… plays a major role in determining who gets cancer and who does not, according to researchers who found that two-thirds of cancer incidence of various types can be blamed on random mutations and not heredity or risky habits like smoking.
The researchers said on Thursday random DNA mutations accumulating in various parts of the body during ordinary cell division are the prime culprits behind many cancer types.
Or good luck. It depends upon your point of view.
This won’t make a difference in how most folks look at cancer. I was talking cancer and second-hand smoke with a fellow and he firmly believed that his uncle working in a bar for 20 years caused his lung cancer (he’d never been a smoker). That about 1 in 20 people who get lung cancer don’t get it because of smoking didn’t matter. No studies with a statistically significant link didn’t matter. I was an insensitive jerk because I didn’t agree with his heartfelt “the evil tobacco companies did it” view.
It’s far easier to blame someone else than to say that random chance takes one that you love.
The medical community knows that our bodies release approx 50-200 cancer cells in each person’s lifetime. That is why they want random and regular testing, they know that they will eventually find them and require treatments. Cash cow.
There are many kinds of cancer cells, due to many factors like toxins, stress (cortisol released to allow cancer cells to attach to weakened healthy cells starting the cell division), emotional issues, etc. The world is a complicated place, but there are solutions to this problem. Too bad most people are just satisfied to take a pill to make them feel bettert instead of lifestyle changes which disrupt our comfortable, quick-fix lifesyles.
I have always believed that genetic does play a role but , I don’t think cancer really cares to much about who it decides to attack , there are no “triggers” (my opinion ) it happens to every single human on this planet on every continence every race creed and religion and gender.
Cancer while it is evil (my opinion) is also a part of humanity and life. No matter how hard we fight it (and we should) we will never completely beat it. It’s just to sporadic to indescriminant , there is no pattern to it. This all of course is just my opinion.
To those who have been touched by this horrific disease God bless you. To those who have beaten it God bless you as well. To those who lost the battle my condolences.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/15/war-on-cancer/
Over the last 20 years cancer mortality rates/capita have fallen from 243 per 100,000 to 184 per 100,000 and it is believed that much of that improvement is due to the precipitous decrease in smoking.
“much of that improvement is due to the precipitous decrease in smoking”
I don’t think there has been any significant decrease in smoking.
That said, some cancers have been found to be caused by viruses and most cancer research has historically rejected the virus-as-cause avenue of research.
Now they say 2/3 is just random luck of the mutation? Pfft.
The should give all the money back that people gave to the “Cancer CAN be Beaten” campaign.
Just last year they said that the slash-and-burn method of cancer eradication(surgery and chemo) only worked on less than 1-in-5 cancer patients
Al Gore made some press releases as well….and we know that was to increase his wealth…..and power.
Cancer research is a big industry…..This random mutation study is an inconvenient truth……betcha never hear of it agin………
Everything from lightning to Hurricane landfall is largely luck.
The longer ya live the better yer odds….for getting cancer to gettin’ hit by a bus.
‘I don’t think there has been any significant decrease in smoking.’
According to Statscan the smoking rate for those over 12 years old was 19.9% in 2011 as opposed to 25.9 in 2001.
When it comes to smoking I suppose luck can be a factor; I’m lucky I was able to quit.
Make sure to note the difference between cancer mortality rates/capita and cancer diagnosis totals.
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe if live 5 years or more after diagnosis, statistically you have survived. It doesn’t mean you are cancer free for life.
My dear wife was stricken with cancer about 3 years ago. So far the treatments she has received has kept her alive and in reasonably good condition. (Chemo kicked the crap out of her but it was better than the alternative) At the time she was diagnosed we went through the ‘what did we do’ nonsense and soon realized that her disease was not lifestyle related. We did observe that many of her uncles and aunts had suffered from cancer but non of them had the kind of cancer she had. Her oncologist said the same thing as this study – that she happened to draw the short straw.
These blanket statements by evil media fearwhores are pretty much worthless and do absolutely nothing to illuminate the complexity of the disease both in terms of its causes, prevention and ways the body can and does fight cancer. Living things have been waging genetic warfare against cancer since life formed. One can make the argument that cancer is actually part of life as it has been so for billions of years.
Now would be a good time to recommend the Pulitzer Prize winning book, “The Emperor of Maladies”, a fascinating look at the history of cancer research by a leading oncologist.
Nice cherry picking of the article. Smoking still increases your chances of cancer. The key word here is “cause”. Nothing causes cancer directly, but risk factors increase your chance of getting certain types such as skin, lung, etc..
There’s not a single doctor or scientist in the world that believes cancer is entirely random, as being suggested in this comments section.
COPD is a better reason to quit smoking anyways.
“According to Statscan the smoking rate for those over 12 years old was 19.9% in 2011 as opposed to 25.9 in 2001.”
You believe things StatsCan says, eh? How many smokers in the 12-17 year old range do you imagine took the StatsCan surveys? Also, since smokers are being treated as modern day pariahs, why would they tell StatsCan or any survey whether they smoke or not?
Last but not least, what is the reported drop in provincial cigarette/tobacco tax revenues?
That would be the more accurate indicator of a change in smoking rates.
I think you’ll find these numbers have been stable.
I go by what I see(and read, depending)and the lily-whites are more cancer prone vs. coloureds.
At a guess, that might be sun related(UV) or something else..
I think you shoul (re)read the article. It would appear the doctors and researchers of that study do infact suggest that some cancers are entirely random.
‘You believe things StatsCan says, eh?
OK how about US numbers then?
https://www.yahoo.com/health/smoking-in-us-declines-to-all-time-low-104075451963.html
Hm – what’s better living longer or living life a bit shorter but on your own terms?
Each to his own, you should be able to put into your body what you want just as those who want to remove from their bodies what they don’t want.
“OK how about US numbers then?”
“according to the report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)”
‘Vape’ Is The Word Of The Year. Here’s Why That’s A Bad Thing. says the CDC
https://www.yahoo.com/health/vape-is-the-word-of-the-year-heres-why-thats-a-bad-103146763552.html
No. U.S. numbers aren’t any better, especially when they come from the CDC. How much money does the CDC get from tobacco sales? How about StatsCan, how much money do they make from tobacco sales?
As I said above, show me the “precipitous decrease” in tobacco revenues to state and provincial governments and then you’ve got a case. Not before.
Nold> You still haven’t told me how large the sample of 12-17 year old smokers that StatsCan had in their survey!
Iola the Ignorola, cancer has been around for a BILLION years???U do git stoopider with time don’t cha!
The article should clarify that “if you believe in the genetic mutation theory of cancer” then cancer is mostly bad luck. That simply shows that the model has little explanatory value. The metabolic theory of cancer is a far superior explanation of what drives cancer. It explains why cancer is principally a dietary and lifestyle disease and how to better cure its emergence. For a good review of the disaster of cancer research and the fledgling re-emergence of the metabolic theory, see Travis Christofferson’s recent book, Tripping over the Truth: The Metabolic Theory of Cancer. If I had relatives with cancer, I would be following the development of treatment protocols with 3-broom pyruvate and ketogenic diet like a hawk. Otherwise, learn to rationalize cancer as “bad luck.”
3-bromo pyruvate.
I am continually confound by the autocorrect feature.
Well Oz since you don’t believe anything put out by government, over the next few times you happen to be buying gas or groceries take a note of how often the people in front of you are buying smokes. At the pub watch how few head out for a smoke now. I’ve seen many life-time smokers quit in the past few years.
The total take on cigarette taxes has little to do with consumption when the government’s share on each pack keeps increasing exponentially.
I’ve breathed more cigarette smoke than most young people have enhaled because I’m old enough to remember when virtually everyone smoked. Now not so much.
Oz, at the two pubs I go to, the bar darn near empties when the boys need a smoke. we can go from a dozen guys to two in the blink of an eye, rain, snow no matter what, the boys go out for a smoke. even though it happens regularly it is a strange feeling being at the bar and seeing all those full glasses on the bar and the guys all standing outside smoking.
Horrors…all that 4th hand smoke…..(seeing people smoking)
“Well Oz since you don’t believe anything put out by government”
Wrong. What you need to understand is what the government propaganda message is, and how it differs from what they must legally publish in their income statements just like the rest of us have to make.
Follow the money, or is that too hard for you to understand?
Let me make it simpler for you. If tobacco is so bad, why is tobacco not illegal? Given that tobacco usage supposedly causes cancer and other types of disease, both the Canadian and American governments, and given that healthcare is now dispensed at the state and provincial level, why are these governments collecting tobacco revenues which are disparately small from the healthcare costs which supposedly accrue from the use of these legal tobacco products by their citizens?
Seriously, according to you, and the propaganda organs of these governments, tobacco should be illegal just on the cost/harm analysis visa vi what they take in for taxes and what they have to pay out for health care, especially if there was a “precipitous drop” in usage.
There isn’t a relationship, by the way. The government propaganda only influences people like you, not the smoking public, not the 12-17 year olds who are smoking illegally, not people who are paying the tobacco taxes, and finally, not reality.
Where are the real government programs that should come from the tobacco taxes that would help smokers to quit?
Where are the free nicotine patches paid for by the tobacco taxes? Where are the free nicotine gum dispensaries paid for by the tobacco taxes? Why are the government mouthpieces like StatsCan or the CDC against the use of vaping which would wean people off of tobacco ?
Why are you such a retard who cannot point to a cause for a “precipitous drop” in tobacco use by showing a government drop in revenue from tobacco taxes?
You think people today have so much more respect for their bodies than the people of 10 or 20 years ago?
I have one word for you, TATTOOS.
Yup, all those morons who have tattoos have so much more respect for their bodies that none of them smoke, no no no.
The President of the United States of America is a Smoker and there is a resurgence of smokers a being “cool” in movies and TV shows and you believe smoking is becoming passé?
Puleeze.
Wait ’til you see how many happy people there are in the USA that Cuban cigars are again legal consumer product.
I’m sure you will be shocked. I won’t be.
Oz declares:
‘Seriously, according to you, and the propaganda organs of these governments, tobacco should be illegal’
Where did I say that?
‘Why are you such a retard who cannot point to a cause for a “precipitous drop” in tobacco use by showing a government drop in revenue from tobacco taxes?’
I showed you the links I found. Why don’t you show me your links that proves I’m a retard? When I show you numbers showing a decline in tobacco use I’m just being influenced by government propaganda. In our jurisdiction taxes from alcohol and cigarettes are listed as one and not broken down. Adjusted for inflation and population those numbers have declined over the past 20 years but there’s no point linking that because you would declare that to be propaganda.
I stand by my original link. Smoking rates have sharply declined and mortality from many cancers, especially lung cancer have declined as well. Logically people wonder if there is a link.
Co-relation is evidence of causation…noir is an absence of evidence…evidence of absence….
These concepts effect everything from a smoking/cancer link to Climate Change and the Lock Ness monster….
Waddayado…….
EDIT
Co-relation is not evidence of causation…nor is an absence of evidence…evidence of absence….
These concepts effect everything from a smoking/cancer link to Climate Change, to the Lock Ness monster….
Waddayado…….
Allan said:
‘Nothing causes cancer directly, but risk factors increase your chance of getting certain types’
I’m in agreement with that unlucky statement.
I believe that tobacco use increases your risk of developing certain cancers especially since we’ve been looking at these statistics for over 60 years now and the link does come up again and again.