Thanks Timble2 I tried downloading it off the link and just left it, eventually it loaded.
In contrast, age-standardised mortality from cancer (malignant
and non–malignant neoplasms) in both males and females
changed relatively little during the 50 year period.
This was supposed to be cause of the problem. Look at the graphs again Ghostisfort in this the version which you claimed was withdrawn due to pressure from the medical mafia, but also take some time to read the text.
Also you claim, so far without posting any references, that the medical profession claimed that longer life spans affected the stats. You seem to find something wrong with this, why would that be? It’s a fact. The elderly population has been increasing over that period. There are a lot more elderly people living in Britain today than ever before.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=168
Cancer is predominantly a disease of the elderly. The overall crude
annual rates of cancer incidence in 1997, 423 per 100,000
population for males and 426 for females, conceal wide differences
between the sexes and across the age-groups.
This is bound to affect the cancer mortality, what would be surprising is if it didn’t. Look at the figures again as a whole and notice how the instances of other major types of disease have declined. Strokes decrease by two thirds in both males and females, heart disease drops by over a half in males and nearly two thirds in females
In short you’ll see an increase in the incidences an effects of a certain disease if you increase the size of the group most associated with it and reduce the impact of other competing diseases on that group.
To test whether there’s any validity in your claim that research and improved medical technology hasn’t helped it’s best to examine some of the cancers by incidence, mortality and age, over the years. These aren’t the most up to date figures but they’re the ones you quoted as leading to the conclusion that;
The reason for complaints about Cancer Trends was because on the figure titled "Deaths from all causes" there is a straight line from 1950 to 19999 for all cancers. In other words, there was no change in the number of cancer deaths in those 49 years up to 1999. This is in spite of all the money spent on research and all of the campaigns such as anti-smoking
Firstly breast cancer to examine the effects of a screening programme. Females only. Incidences raised sharply in all groups over 50 years old, the age at which women are routinely offered screens. Despite the increase in incidence the mortality rates remain similar to those recorded in 1950. The only increase being in the over 85’s.
Then the two other most common forms of cancer.
Firstly incidences of lung cancer, in females incidences were raised in 97 from 71 the biggest increase being in the 65-84 age range. In males there was a decline except in the 75-84 which remained fairly constant and the over 85’s which increased from around 350/100,000 to apr 580/100,000.
Mortality rates halved for males under 55 years, and increased in all other older age groups. In females the mortality rose pretty much in line with the increasing incidences, again the biggest increase being in the over 65’s.
Then colorectal cancer, overall though there are fluctuations the rates of incidences are fairly similar in 1971 and 1997 in both sexes. However the rates of mortality have dropped in every group. The highest rates of incidence and mortality again being found in the over 85’s.
You could argue that these last two are particularly significant in view of a reduction in deaths from coronary and cardio-vascular disease reported (though as a whole they’re still Britain’s biggest killer) as factors associated with colorectal and lung cancer smoking and diet are also the major risk factors for heart and vascular disease.
I suggest you go back and read it again. The figures presented show that population age and decrease of other diseases are highly significant, and in fact there is ample evidence there that modern treatments are significantly improving patients’ outcomes.
Especially regarding breast cancer where the figures do strongly suggest the screening programme is helping.
You claimed that doctors had had this publication withdrawn, but in fact in addition to it’s update which is viewable for free, it’s on sale from four mainstream retailers, it can be viewed in full at two official government websites and one other website, and is quoted as a reference by Cancer Research UK. All this on the first results page. Therefore I think that claim was wrong.
You also claimed that it was in fact Tesco that had caused the population of this country to live longer not medicine. There is some truth there in that the availability of and improvement in food quality plays in an important part in general health. However your denial that medicine and by extension the NHS and the efforts of it’s staff is not also responsible I find offensive.
I don't usually do medical, not my area
but this isn’t medicine it’s reading numbers on a graph.