Vervelende verkoop telefoontjes

Hoera!
Per 1 oktober is het afgelopen met de lol...

Hier registreren en dan stopt het.

Curing cancer

The outlook, after so many years, so much money into research, is still very bleak. Basically, if you have metastatic cancer you will always lose the race.

....................................................................................

Yet the death rate for cancer, adjusted for the size and age of the population, dropped only 5 percent from 1950 to 2005. In contrast, the death rate for heart disease dropped 64 percent in that time, and for flu and pneumonia, it fell 58 percent.

Still, the perception, fed by the medical profession and its marketers, and by popular sentiment, is that cancer can almost always be prevented. If that fails, it can usually be treated, even beaten.

The good news is that many whose cancer has not spread do well, as they have in the past. In some cases, like early breast cancer, drugs introduced in the past decade have made an already good prognosis even better. And a few rare cancers, like chronic myeloid leukemia, can be controlled for years with new drugs. Cancer treatments today tend to be less harsh. Surgery is less disfiguring, chemotherapy less disabling.

But difficulties arise when cancer spreads, and, often, it has by the time of diagnosis. That is true for the most common cancers as well as rarer ones.

With breast cancer, for example, only 20 percent with metastatic disease — cancer that has spread outside the breast, like to bones, brain, lungs or liver — live five years or more, barely changed since the war on cancer began.

With colorectal cancer, only 10 percent with metastatic disease survive five years. That number, too, has hardly changed over the past four decades. The number has long been about 30 percent for metastatic prostate cancer, and in the single digits for lung cancer.

As for prevention, progress has been agonizingly slow. Only a very few things — stopping smoking, for example — make a difference. And despite marketing claims to the contrary, rigorous studies of prevention methods like high-fiber or low-fat diets, or vitamins or selenium, have failed to find an effect.

....................................................................................

And for all the money poured into cancer research, there has never been enough for innovative studies, the kind that can fundamentally change the way scientists understand cancer or doctors treat it. Such studies are risky, less likely to work than ones that are more incremental. The result is that, with limited money, innovative projects often lose out to more reliably successful projects that aim to tweak treatments, perhaps extending life by only weeks.

“Actually, that is the biggest threat,” said Dr. Robert C. Young, chancellor of the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. “Every organization says, ‘Oh, we want to fund high-risk research.’ And I think they mean it. But as a matter of fact, they don’t do it.”

....................................................................................

Yet the grim facts about cancer can be lost among the positive messages from the news media, advocacy groups and medical centers, and even labels on foods and supplements, hinting that they can fight or prevent cancer. The words tend to be carefully couched, but their impression is unmistakable and welcomed: cancer is preventable if you just eat right and exercise. If you are screened regularly, cancers can be caught early and almost certainly will be cured. If by some awful luck, your cancer is potentially deadly, miraculous new treatments and more in the pipeline could cure you or turn your cancer into a manageable disease.

Unfortunately, as many with cancer have learned, the picture is not always so glowing.

....................................................................................

It turns out that, with few exceptions, mostly childhood cancers and testicular cancer, there is no cure once a cancer has spread. The best that can be done is to keep it at bay for a while.

Source
....................................................................................

Sacked for talking to the media about climate change??

A scientist of such stature?

Surely not? Surely, New Zealand is not so backward in these issues? Surely they would not sack someone after 27 years without even so much as a warning???

Oh my.

Leading Government scientist Jim Salinger, an international pioneer in climate change research, has been sacked for what he says is talking out of turn to news organisations.

Dr Salinger, 62, says he was summarily dismissed from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) at 4pm on Thursday, and given three and a half hours to clear out his Auckland office.

He told the Weekend Herald he received no formal written warnings leading to his dismissal, which followed a 27-year career as a Government scientist, and no criticism of his work.

Dr Salinger claims the information he provided included calling television weatherman Jim Hickey from Greymouth last week to let him know the rivers were in flood.

His work helped an international group of scientists to which he belongs, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, share the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with former United States Vice-President Al Gore.

Dr Salinger, whose postgraduate studies in 1975 produced what later came to be regarded as a watershed paper on climate change at a time when the concept was resisted by most scientists, is also a Companion of the Royal Society and heads the World Commission for Agricultural Meteorology.

source

Accountability

i wish we could send these kinds of bastards to jail


no, really, i do.
they have many lives on their conscience and in future, probably the sustainability of this planet for human life
they have fouled the nest in the most unacceptable way.
they stole from future generations.
and they did it willfully, fully understanding the consequences. the removed section makes this perfectly clear. there was massive money behind them, any (mostly underpaid) climate scientist could not possibly rise above the clamor.

the world delayed meaningful action because of this group.
this i do not doubt.
at this point it's not likely that anything we do would still make a difference, that ship has sailed.

we could have stopped the tide though, without too much pain,
but they blocked it.
so i believe that they should be held accountable.
if not by jail time, then bleed the bastards financially
since they did it for the money, let's take that away from them.

seriously.
every fucking dime.

Mudpie Dot!

Veluwe, earlier today

Nog even wachten...

In de Volkskrant van vandaag:

Door de crisis komen dit en volgend jaar tussen de 100 en 140 duizend huiseigenaren in betalingsproblemen. Daarmee dreigt een op de twintig huizenbezitters zijn hypotheeklasten niet meer te kunnen dragen.

Ironie

vanmorgen op nu.nl :



tja.