Are we beying revictimized by press and a so called research group?

[koala]

Yesterday while listening to ABC TV I heard these news about this 'research' study that concluded that more-than-one-third-of-cancers-can-be-avoided-if-australians-modify-their-lifestyle. http://theconversation.com/more-than-one-third-of-cancers-can-be-avoided-if-australians-modify-their-lifestyle-48581 That statement is inflammatory, misleading and it has the effect of potentially further victimization of people suffering from this deadly and virtually incurable disease. Since I was diagnosed I have put a large amount of effort into studying this disease. The clear conclusion supported by current research points to the fact that Cancer can Not Be Avoided and it's a disease that is due to our cellular mechanisms which are intrinsically faulty. Ultimately is virtually just a matter of time before a person gets a specific Cancer. There are risk factors that could be correlated with the probability of a faster onset of the disease but that does not necessarily mean they cause Cancer. I also took a brief look at the paper that in my opinion seems quite devoid of substance and rather recycles some other studies. Contrary to most medical papers the Conclusions are quite brief and state nothing close to the " more-than-one-third-of-cancers-can-be-avoided-if-australians-modify-their-lifestyle" inflammatory statement. The associated materials don't seem to ever explicitly state causality between lifestyle and cancer status. Many are non Australian sources which look at patients where life style factor would be hard to control to yield trustworthy statistics. Besides that some of the things listed there(Helicobacter pylori) like bacterial infections could hardly be called lifestyle factors. Yes, we know smoking may increase the speed of acquiring certain cancers. That's hardly news to 10 year old. Pretty much all the information in the article seemed to have been recycled and in my opinion offered only marginal value if any. On top of that this kind of 'studies' cost money to the detriment of active novel research that use modern genetic science to create new patient specific antigens that kill the patient's cancer cells thus offering a real solution to the problem. Many affected people who did not have the time or luxury to study aspects of this disease are struggling with the Why Me question and this unjustly victimizes them so in my opinion this is plainly appalling. Koala

[SILLY]

I'm sorry you feel that way but I think it's true . That research group is reputable . They are giving us the truth . It doesn't mean that you wouldn't get cancer if you did all the right things but it means many people wouldn't have gotten it . The purpose of their studies is to lower the incidences of cancer in the future , not to make cancer patients feel guilty . This is my opinion.

[Jules2]

I think it is true also ... both my cancers have known causes and I did both of those things. In saying that, a friend has just passed from melanoma that appeared on her but and she never sunbaked nude. In my opinion it is just part of what occurs when we get cancer. I think it is difficult for someone that may have lived a so called healthy lifestyle and still got cancer. Hard to come to terms with! Julie

[koala]

Reputable is a relative word. My hairdresser is reputable and she did not cure any cancer patient. In the same time she did not waste any Cancer research funds aimed at finding a solution. How can you lower the incidence of Cancer if you repeat what everybody has been saying for a long time. Everybody (except my son) knows smoking is bad for you, so that's not going to make any difference. This article aims at victimizing people that lead a very healthy life style and mislead the general population as to the reason for the cancer.

[koala]

Not only that I had friends having an extremely 'healthy' lifestyle dying of cancer and people smoking dying of old age (not that I encourage that) but this article is very misleading. Let's say that somebody smokes and let's assume that that would increase the chances of lung cancer by 30%. Hard to go higher than that because I'm pretty sure less than 30% smokers die of lung cancer. So if this somebody gets cancer and reads this article he/she will blame themselves for the lifestyle. But in fact it's about 70% chance that the cancer does not have anything to do with smoking so he/she will blame themselves for nothing. This is more like a fortune teller. It tells you a lot of things hoping that one would stick. So stop blaming yourself and get on with your life in the hope that a worthy researcher will look for a solution for your cancer instead of wasting time, money and cast blame.

[SILLY]

I think the article's purpose is to inform people of the risks of lifestyle choices . There is no point in blaming anyone for getting cancer .Lifestyle choices play a part in all diseases in our bodies but direct cause of one particular disease (e.g. cancer)cannot be attributable to that disease. The way I see it is the healthier our lifestyle , the better our immune system . I also know the we have no direct control over many factors in our environment , such as poisons in the water, soil and air , on which we depend . I also believe that no one thing causes a particular cancer , that it is the interaction of many things on our bodies . I don't necessarily practise what I teach . I just hope it balances out somehow .

[Jules2]

koala I get on with living and have done so for the past 27 years after getting diagnosed with amelanotic melanoma. However, it was attributed to a childhood sunburn as being the cause. 2nd cancer I had was throat cancer and yes I smoked (no longer do). Soooo, maybe a good lesson in that there are dangers attached to certain habits. In saying that I don't believe it is the only cause and agree with both you and silly in that there are other factors involved. Personally, I reckon immune system malfunction of some sort. Just my bet 😄

[nello]

I don't think that article is about pointing fingers or victimisation. It is empowering people through education. Sure, lifestyle factors only account for 1/3 of cancers. By eliminating the lifestyle risks it can give you a sense of control, reduce cancer risk, and reduce anxiety related to fear of recurrence. I reckon this is a huge win! You say that cancer can not be avoided. If this assertion was true then surely everybody would have cancer? Smoking is just one example that increases cancer risk. There are various others such as obesity, poor diet, alcohol intake, and UV exposure. However, cancer is a multifactorial condition which means that the elimination of the modifiable risk factors will not prevent developing cancer, but it will reduce the risk. Other cancers can be attributed to genetic and environmental factors... and there are some types of cancer that currently have unknown causes.

[koala]

Hi Nello, It's reasonable to believe that this paper most probably don't aim at victimizing but rather at producing a publication that would advance somebody's academic career. The victimization is most likely an unintended a side effect. That does not make it right or correct. The study itself does not seem to conclude of study that lifestyle factors account for 1/3 of cancers which is an unsustainable point. It is the reporter that seems to have come up with that conclusion. Saying that cancer can not be avoided, does not mean that everybody would have cancer. A great number of human beings die in or before their infancy and they usually don't have cancer. A great amount of people die of accidents and cancer will not be on their death certificates. A great amount of people die of coronary diseases (mostly in developed countries) before contracting cancer. A great number of people die of other causes before a cancer is diagnosed. It takes quite long before the first cancer cell multiplies enough to be detectable. After that, it can take years or the rest of their lives before the cancer is diagnosed if ever. There seems to be a lot of misleading information in this space. The cause of cancer in general seems to be quite clear based on the material I saw so far. On the other hand factors that might trigger an earlier onset of cancer are poorly understood and it's unlikely that a decent understanding would be ever achieved. Based on that, the value of that is quite nebulous. I see now, processed meat might also be linked to earlier onset of cancer. It's reasonably to believe that hundreds of things around us could be correlated with earlier onset of cancer. A complete list would most likely includes many things considered healthy right now. The bottom line is that none of these studies would put on the table a treatment that would be a solution for cancer.

[koala]

Hi Nello, It's reasonable to believe that this paper most probably don't aim at victimizing but rather at producing a publication that would advance somebody's academic career. The victimization is most likely an unintended a side effect. That does not make it right or correct. The study itself does not seem to conclude of study that lifestyle factors account for 1/3 of cancers which is an unsustainable point. It is the reporter that seems to have come up with that conclusion. Saying that cancer can not be avoided, does not mean that everybody would have cancer. A great number of human beings die in or before their infancy and they usually don't have cancer. A great amount of people die of accidents and cancer will not be on their death certificates. A great amount of people die of coronary diseases (mostly in developed countries) before contracting cancer. A great number of people die of other causes before a cancer is diagnosed. It takes quite long before the first cancer cell multiplies enough to be detectable. After that, it can take years or the rest of their lives before the cancer is diagnosed if ever. There seems to be a lot of misleading information in this space. The cause of cancer in general seems to be quite clear based on the material I saw so far. On the other hand factors that might trigger an earlier onset of cancer are poorly understood and it's unlikely that a decent understanding would be ever achieved. Based on that, the value of that is quite nebulous. I see now, processed meat might also be linked to earlier onset of cancer. It's reasonably to believe that hundreds of things around us could be correlated with earlier onset of cancer. A complete list would most likely includes many things considered healthy right now. The bottom line is that none of these studies would put on the table a treatment that would be a solution for cancer.