Declines in Cancer Incidence and Death Rates in report from the National Cancer Institute and CDC:
“The drop in incidence seen in this year’s Annual Report is something we’ve been waiting to see for a long time,” said Otis W. Brawley, M.D., chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS). “However, we have to be somewhat cautious about how we interpret it, because changes in incidence can be caused not only by reductions in risk factors for cancer, but also by changes in screening practices. Regardless, the continuing drop in mortality is evidence once again of real progress made against cancer, reflecting real gains in prevention, early detection, and treatment.”
…
According to a U.S. Surgeon General’s report, cigarette smoking accounts for approximately 30 percent of all cancer deaths, with lung cancer accounting for 80 percent of the smoking-attributable cancer deaths. Other cancers caused by smoking include cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, stomach, bladder, pancreas, liver, kidney, and uterine cervix and myeloid leukemia.
Diagnoses Of Cancer Decline
The analysis found that the overall incidence of cancer began inching down in 1999, but not until the data for 2005 were analyzed was it clear that a long-term decline was underway. “The take-home message is that many of the things we’ve been telling people to do to be healthy have finally reached the point where we can say that they are working,” Brawley said. “These things are really starting to pay off.”
Brawley and others cautioned, however, that part of the reduction could be the result of fewer people getting screened for prostate and breast cancers. In addition, the rates at which many other types of cancer are being diagnosed are still increasing
…
Some experts said the drop was not surprising, noting that it was primarily the result of a fall in lung cancer because of declines in smoking that occurred decades ago. They criticized the ongoing focus on detecting and treating cancer and called for more focus on prevention.
“The whole cancer establishment has been focused on treatment, which has not been terribly productive,” said John C. Bailar III, who studies cancer trends at the National Academy of Sciences. “I think what people should conclude from this is we ought to be putting most of our resources where we know there has been progress, almost in spite of what we’ve done, and stop this single-minded focus on treatment.”
Related: Is there a Declining Trend in Cancer Deaths? – Cancer Deaths Increasing, Death Rate Decreasing – Leading Causes of Death – posts discussing cancer – Nanoparticles to Battle Cancer
Continue reading →
Merck and Elsevier Publish Phony Peer-Review Journal
Posted on May 3, 2009 Comments (3)
Elsevier is one of those publishers fighting open science. They try to claim that the government publishing government funded research in an open way will tarnish science. The argument makes no sense to me. Here is another crazy action on their part: they published a “journal” funded by Merck to promote Merck products. Merck Makes Phony Peer-Review Journal:
…
What’s sad is that I’m sure many a primary care physician was given literature from Merck that said, “As published in Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, Fosamax outperforms all other medications….” Said doctor, or even the average researcher wouldn’t know that the journal is bogus. In fact, knowing that the journal is published by Elsevier gives it credibility!
As I have said the journals fighting open science should have their credibility questioned. They are putting their outdated business model above science. We should not see organizations that are focused on closing science research through deceptive publicity efforts and lobbying efforts as credible.
Related: From Ghost Writing to Ghost Management in Medical Journals – Merck Faked a Research Journal – Medical Study Integrity (or Lack Thereof) – The Future of Scholarly Publication – Fresh questions raised about prominent cardiologist’s role in “ghostwritten” 2001 meta-analysis of Vioxx trials – Science Commons: Making Scientific Research Re-useful – Publishers Continue to Fight Open Access to Science – Misleading or Deceptive Conduct – Peter Suber Response to Rep. Conyers
Categories: Economics, Funding, Life Science, Open Access, Products, quote, Research, Science, Universities
Tags: commentary, ethics, Funding, medical research, medical study, Open Access, quote, Research, Science