary
increase new cancer cases. Different types of scans work better for
"Choosing the best scans to detect cancer"
<https://www.echelon.health/choosing-the-best-scans-to-detect-cancer/>
It's not temporary. The better the detection, the more cancers
will be detected at a smaller size (i.e. earlier). And detection gets
better year by year.
You more or less repeated what I wrote above, so I didn't
understand the "nope".
Post by Jeff LiebermannPost by ShadowPS ... Cellphones emit a LOT of radiation. And coincide with
recent increases in cancer. By recent, I mean the last 15 years or so.
Got a source for your claim that new cancer cases track cell phone
radiation?
I doubt there will be any. All you see are articles showing it
does not cause CNS cancer. Neurons are the most resistant cells(along
with muscle and tendon). They rarely, if ever, divide, and radiation
affects cells when they divide. They'd be the last cells to be
affected....
Like I said, governments control the population with
cellphones. So it will NEVER cause cancer.
Do a study with cellphones strapped to people's balls. I'd be
interested to see the results... What's wrong? The radiation is
harmless, right?
Post by Jeff Liebermann<https://www.statista.com/statistics/201182/forecast-of-smartphone-users-in-the-us/>
along with a decrease in new cases of brain and CNS (central nervous
<https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/brain.html>
<https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html>
PS Your body produces cancer cells practically every day. Your
body recognizes them as "not self" and kills them off. The younger you
are, the more effective your immune response. One day cancer detection
will become so perfect that it will detect cancers that would never
make it to stage 2. "Perfect" enough to give the heath industry
massive orgasms.
[]'s
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
