• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Breast Cancer

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Wondering if Obama will cause us to slip in the future?

Right now we are Second in Breast Cancer survival rate with our poor health care. Even coming in above Canada with their free everyone gets health care program.

Will women be safer in future?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080716/cancer_statistics_080716?hub=MSNHome
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Looking farther it seems the U.S. has a better survival rate of Cancer as a whole than does Canada. Seems that with all our people not getting medical treatment and EVERYONE in Canada getting it, we should be below Canada in survival rate.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details/health/mortality-cancer.aspx#peers


Kind of makes you wonder, is it better to have free health care and die, or have what the U.S. offers and live? :?
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Canada gets high ranking for cancer survival rates

Updated Wed. Jul. 16 2008 10:55 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Canada has some of the best cancer survival rates in the world, and doctors are pointing to our much-maligned public health-care system as the reason.

In a report on worldwide cancer survival rates, Canada ranked near the top of the 31 countries studied with an estimate five-year survival rate of 82.5 per cent.

For breast cancer, Cuba had the highest survival rates -- another country with free health care. The United States was second, and Canada was third, with 82 per cent of women surviving at least five years.

"Canadians always tend to complain about our health-care system," Dr. Mary Gospodarowicz, a cancer researcher with Toronto's Princess Margaret Hospital, told CTV News. "But this study shows us that in an independent study done by external bodies, the survival of cancer patients in Canada is among the best in the world."

The U.S. has a five-year survival rate in all the cancers studied of 91.9 per cent, while Europe's is much lower at 57.1 per cent. However, survival rates within the U.S. can vary.

In Canada, the five Canadian provinces included in the study had almost identical results.

"For those five provinces, the survival rate does not differ very greatly from one to the other," said British cancer researcher Prof. Michel Coleman. "That probably indicates the overall effectiveness of universal health care for setting a high standard."

The range of survival rates across the five provinces was quite narrow, from a low of 79.3 per cent in Nova Scotia to a high of 85.4 per cent in British Columbia.

The other provinces studied were Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

However, the survival rate for the seventeen regions in the United States that were included in the study ranged from 78 per cent to 90 per cent.

The disparity in survival rates crossed racial lines in the U.S., as well, with white patients having a five-year survival rate of 84.7 per cent and black patients having a survival rate of 70.9 per cent.

The research was conducted by more than 100 scientists, led by Coleman of the Cancer Research UK Cancer Survival Group and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Researchers compiled data on the five-year survival rates of patients who were diagnosed between 1990 and 1994 and were followed up with until the end of 1999. Breast, colon, rectum and prostate cancer patients were included in the study.

The CONCORD study, a trans-Atlantic comparison of cancer survival, is published in the August edition of the journal The Lancet Oncology.

In the report, data from almost 2 million cancer patients from 31 countries showed that the U.S. has the highest survival rates for breast and prostate cancer, Japan has the highest survival rates for colon and rectal cancers in men and France has the highest survival rates for colon and rectal cancer in women.

Algeria had the lowest survival rates for all cancers included in the study, regardless of whether the patients were male or female.

"Most of the wide global range in survival is probably attributable to differences in access to diagnostic and treatment services," the authors wrote.

Further research is planned on how the stage of the cancer at the time of diagnosis may affect survival rates. As well, the study itself will be updated with data from additional countries.

Abstract:

Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD)

Michel P Coleman, Manuela Quaresma, Franco Berrino, Jean-Michel Lutz, Roberta De Angelis, Riccardo Capocaccia, Paolo Baili, Bernard Rachet, Gemma Gatta, Timo Hakulinen, Andrea Micheli, Milena Sant, Hannah K Weir, J Mark Elwood, Hideaki Tsukuma, Sergio Koifman, Gulnar Azevedo e Silva, Silvia Francisci, Mariano Santaquilani, Arduino Verdecchia, Hans H Storm, John L Young, and the CONCORD Working Group

Background: Cancer survival varies widely between countries. The CONCORD study provides survival estimates for 1-9 million adults (aged 15-99 years) diagnosed with a first, primary, invasive cancer of the breast (women), colon, rectum, or prostate during 1990-94 and followed up to 1999, by use of individual tumour records from 101 population-based cancer registries in 31 countries on five continents. This is, to our knowledge, the first worldwide analysis of cancer survival, with standard quality-control procedures and identical analytic methods for all datasets.

Methods: To compensate for wide international differences in general population (background) mortality by age, sex, country, region, calendar period, and (in the USA) ethnic origin, we estimated relative survival, the ratio of survival noted in the patients with cancer, and the survival that would have been expected had they been subject only to the background mortality rates. 2800 life tables were constructed. Survival estimates were also adjusted for differences in the age structure of populations of patients with cancer.

Findings: Global variation in cancer survival was very wide. 5-year relative survival for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer was generally higher in North America, Australia, Japan, and northern, western, and southern Europe, and lower in Algeria, Brazil, and eastern Europe. CONCORD has provided the first opportunity to estimate cancer survival in 11 states in USA covered by the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), and the study covers 42% of the US population, four-fold more than previously available. Cancer survival in black men and women was systematically and substantially lower than in white men and women in all 16 states and six metropolitan areas included. Relative survival for all ethnicities combined was 2-4% lower in states covered by NPCR than in areas covered by the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. Age-standardised relative survival by use of the appropriate race-specific and state-specific life tables was up to 2% lower for breast cancer and up to 5% lower for prostate cancer than with the census-derived national life tables used by the SEER Program. These differences in population coverage and analytical method have both contributed to the survival deficit noted between Europe and the USA, from which only SEER data have been available until now.

Interpretation: Until now, direct comparisons of cancer survival between high-income and low-income countries have not generally been available. The information provided here might therefore be a useful stimulus for change. The findings should eventually facilitate joint assessment of international trends in incidence, survival, and mortality as indica
 

Silver

Well-known member
I was listening to Fox the other day, and they were comparing what different countries health care systems cost. Canada was a little high at somewhere over $3,000 / per person per year. The US pays by far the most, over $6,000 per year. Looks to me like it could be made available to all for less money down there.

Aplus, it may be worth pondering why life expectancy is higher in Canada than the US, and infant mortality rates are eye opening as well.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
I went to see an Orthopedic Surgeon about knee replacement surgery.
I was told by one surgeon that a partial knee replacement would work
fine for me and be less invasive and easier recovery. I wasn't sure, so
I got the name of a very-well respected surgeon and went for a
second opinion. During the visit we talked about National Health Care.
Here is what he had to say.

"I hope I can retire in 7 years. I will be 57 at that time. What the
government is proposing will not work for the patients. What is proposed now, if I were to operate on your knee and a cat licked it and it
became infected, I WOULD NOT GET PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT."
My remark was, "so why do it?" He said, "exactly."

He told me of a colleague that quit and went to work in a bakery.
Makes more money, has a lot less hassle. He said the medical students
today are basically screwed with the money they have to put in to
get their education vs. what the government will allow them to make.

AND, Mr. FH quallifies for Medicare in July. In searching for a supplemental policy we ran into this: Obama administration is cutting
medicare benefits in 2010. All the plans offered next year will be different; worse, not better. Oh, yeah, he's making CHANGE all right.
GRRRRRRRRRR. :mad: :twisted: :mad: :twisted: :mad: :twisted: :x
 

Cal

Well-known member
Mrs. Greg....tsk tsk tsk.....does that not ring a bell, even? Perhaps some sort of bs detector going off?
For breast cancer, Cuba had the highest survival rates -- another country with free health care. The United States was second, and Canada was third, with 82 per cent of women surviving at least five years.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Mrs. Greg never said Canada's was bad, 3rd in the world is not bad. Just off a little in comparison to the U.S. at #2. And we do not give medical care to 50 million of citizens according to the Libs.

Just find it interesting that we come in 2nd and ahead of Canada even though we have so many uninsured people. Surely all them people we are letting die with no health care would push our numbers up?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Silver said:
I was listening to Fox the other day, and they were comparing what different countries health care systems cost. Canada was a little high at somewhere over $3,000 / per person per year. The US pays by far the most, over $6,000 per year. Looks to me like it could be made available to all for less money down there.

Aplus, it may be worth pondering why life expectancy is higher in Canada than the US, and infant mortality rates are eye opening as well.

What's your malpractice insurance rates up there?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
Mrs. Greg never said Canada's was bad, 3rd in the world is not bad. Just off a little in comparison to the U.S. at #2. And we do not give medical care to 50 million of citizens according to the Libs.

Just find it interesting that we come in 2nd and ahead of Canada even though we have so many uninsured people. Surely all them people we are letting die with no health care would push our numbers up?

We might rank 2nd in Breast cancer- but internationally WHO ranks us 37th for overall Health Care with us being # 1 in costs- having now passed up the Marshall Islands....

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Silver said:
I was listening to Fox the other day, and they were comparing what different countries health care systems cost. Canada was a little high at somewhere over $3,000 / per person per year. The US pays by far the most, over $6,000 per year. Looks to me like it could be made available to all for less money down there.

Maybe we could spend less like Canada does but then we may have 9.4% (91.9 vs 82.5) more women not making it the five years with Breast Cancer. Personally I say we spend more money and let more women live. We are a wealthy nation we can afford to spend more!


Silver said:
Aplus, it may be worth pondering why life expectancy is higher in Canada than the US, and infant mortality rates are eye opening as well.

Actually I have pondered that, you want to know why? You ever wonder why when you look at specific health care issues such as Cancer the U.S. will beat nations like Canada in survival rate. But then we have a less life expectancy? Kind of makes you think doesn't it. Well I will explain it to you!

Health care, aka doctor and hospital visits do not solve all problems. The U.S. has a problem with issues that lead to a lower life expectancy primarily Obesity. You see our adults and our children are obese, a lot due to the fact we are a rich nation. Even our poor our fat, we have people on welfare that are obese! Obese people do not live as long as normal people rather they have health care or not!

Also we have a large population of African Americans, if you look at the extreme lower life expectancy of an Black person they push our statistics down. And much of this is due to their culture and lifestyle. If you looked at only the white population statistics of both nations they would be very similar even with our obesity problem.

Free Doctors visits are not the solution to people living longer, lifestyle changes are the answer! That is just a Kool aid issue for the Libs that will not look at the bigger picture such as Obesity and the lifestyles of Americans!

Hope that helped a little?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
Mrs. Greg never said Canada's was bad, 3rd in the world is not bad. Just off a little in comparison to the U.S. at #2. And we do not give medical care to 50 million of citizens according to the Libs.

Just find it interesting that we come in 2nd and ahead of Canada even though we have so many uninsured people. Surely all them people we are letting die with no health care would push our numbers up?

We might rank 2nd in Breast cancer- but internationally WHO ranks us 37th for overall Health Care with us being # 1 in costs- having now passed up the Marshall Islands....

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

See explination above! :wink:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
Mrs. Greg never said Canada's was bad, 3rd in the world is not bad. Just off a little in comparison to the U.S. at #2. And we do not give medical care to 50 million of citizens according to the Libs.

Just find it interesting that we come in 2nd and ahead of Canada even though we have so many uninsured people. Surely all them people we are letting die with no health care would push our numbers up?

We might rank 2nd in Breast cancer- but internationally WHO ranks us 37th for overall Health Care with us being # 1 in costs- having now passed up the Marshall Islands....

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

This statement on WHO's webpage also shows you how complex such a rating is. And also points out all Stats are almost 10 years old now since they do not do this kind of rating any more!

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Also have you ever looked at the Statistics as to how they came up with that rating way back 10 years ago? They make a judgement call on such things as "Fairness in financial contribution".

Who decides what is a fair financial contribution? If you will look deeper into things that do not add up. You know like why do people come to U.S. for health care and pay cash when they get free at home? But then we are rated so low.

Well here is the system of how WHO rated the countries. Go ahead try to figure it out. And then look at things that are Judgement calls such as "Fairness in financial contribution".

No wonder they said it was to complex to any longer rate the countries. So you may want to hang up that 10 year figure and start looking at things deeper and with an open mind!

Kool Aid comes in all flavors!

Here is a link to how WHO came up with them ratings.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_systems.html
 

burnt

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Mrs. Greg never said Canada's was bad, 3rd in the world is not bad. Just off a little in comparison to the U.S. at #2. And we do not give medical care to 50 million of citizens according to the Libs.

Just find it interesting that we come in 2nd and ahead of Canada even though we have so many uninsured people. Surely all them people we are letting die with no health care would push our numbers up?

Not that I would expect a misguided jerk like you to be able to understand, but did it ever occur to you that a lot of Americans who cannot afford health coverage might just be dying without ever coming into the health care system's radar? Thus, the mortality rate is much higher than the official records show?

No, I don't suppose you ever thought of that, did you. You cannot turn up a chance to knock a system that treats people in a humane manner, you jerk.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
burnt said:
aplusmnt said:
Mrs. Greg never said Canada's was bad, 3rd in the world is not bad. Just off a little in comparison to the U.S. at #2. And we do not give medical care to 50 million of citizens according to the Libs.

Just find it interesting that we come in 2nd and ahead of Canada even though we have so many uninsured people. Surely all them people we are letting die with no health care would push our numbers up?

Not that I would expect a misguided jerk like you to be able to understand, but did it ever occur to you that a lot of Americans who cannot afford health coverage might just be dying without ever coming into the health care system's radar? Thus, the mortality rate is much higher than the official records show?

No, I don't suppose you ever thought of that, did you. You cannot turn up a chance to knock a system that treats people in a humane manner, you jerk.
There is a difference between "health coverage" and "health care". Everyone in the USA gets "health care"...even those without "health coverage"...even illegal aliens! The problem is that the hospitals absorb the cost of treating non-payers and pass that cost on to those that pay.

Another problem with the health care system(probably the biggest) is that every patient has to be viewed as a potential law suit. My wife spends almost half her time doing paper work instead of treating patients!!!
 

MoGal

Well-known member
From what I've read about cancer..... Dr. Warburg determined back 60 years ago that cancer is caused by a lack of oxygen in the body. In fact he won the Nobel Peace Prize for it. When the body has a lack of oxygen the cells turn cancerous. Dr. Johanna Budwig from Germany did quite a bit of study on it and came up with flax seed oil and cottage cheese diet.

The hubby's boss's wife has breast cancer and I tried to get her to look at hydrogen peroxide chelation therapy but no she went with chemo and the poor woman looks like death warmed over. I told my husband I ever get cancer, I am having hydrogen peroxide therapy, its a lot cheaper and the good cells are not killed like they are in chemo.

Many countries have to rely on cheaper methods (pharmaceutical companies cannot patent hydrogen peroxide so they won't do studies on it) and I bet Cuba uses hydrogen peroxide therapy to cure cancer.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
MoGal said:
From what I've read about cancer..... Dr. Warburg determined back 60 years ago that cancer is caused by a lack of oxygen in the body. In fact he won the Nobel Peace Prize for it. When the body has a lack of oxygen the cells turn cancerous. Dr. Johanna Budwig from Germany did quite a bit of study on it and came up with flax seed oil and cottage cheese diet.

The hubby's boss's wife has breast cancer and I tried to get her to look at hydrogen peroxide chelation therapy but no she went with chemo and the poor woman looks like death warmed over. I told my husband I ever get cancer, I am having hydrogen peroxide therapy, its a lot cheaper and the good cells are not killed like they are in chemo.

Many countries have to rely on cheaper methods (pharmaceutical companies cannot patent hydrogen peroxide so they won't do studies on it) and I bet Cuba uses hydrogen peroxide therapy to cure cancer.


You are dangerous...I hope NO ONE listens to your " Doctoring" advice.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
burnt said:
aplusmnt said:
Mrs. Greg never said Canada's was bad, 3rd in the world is not bad. Just off a little in comparison to the U.S. at #2. And we do not give medical care to 50 million of citizens according to the Libs.

Just find it interesting that we come in 2nd and ahead of Canada even though we have so many uninsured people. Surely all them people we are letting die with no health care would push our numbers up?

Not that I would expect a misguided jerk like you to be able to understand, but did it ever occur to you that a lot of Americans who cannot afford health coverage might just be dying without ever coming into the health care system's radar? Thus, the mortality rate is much higher than the official records show?

No, I don't suppose you ever thought of that, did you. You cannot turn up a chance to knock a system that treats people in a humane manner, you jerk.


And this includes "CUBA" and their free health care. Of course almost everything in Cuba is free...there just ain't much of it.
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Cal said:
Mrs. Greg....tsk tsk tsk.....does that not ring a bell, even? Perhaps some sort of bs detector going off?
For breast cancer, Cuba had the highest survival rates -- another country with free health care. The United States was second, and Canada was third, with 82 per cent of women surviving at least five years.
:???: You LOST me on this post!!!


Another thing.....Canada's health care is NOT free in I believe all provinces except AB. Every other province pays a premium for their health care is "my" understanding. AB just dropped ours this BUT our provincial healthcare is being revamped as we speak!!!!

Aplus.....survival rates make a huge difference in how soon cancer its detected. I tend to side with burnt on this one.Your survival rate may be higher on those that get in early enough to have the cancer detected,other wise your just doing pallitive care. Also...I'm pretty proud we're third in the world....not too bad for a country,with a small population....
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
MoGal said:
From what I've read about cancer..... Dr. Warburg determined back 60 years ago that cancer is caused by a lack of oxygen in the body. In fact he won the Nobel Peace Prize for it. When the body has a lack of oxygen the cells turn cancerous. Dr. Johanna Budwig from Germany did quite a bit of study on it and came up with flax seed oil and cottage cheese diet.

The hubby's boss's wife has breast cancer and I tried to get her to look at hydrogen peroxide chelation therapy but no she went with chemo and the poor woman looks like death warmed over. I told my husband I ever get cancer, I am having hydrogen peroxide therapy, its a lot cheaper and the good cells are not killed like they are in chemo.

Many countries have to rely on cheaper methods (pharmaceutical companies cannot patent hydrogen peroxide so they won't do studies on it) and I bet Cuba uses hydrogen peroxide therapy to cure cancer.
I've know WAY more people that have died trying the hydrogen peroxide therapy then the chemo.. Chemo's not great for your body I'll give you that but hey cancers worse!!!!

You need to think before you hand out advice that your not trained to give because its a dangerous road.... :( :?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
MoGal said:
From what I've read about cancer..... Dr. Warburg determined back 60 years ago that cancer is caused by a lack of oxygen in the body. In fact he won the Nobel Peace Prize for it. When the body has a lack of oxygen the cells turn cancerous. Dr. Johanna Budwig from Germany did quite a bit of study on it and came up with flax seed oil and cottage cheese diet.

The hubby's boss's wife has breast cancer and I tried to get her to look at hydrogen peroxide chelation therapy but no she went with chemo and the poor woman looks like death warmed over. I told my husband I ever get cancer, I am having hydrogen peroxide therapy, its a lot cheaper and the good cells are not killed like they are in chemo.

Many countries have to rely on cheaper methods (pharmaceutical companies cannot patent hydrogen peroxide so they won't do studies on it) and I bet Cuba uses hydrogen peroxide therapy to cure cancer.

Isn't Bio-oxidative medicine and Chelation therapy more of a preventative form of medicine?
 
Top