This is what proves you wrong. You said that the 5 yr rate was replicated the second 5 years. That’s not true. If 5 year survival is 60%, and 10 year is 50% when your math says 10 year should be 36%.
And this statement is so painfully wrong:
“You can see that if you survive past 5y you’re very likely to make it to year 10”.
Exactly. That’s why I wrote that my rule of thumb was conservative. Whereas you claimed the opposite.
Have you checked the charts?
You need to experience more death so you understand the impact of bad statistics.
So that’s how you admit you were wrong? Of course, every single death is a terrible loss, but the debate was about the relevance of the 5-year survival rate: it is relevant.
“The Risk of Cancer Fades as We Get Older, And We May Finally Know Why”
Odd, as this goes against my preconceived notion that I was more likely to get cancer as I got older.
“Coffee and Tea Linked to Lower Cancer Risk in Groundbreaking Study”
If coffee does anything, and more is better, I am in good shape. It is hard to contemplate how many thousands of gallons I have consumed since I started drinking coffee.
I started when I was 18 years old and in the Navy. I have always drunk it black because the sugar cubes by the coffee urn were always stained, and the creamer was a can of curdled condensed milk
https://scitechdaily.com/coffee-and-tea-linked-to-lower-cancer-risk-in-groundbreaking-study/
Why would I admit I was wrong when you’re wrong? If only I could block you, life would be better.
Anyone can have the software mute or ignore other people here - just click on the person’s icon and go to the right side of the screen where it says “Normal” and click there, and choose “ignore” or “mute”.
I don’t think it works for moderators, or for people that hide their information.
Glancing at the thread the argument appears to be about the statement
“You can see that if you survive past 5y you’re very likely to make it to year 10”.
Where 50% survive to 5 years and 60% to 10. Hence 83% of those alive at 5 years survive to 10. I would think 83% is fairly described as very likely.
It’s never good when people’s credentials go to their head. Appreciate your contributions @adssx
@adssx, good info.
The all cancers combined chart might misleading though. You could have the deadly cancers, like pulmonary, drive most of the downward slope in early years; and then past year 4 or 5, you’re left with the “curable” cancers, like prostate or breast cancer. To me, this doesn’t demonstrate survival to year 5 is an indicator of survival to year 10. I’m not arguing that p5 is not a good measure; on the contrary, it seems to be an excellent one; it’s just that chart may not be a good way to show that it is.
Seeing this by cancer type, like the laryngeal chart is more convincing. That chart is very encouraging too, much progress made already.
Yes we need to check cancer by cancer but I assume in most if not all cases 10ySurvival > 5ySurvival^2. And ChatGPT seems to agree on that even for the most aggressive cancers: ChatGPT - Cancer Survival Rates Comparison (I didn’t double check the answer)
As previously posted: https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21858
I had a chuckle at EBV infection being called “modifiable” - 90-95% of adults are infected.
Very interesting report. If accurate, about 37% of the proportion of attributable cancer causes can be eliminated by eliminating cigarette smoking, excess bodyweight, alcohol and UV radiation, interventions that are relatively easy to accomplish.
The report attributes pretty low percentages of risk to low fruit and vegetable, processed meat, red meat, low fiber, whereas specialists seem to attribute higher qualitative risk proportions to such factors.
Luckily, it is reported to contribute to only 0.2%. If the figure is accurate.
KarlT, for user’s that hide their profile information, go to your own profile/preferences/users. You will find a way to suppress user posts by adding their name and selecting normal, muted or ignored.
Doesn’t appear to work for moderators
