Without resorting to actual figures or links to them you claimed that lung cancer is more prevalent than breast cancer.
which it is. i have provided you with a bunch of WHO stats to support that. are you claiming it is other wise. if so then back it up.
I provided statistics that, in Australia at least, four other cancers are more prevalent than lung cancers.
which is irrelevant in the context of the original quote that "breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in the world" , as the global statistics from the WHO i posted show you, that is not the case.
When you belatedly did post figures, two of them (breast and prostate cancer) contradicted your own original assertion.
no, those were American data showing comparable prevalence but that was as i said simply some comparable data whilst i looked up the global stuff. When i found and posted the most recent WHO global data, it backed up exactly what i had said. That lung cancer is the most prevalent form of cancer in the world. Look.
According to GLOBOCAN 2008, the most common cancers worldwide are lung (1.61 million, 12.7% of the total), breast (1.38 million, 10.9%), and colorectal (1.23 million, 9.7%).
The most common causes of cancer death are lung (1.38 million, 18.2% of the total), stomach (0.74 million, 9.7%), and liver (0.69 million, 9.2%) cancers.
are you now satisfied that the WHO state quite clearly that lung cancer is both the most prevalent AND (by far) fatal cancer in the world?
Then you had the brilliant idea of moving the goal posts. It wasn't prevalence of cancer you were talking about any more. You said you meant to refer to the difference in fatalities as opposed to raw prevalence.
are you misrepresenting what i said because you actually dont get it or because you are unable to admit you were wrong? The data i posted, from the global cancer study conducted by the WHO shows that lung cancer is both the most prevalent form of cancer world wide, AND by far the leader in fatality rates. BOTH, not either or, BOTH. What bit of that arent you getting? It is the most prevalent and has the highest fatality rates per diagnosis. Did you even check the WHO globocan data? because you seem to be responding to something other than the data i linked to and posted.
except you also said "prostate cancer is comparably prevalent to breast cancer as well but is massively disproportionately underfunded in comparison.
which is it, i posted the data to support that as well, do i need to link back to it for you or are you ignoring it on purpose? breast cancer and prostate cancer have comparable rates of prevalence and the data supports that.
neatly ignoring the fact that breast cancer is way more fatal than prostrate cancer
define "more fatal as you are using it. To me it means causing death. Are you claiming that breast cancer make you more dead becasue otherwise you need to define what you mean. Both diseases cause death in a comparable percentage of diagnosed cases however it tends to happen on a quicker timescale with breast cancer. That doesnt mean it is "more fatal" but that it is in some cases more aggressive.
Once you have defined fatal as you meant it, i'm Still waiting for YOU to back up your assertion as requested below.
Breast cancer is a multiple times more fatal than prostate cancer.
So lets see your cited numbers for "multiple times" more fatal. I will grant you that 1.5 - 1.7x is "a multiple" but i suspect you are claiming it is much higher than that?
Breast cancer is more aggressive, and the time of diagnosis to death his often much shorter, but thats not the same thing.
thanks.
Anyway, I'm getting bored with your caterwauling, so let's turn back to the topic.
lol, A weak PA diversionary tactic? really? You are the one asked for stats and then got pissy andunable to backdown when it supported what i originally said. Do you need me to link back to it or are you now happy to concede that i have backed up what i said, as you asked? Its really no bother for me to link to it again for you if its too much effort for you to look up the page a little yourself.
once you are happy i have proved my point to your satisfaction, i'll gladly move on but for you to continue to make out like i
havent backed up my claims is disingenuous to the point of deliberate dishonesty. Its all there in the above posts.
I think the breakthrough is not going to be felt outside the laboratory for quite some time to come.
agreed, i said as much in about post 3. There is always a bit of excitement at such potential but that observation in the lab is a long way from any working theraputic product.
It's only at the tissue culture dishes stage now. The researchers see that the virus is killing the cancer cells, but at this stage they don't know how this happens.
well they seem to be assuning that it is inducing apoptosis though via which pathway is yet to be ascertained. FAS ligation through caspase 3 and 8 is a common pathway for external apoptosis induction so presumably that will be one to be looked at early, but thats i still not exactly cut and dried.
They are probably also aware that viri can mutate with ease, so they can't simply infect a cancer patient with it. So far the AAV2 virus only attacks cancer cells, but that does not mean that future generations of the virus will be as discriminatory.
true, oncolytics virus stabilisation is always tricky, even those virii used to transfect cell lines for research purposes can be problematic in such a way.
Consequently, they not only have yet to discover just how the virus does its trick, but also invent a synthetic therapeutic that somehow mimics the process with the same effect. I think the latter task is going to be even trickier than the former.
if not a synthetic theraputic then a stabilized form of the virus.
still, it IS encouraging. Did you also see the recent Bell lab breakthough i mentioned earlier? They managed to label a modified pox virus and in human trials demonstrate tumour specific infection. The idea being not so much that the virus will serve as a functional oncolytic in its own right but more so that it could work as a specifically targeted vehicle for optimised chemotherapy.
newa article
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/201 ... study.html
and nature paper.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 10358.html
neat stuff, the smart money is definitely on viral delivery or direct oncolysis for a long term effective treatment. i think we seem to be in agreement on that point at least.
^^ heh