Cancer Deaths Drop In U.S.

Health Officials Believe Decline Is Real, Attribute Success To Drop In Smoking, Earlier Detection

(CBS/AP)  Cancer deaths in the United States have dropped for a second straight year.

After a decline of 369 deaths from 2002 to 2003, the decline from 2003 to 2004 was 3,014 — or more than eight times greater, according to a review of U.S. death certificates by the American Cancer Society.

The drop from 2002 to 2003 was the first annual decrease in total cancer deaths since 1930. But the decline was slight that experts were hesitant to say whether it was a cause for celebration or a statistical fluke.

The most common cancers in men are prostate, lung and colon, and they are all showing lower death rates, reports CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook.

For women, the most common cancers are breast, colon and lung, with breast and colon death rates going down and the rate for lung cancer leveling of, LaPook reports.

The trend seems to be real, Cancer Society officials said.

"It's not only continuing. The decrease in the second year is much larger," said Ahmedin Jemal, a researcher at the organization.

Cancer deaths dropped to 553,888 in 2004, down from 556,902 in 2003 and 557,271 in 2002, the American Cancer Society found.

"Screening has made a very important difference for breast cancer and colorectal cancer," said Elizabeth Ward, a researcher with the Cancer Society.

Experts are also attributing the success to a decline in smoking and earlier detection and more effective treatment of tumors. Those have caused a fall in the death rates for breast, prostate and colorectal cancer — three of the most common cancers.

In December, a researchers concluded that breast cancer rates in the United States dropped dramatically in 2003. The 7.2 percent decline came a year after a big federal study linked menopause hormones to a higher risk of breast cancer, heart disease and other problems. Within months, millions of women stopped taking the pills.

The largest drop in deaths among the major cancers was in colorectal cancer. Colorectal cancer deaths dropped by 1,110 in men and by 1,094 in women.

"The biggest driver in colon cancer's decline in mortality is colon cancer screening, which has proven to save lives," said Dr. Otis Brawley, an Emory University researcher specializing in cancer epidemiology.

President Bush on Wednesday hailed the downward trend in cancer deaths in the United States.

Before participating in a roundtable discussion of advances in cancer prevention, Mr. Bush visited a urological oncology laboratory run by the National Cancer Institute. He peered into a microscope at slides of kidney cancer cells and looked at family trees to show how the gene identified with the disease moves through generations.

For more than a decade, health statisticians have charted annual drops of about 1 percent in the cancer death rate — the calculated number of deaths per 100,000 people. But the actual number of cancer deaths still rose each year because the growth in total and elderly population outpaced falling death rates.

"This is a dramatic improvement over where we were before because the population continues to grow and it continues to age, and we would expect more people to die from cancer than fewer," Dr. Harmon Eyre of the American Cancer Society told CBS News.

In 2003 and 2004, the cancer death rate declined by about 2 percent each year — more than offsetting the effects of aging and population growth.

The Cancer Society also projected how many cancer cases and deaths will occur this year — more than 1.4 million new cases and 559,650 deaths.

The incidence estimate is based on nine previous years of data. The death projection, based on about 35 years of data, suggests annual cancer deaths will rise again. But the data did not fully capture the new trend in declining deaths, said Ward.

Despite that estimate, Cancer Society officials now believe cancer deaths will continue to drop, Ward and others said.

[drinuk]

Hey Rodbarker60, Be Careful, you have been taking an illegal medicine. Yes, can you believe that, because it is very effective against cancer they have Banned it. Yes the common Apricot, they came up with *** like it contains cyanide, it probably does but will not cause you harm unless you are eating 10lbs a day, which you don't need to. FDA again, told what to do by BIG PHARMA MAFIA

cbgb31...Great. 570,000 poisoned and gone forever.

[rodbarker60]

The cure was found back in the late 70's and was even tested in a major hospital by the leading medical researcher of the day. They rejected everything he said and went through three other research scientist before they found one that made the claims they wanted to hear. If it's naturally occurring they can't make money on it and they won't promote it. I've been taking them for 3 years just as a preventitive measure and have given them to those I know whith cancer. My brother-in-law had three small lumps. The Doctors told him they could go into remission, but would never go away. Within three months they were completely gone...
Apricot Seeds!

[cbgb31]

efficacy, had to look it up.

[cbgb31]

600,000 cancer diagnosis' @ 5% efficasy = 30,000 lives saved by chemo.

[drinuk]

Furthermore, do you understand the reason for this publicity? Chemo itself is a massive industry, it is making billions of dollars for everyone concerned. This current story is simply to counter the study undertaken in America and Australia that Chemo is less than 5% effective.
Please try to understand the scam, if these crooks found a cure they would be out of business, if the FDA allowed the open use of Natural unpatentable medicine, Big Pharma would be Gone! There 'aint no cash in a cure, they make billions on comfort and dependency.

[drinuk]

SC1970,
I'm tempted to stoop to your level of insult but I will refrain. In a very well publisised report during the last month in Both America and Australia it stated that the success rate of Chemotherapy is less than 5%. Do you understand That? 95% plus 5% = 100%. This news item may well have been passed you by, as we in Europe have far less censorship on such matters. Big Pharma and the FDA do not control our media outlets as they do yours.

[hermit22]

since president nixon started the war on cancer in 1971, where would we be if someone arbitrarily set a date and stopped it in 4 years?

[randalds]

Shame there wasn't two more cancer deaths in 2006. George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. That alone would have saved the lives of thousands of people.

[bildooreilly]

I know of a couple people that died during chemo the last couple years one a good friend, and I think it kills a lot of people too. However it does work for some people, an ex of mine her uncle had cancer and was doing chemo and went into a coma for 6 months and woke up cured. It's a pretty risky deal though and what a horrible way to live out your last days if it fails. What they're practicing there is what the symbol of medicine comes from the caudacus the two serpents wrapped around the staff of mercury. You see what they're trying to do is neutralize two poisons by mixing them together, so in order to cure this poisonous cancer they're giving you some poisonous chemicals... it's all based on ancient alchemy...





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chemo is killing 95% more folks than it is curing.

Really? Where are your statistics or studies? Where is any proof? Could it be that you're pulling that statement right out of your arse?
Posted by SC1970 at 01:33 PM : Jan 17, 2007
+ report this comment

[tmn]

"Since Nixon declared the war on cancer in 1971, if you add up all the money the federal government has spent from that point until today%u201435 years%u2019 worth%u2014it adds up to basically seven months in Iraq.%u201D
%u2014Lance Armstrong

[missval973]

Just the decrease of certain hormone replacement therapies (that have been proven in studies to cause cancer) should be enough to decrease the amount of breast cancer deaths. It is quite unbeleiveable how they got away with that therapy for so long!

[lestb35]

We're going to win this battle. It's taken a long time but I'll bet we see the end of this scourge in our lifetime.

[sc1970-2009]

Chemo is killing 95% more folks than it is curing.

Really? Where are your statistics or studies? Where is any proof? Could it be that you're pulling that statement right out of your arse?

[mdc76082]

DRinUK, Homopathy didn't work for Steve McQueen, just like Chemo doesn't work for everyone. The only thing close to a guarantee DR will give, 5 years. And now that just about everything we eat, touch, smell or hear causes cancer, what's the difference...5 years. So who really wins and who really loses? the lucky ones get remission longer, but it's only temporary. The unlucky ones...well they die within after 5 years of treatment...the really unlucky ones don't respond and die immediately. Blame whom ever you want. I agree the Rx game is for nothig more than big $$$$, I've been told that by alot of folks who are in the business. That's not news. The news is, now that we are surrounded by cancer causing objects, agents, etc., the only thing we can do is really "early detection". Even then...that's not a guarantee nor is it a cure. Scary ain't it.

[drinuk]

This sounds like more mis-information by Big Pharma. Chemo is killing 95% more folks than it is curing. Just maybe these people surviving are taking Natural Medicines and not the junk poisons delivered by the Drug Mafia. The real test of those surviving is...will they still be with us in 6 years time ??

[fleshmonger6]

I am reminded of a wonderful line from pulp fiction in which Harvey Keitel's character advises others that now is not the time to start patting each other on the back just yet... Though he uses much more colorful terminology. The point is that though this is good news, no one should think of it as really good news except for those 3014 people and their families. There is a lot of work left to do and a lot for the public to learn as to why it hasn't already been done.