Joe Hillshoist » Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:25 am wrote:Burnt Hill » 27 Apr 2016 08:00 wrote:DrEvil » Tue Apr 26, 2016 3:22 pm wrote:And one more thing: If all this stuff is so horrible, why are people living longer than at any point in human history? We must be doing something right. We could probably add about 10 years to everyone's lifespan with better healthcare, food and exercise (Monaco has an average lifespan of 89 years), but we're still living longer than ever, and the numbers keep going up.
Not sure that chemo or radiation gets much credit for the overall increase in life expectancy
At least not to the established maximums.
- it still pulls the average down.
(and life expectancy just dropped for Women in the USA, again).
For example:
Childhood cancer survivors may face shortened lifespan, study reveals
Although more children today are surviving cancer than ever before, young patients successfully treated in the 1970s and 80s may live a decade less, on average, than the general population, according to a study from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the Harvard School of Public Health.
Depending on the type of cancer, the estimated loss of life expectancy ranges from four years to more than 17 years, the scientists report in the April 6 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. Causes of the premature deaths include recurrences of the initial cancer, new cancers caused by drug and radiation therapy, and other delayed complications from cancer treatments.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/childhood-cancer-survivors-may-face-shortened-lifespan-study-reveals/Anecdotally radiation and chemo shortened the lifespan of my mother, and worsened the quality of her remaining life,
How long would survivors of childhood cancers have lived without the treatment?
Would they have survived at all?
Isn't the fact they are called "survivors" of something and they presumably "survived" it because of this treatment a bit of a give away?
If Kid A lived a normal life he would have lived 80 years, but because he had cancer treatment he only lived 70.
OK - how long would that kid have lived without the treatment? 80 years or 12?
Your points were considered and careful reading of my post contradicts none of them.
What hasn't been considered are the many instances where chemo and radiation have shortened lifespans.
And the quality of life for those whose treatments only added a short time to their life.
I am not suggesting any individual should not consider those methods of treatment.
Just bringing other info to the table.