• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

"Armstrong to blame for his own cancer"

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Visit site
mastersracer said:
there are large geographical disparities in the incidence of various cancers but there are no societies in which it is 'unheard of' and no relation to 'naturalistic' societies - that's just a myth...

To be more accurite there are societies ( as apposed to nations) were some of the major cancer types afflicting much of the developed world are virtually unheard of but rather than get into the semantics heres a list of cancer death rates from many major countries around the world.
By understanding why theres such large disparity there is much to learn.

http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interface/raterisk/rates39.html
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
Visit site
Darryl Webster said:
To be more accurite there are societies ( as apposed to nations) were some of the major cancer types afflicting much of the developed world are virtually unheard of but rather than get into the semantics heres a list of cancer death rates from many major countries around the world.
By understanding why theres such large disparity there is much to learn.

http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interface/raterisk/rates39.html

There are many cancers that are much higher in the developing world than the developed world, e.g., cervical, liver. Statistics that are aggregates of all cancer types is not revealing - regional statistics need to distinguish among cancer types:
http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/49/1/33.pdf
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,003
0
0
Visit site
The disparity in cervical cancer levels is almost certainly linked to the fact that women in the developed world menstruate something like 4 times as much as women in the third world - the root of all cancer being cell fivision. And those rates for cervical cancer were much lower when women had children younger, had more children, breast fed (basically anything that suppressed menstruation)
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
bianchigirl said:
The disparity in cervical cancer levels is almost certainly linked to the fact that women in the developed world menstruate something like 4 times as much as women in the third world - the root of all cancer being cell fivision. And those rates for cervical cancer were much lower when women had children younger, had more children, breast fed (basically anything that suppressed menstruation)
interesting observations, biachigirl. thanks.
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
Visit site
bianchigirl said:
The disparity in cervical cancer levels is almost certainly linked to the fact that women in the developed world menstruate something like 4 times as much as women in the third world - the root of all cancer being cell fivision. And those rates for cervical cancer were much lower when women had children younger, had more children, breast fed (basically anything that suppressed menstruation)
This is bollox. Age standardised cervical cancer rates are highest in the third world. Menstruation doesn't rank very highly as a risk factor for cervical cancer for fairly obvious biological reasons. Maybe you ought to try out your hypothesis on endometrial cancer. Also please don't use the phrase "almost certainly" without somekind of incontrovertible evidence.
 

TRENDING THREADS