Stanislaw Rajmund Burzynski, Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Stanislaw Burzynski, Stan R. Burzynski, Stan Burzynski, S. R. BURZYNSKI, S. Burzynski, Arthur Burzynski, Hippocrates Hypocrite Hypocrites Critic Critics Critical HipoCritical
David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S. is an academic (i.e.: egg-head, paper-pusher, apparatchik) surgical oncologistspecializing in breast surgery and oncologic surgery
Gorski is no H.G. Wells
Wellscould, at least, tell a convincing lie; as he did in War of the Worlds
Gorski’d likely #fail as his evil half-brother, “H.G. #Fails”, in World War Peed, and probably didn’t think his readers would get the double-entendre’
Gorski is more famouser for pie in the sky
He’ll never be likened to Samuel Langhorne Clemens, or receive a “Mark Twain Award”
He’s an unlicensed Hackademic Quackademic who believes that bad press is good press, any press is good press
Gorski is the “Guy” who felt he was Scroogled by Google, when he and his public relations (P.R.) team; which reside in the hyperthalamus section of his brain, decided on 12/5/2012 to go pure pseudononsense pseudononscience:
Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski: On the arrogance of ignorance about cancer and targeted therapies [1]
wherein he quoted
Dr Burzynski:
“I published the review article in a peer-reviewed journal almost 20 years ago on the principles of personalized gene-targeted therapy”
====================================== Gorski:
“Curious as to just what the heck Burzynski was talking about here, I searched PubMed for this alleged review article”
“I couldn’t find it on PubMed”
“His only publications from the 1990s had nothing to do with cancer as a “genetic disease” or “personalized gene-targeted cancer therapy” and everything to do with antineoplastons”
“Perhaps Burzynski proposed this “revolutionary”
new idea in a peer-reviewed article that’s not indexed in PubMed, but if he did I couldn’t find it using Google and Google Scholar”
“I was in graduate school 20 years ago, and was taught back then that cancer was primarily a genetic disease.. ”
“There’s a term called “oncogene,” which describes genes that, when either mutated or too much is made, can result in cancer” ======================================
====================================== Gorski would have the reader suspend belief, and believe that he’s notsmarter than a fifth-grader; which is entirely plausible
That he could not do a search on the words:
antineoplastons
oncogenes
Burzynski
and find anything whatsoever ======================================
======================================
and that he did not have the cranial capacity to access the Burzynski Clinic web-site’s Scientific Publications page: ======================================
======================================
The United States Food and Drug Administration(FDA) did NOT have any problem finding it ======================================
====================================== Pg. 24
1997 – Burzynski. S.R. Antineoplastons. oncogenes and cancer. Anti-Aging Medical Therapeutics, Vol.1. Klatz RM.
Goldman R. (Ed). Health Quest Publication 1997; Marina del Rey, CA. USA
——————————————————————
======================================
This, from a doctor, eager to prove to the world, just how smart he is, because of:
—————————————————————— 12/.5/2011 – “positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center“[2] ======================================
====================================== 12/13/2012 – “positions I hold at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center“[3] ======================================
====================================== 3/7/2013 – “my last two jobs have been at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers“[4] ======================================
====================================== 11/2/2012 – “Personally having pored over Burzynski’s publications” [5] ======================================
====================================== 2/18/2013 – “I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers” [6] ======================================
====================================== 6/5/2013 – “I do know cancer science” [8] ======================================
====================================== 6/10/2013 – “I do know cancer science” [9] ======================================
====================================== 6/7/2013 – “Unlike Mr. Merola, I am indeed very concerned with getting my facts correct” [10] ======================================
======================================
The same “Guy” who claimed:
Burzynskinever explains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons ======================================
======================================
A statement which I showed to be incorrect, by pointing out at least 18 different Burzynskiscientific publications which did what Gorski claimed they did NOT [11-12] ======================================
======================================
When Dr. David H. Gorski said:
—————————————————————— “Personally having pored over Burzynski’s publications”–11/2/2012
“I’ve read many of Burzynski’s papers”–2/18/2013
“I’ve searched Burzynski’s publications”–5/8/2013
——————————————————————
exactly what did he mean by “pored over,” “read,” and “searched”?
Some Bill Clintonesque definition designed to try and stump anyone who’s not smarter than a fifth-grader ?
(“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is,’ is”)
You don’t have to be smarter than a fifth-grader to understand that ifDr. Gorski actually did what he said he did, that he should have been able to conclude without any hint of doubt, thatBurzynskiexplains which genes are targeted by antineoplastons
Where was your head ?
Was your head in Mississippi?
Was your head like a hole ?
Or was your head so far up your “Show Me State” pal Robert J.(don’t call me “Bobby”)Bob (I’m not a doctor, I just pretend like I’m one on the otherburzynskipatientgroup (TOBPG) and houstoncancerquack) blatherskite Blatherskitewicz(known liar) Blaskiewicz’s AstroTurf campaign, that you couldn’t see what you were not doing ?
This is a guywho has been funded by:
a) the Department of Defense(DOD)
b) the NIH (National Institutes of Health)
c) the Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO
and
d) the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
and this is the kind of supposed “Science-Based Medicine”(SBM)“results” he produces ?
This guy is proclaimed as:
“a prolific essayist and managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, a highly-respected blog that exposes non-scientific research and practices”
A “highly-respected blog”?
really ?
Really ??
REALLY ???
You’ve gotta be kiddin’ me !!!
“For the last ten years, he has been a major voice — as himself and pseudonymously — for science-based medicine”
You mean that “Orac”Hack ?
“Dr Gorski also runs an active research laboratory at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute”
Research ?
Is it similar to his “research” which I exposed here?
And yet, after showcasing such “brillianot” research skilz, Tuesday, 7/30/2013, Dr. Gorski was appointed / named program co-director of Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative(MiBOQI); a state-wide initiative to improve the quality of breast cancer care using evidence-based guidelines[13]
He “will be involved in many aspects of the quality initiative”
Let’s hope that one of those aspects is NOT the “research” one
“Dr. Gorski has the breadth and depth of knowledge to effectively lead our very strong Breast Multidisciplinary Team,” said Dr. Bepler
“I have every confidence that Dr. Gorski will continue this very high standard of care.”
Perhaps Dr. Bepler is out-of-touch with reality when it comes to Gorski’s “research” and “standard of care” abilities
I wonder how long it is before his effort at infiltrating evidence-based guidelines with his Science-Based Medicine, raises its ugly hypocritical head ?
During the Holidays, maybe Dr. Gorski will have time to celebrate his promotion with his wife with an evening out, and before he pops the surprise to her about his retirement plans for Castro’s Cuba, he can take her by the hands, stare into her eyes with his big brown eyes; they have to be brown, right (?), because he’s so full of “it,” (?) and tell her these heart-warming words:
Darling, I know, that you know, that what I do brings home the bacon, and so it makes a difference in Michigan
In fact, I wanted to let you know how much of a difference I’m helping to make
1997 thru 2001, African American women breast cancer death rates per 100,000 in Michigan; as reported in the American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans, 2005-2006, listed Michigan as the state tied with the 20 most breast cancer cases per 100,000, with 36.2
I’m proud to announce that for the last 2 reporting periods (2011-2014), covering 2003 thru 2009, Michigan is no longer tied with the state with the 20 most cases of breast cancer per 100,000
Michiganis now the state with the 11th most cases of breast cancer in African American women, which rose .5 from 33.8 to 34.3 over the last 2 reporting periods
And that’s not all
African American womenbreast cancer incidences inMichigan, per 100,000, rose from 119.0, 2000 thru 2004 as reported in the 2007-2008 report, up .4 to 119.4, 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
Additionally, African American womenbreast cancer death rates inMichigan, per 100,000, rose from 33.8 for 2003 thru 2007, as reported for 2011-2012, up .5 to 34.3 for 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014
And furthermore, breast cancer incidences in Michigan, per 100,000, were 119.4 for African American women for 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014, and 118.7 for 2006 thru 2010 for white women, reported 2013-2014
So African American womenhad .7 more breast cancer incidences thanwhite women
And also, the breast cancer death rates inMichigan, per 100,000, was 34.3 forAfrican American women 2006 thru 2010, reported 2013-2014, 11.5 more than the 22.8 for white women for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
And I thought you’d be very pleased to know that the estimated new breast cancer cases in women inMichigan, rose from 6,120 in 2008, to 8,140 in 2013
An increase of 2,010
And, Michiganwent from being the state with the 9th most cases of estimated new breast cancer cases, to the 8th
And as if that were not enough great news for you, the estimated breast cancer deaths in women inMichigan, rose from 1,350 in 2004, to an additional 10 more women, 1,360 in 2013
And just like with the estimated new women breast cancer cases, again, Michiganwent from being the state with the 9th most cases of estimated breast cancer deaths, to the 8th
And last, but certainly not least, Michigan cancer death rates dropped from 25.8 in 2008, 1.8 to 24.0 in 2013
However, Michiganwent from being the state tied with the 18th most cancer cases per 100,000, to the state tied with the 11th most
But don’t worry honey
If you’re white like me, because you’re in Michigan, the breast cancer incidence for you per 100,000, went from 133.9 for 1998 thru 2002, as reported 2005-2006, down 15.2 to 118.7 for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
And, even better, white death rates in Michigan per 100,000, dropped from 27.3 for 1996 thru 2000, as reported 2003-2004, 4.5 to 22.8 for 2006 thru 2010, as reported 2013-2014
And best of all, sweetie, if you do get breast cancer and you’re white, you have a 9% better 5-year overall survival rate (69% – whites / 60% – African Americans, and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites)
And I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that life expectancy is lower forAfrican Americans than whites among women (77.2 vs. 80.9 years) (2013-2014)
If that’s not job security for me, I don’t know what is
The mistake that Gorski made is that he did not take into account that this is not the age of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, etc
In this day and age, people canNOT get away with adopting lying as a part of a strategy, because the NSA is watching, and so are We, the People
Remain calm
Germans subjugated themselves to Hitler, the Soviets, Stalin, Italians, Mussolini, Cubans to Castro, and none of them were worth subjugating oneself to
None of them were worth being put on a pedestal
None of them were greater than you or I
Gorski is NOT the greater good
Gorski has a degree in “B.S.” from the University of Michigan
I do not have a “B.S.” degree
I’m the one NOT full of“B.S.”
Now that sounds like a story ripe for a journalistic investigation
So, I guess that means Bob Blaskiewicz’s fave “journalist,” Liz Szabo, and USA TODAY, are out of the running for this type of “reporting”
But look on the bright side:
“In his new role, he will work with the Samuel Silver, M.D., Ph.D., who is the MiBOQI program director, as well as assistant dean for Research and professor of Internal Medicine/Hematology-Oncology at the University of Michigan Medical School”
Maybe “the Samuel Silver, M.D., Ph.D.” will be GorskGeeks“checks and balances” ====================================== “Our only goal is to promote high standards of science in medicine” ====================================== http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
======================================
====================================== Such risible hyperbole would induce fits of laughter in me if it weren’t such a complete lie ======================================
I’m just glad dad got outta Kellogg country while he could
—————————————————————— P.S.: Per Dr. David H. Gorski, anything which might erroneously be perceived as a lie about Burzynski, is NOT anything wrong, per Wayne State University[14] ======================================
David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S., is a racist and a natural born killer
That’s right !
Dr. Gorski hates #cancer
He’s a bigot when it comes to breast cancer
Gorski sleeps, breathes, and blogs about breast cancer
He is an academicsurgical oncologistspecializing in breast surgery and oncologic surgery(Surgical Oncology Attending) at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michiganspecializing in breast cancer surgery, where he also serves as team leader for the Breast Cancer Multidisciplinary Team(MDT) at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center, Co-Chair, Cancer Committee, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center, medical director of the Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center(2010-present), Co-Leader of the Breast Cancer Biology Program, and the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer(ACS CoC) Cancer Liaison Physician as well as Associate Professor of Surgery at the Wayne State University School of Medicine; Faculty (2008-present), and member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology at Wayne State University, MiBOQI project director(clinical champion) for Karmanos Cancer Center, site project director of the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, a partnership between Karmanos and the University of Michigan, the new program co-director(Co-Medical Director) of the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative(MiBOQI); a state-wide initiative to improve the quality of breast cancer care using evidence-based guidelines, serves as the co-director of the Comprehensive Breast Center and is co-leader of the Breast Cancer Biology Program at Karmanos and Wayne State University School of Medicine, a Wayne State University Physician Group surgeon and chief of the Section of Breast Surgery(Breast Surgery Section) for the Wayne State University School of Medicine (2009-present), serves as an associate professor of surgery and Oncology at Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, and Treasurer and on the Board of Directors, and also serves the Institute for Science in Medicine as head of its childhood immunization committee
Prior to joining Karmanos and Wayne State University School of Medicine, was an associate professor of surgery at The Cancer Institute of New Jersey and the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, NJ, as well as a member of the Joint Graduate Program in Cell & Developmental Biology at Rutgers University in Piscataway, N.J.
1984 – Graduation with Honors and High Distinction in Chemistry
1994 – MetroHealth Medical Center Resident Research
He attended the University of Michigan Medical School, received his B.S. in chemistry from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, medical degree (M.D.) from the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Chicago Fellowship, Surgical Oncology, Case Western Reserve University / University Hospitals Case Medical Center Internship, General Surgery, Case Western: Reserve University / University Hospitals Case Medical Center Residency, General Surgery, and received his Ph.D. in cellular physiology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
1998 – American Board of Surgery
Assistant Professor of Surgery UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey
1999 – 2006: Assistant Professor of Surgery
1999 – 2008: Active, Surgical Oncology and General Surgery
2005 – 2006: Active, Surgical Oncology and General Surgery
2007 – American Society of Clinical Oncology Advanced Clinical Research
2007 – Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO and Breast Cancer Research Foundation Advanced Clinical Research Award in Breast Cancer
2006 – 2008: Associate Professor of Surgery
Faculty, General Surgery, St. Peter’s University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey
Attending Surgeon, Trauma Services, Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Illinois
2015 – Michigan State Medical License (Active through)
2015 – Ohio State Medical License (Active through)
Managing Editor of the Science-Based Medicine weblog, as well as a once-weekly contributor
SBM exists to take a skeptical, science-based view of medicine in general and in particular the infiltration of pseudoscientific practices into medicine, even in academic medical centers
These entities must have felt lucky to add a University of Michigan alum to their toolbox, a wolverine; a creature also known as a glutton or skunk bear
Who would doubt that Gorski would be a gluttonfor punishment when it comes to raising a big stink about breast cancer issues?
Surely he was aware: Detroit, Michigan; the most populous city in the state of Michigan, with a population of 701,475 (2012) (9,883,360 – Michigan), 575,321 (81.4%) being African American (Black); a little less than six times the national average (82.7% – 2010 / about 83% – 2012) (Michigan – 14.2% – 2010), 369,616 Females (52.7% – 2012 / 53% – 2010) (Michigan 50.9%)
No doubt he knew that the most recent American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures, noted:
——————————————————————
• Studies have documented unequal receipt of prompt, high-quality treatment for African American women compared to white women
• African Americans more likely to be diagnosed at later stage of disease when treatment choices are more limited and less effective
• African Americans and other racial minorities are underrepresented in clinical trials, which makes it more difficult to assess efficacy of cancer therapies among different racial/ethnic groups
• African Americanshave highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial and ethnic group in US for most cancers
• Life expectancy lower for African Americans than whites among women (77.2 vs. 80.9 years)
• Higher death rate in African American women compared to white womenoccurs despite lower cancer incidence rate
• Racial difference in overall cancer death rates is due largely to cancers of the breast and colorectum in women
• African American womenhave higher death rates overall and for breast and several other cancer sites
• African Americanscontinue to have lower 5-year survival overall:
69% – whites 60% – African Americans
and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites
• Evidence aggressive tumor characteristics more common inAfrican American than white women
—————————————————————— Gorskiworked tirelessly to address the problem, by appearing on TV, radio, Internet radio, in articles and on his blogs
Soon, the locals were remarking about the “Gorski Patient Group” web-site which was set up to display anecdotal stories of breast cancer patients who were “cured” by Gorski
How has his hard work paid off ?
—————————————————————— Are these Dr. David H. Gorski’s “success stories” ?
—————————————————————— African American women breast cancer death rates per 100,000 (MICHIGAN)
—————————————————————– 34.3☝2005_-_2009 (State with 11 most) 2013-2014
33.8👇2003_-_2007 (State with 11 most) 2011-2012
34.7👇2001_-_2005 (State with 17 most) 2009-2010
35.4👇2000_-_2003 (State with 19 most) 2007-2008
36.2👇1997_-_2001 (State tied with 20 most) 2005-2006
—————————————————————— BREAST CANCER
—————————————————————— WHITE-INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
118.7👇2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
120.1👇2004_-_2008 Incidence (2011-2012)
124.3👇2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
129.9👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008) 133.9☝1998_-_2002 (2005-2006) 132.1☝1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
—————————————————————— WHITE-MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
22.8👇2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
23.4👇2003_-_2007 Mortality (2011-2012)
23.8👇2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
24.6👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
25.9👇1998_-_2002 (2005-2006)
27.3👇1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN-INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
—————————————————————— 119.4☝2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
119.2👇2004_-_2008 Incidence (2011_-_2012) 121.0☝2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
119.0👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
120.6👇1998_-_2002 (2005-2006) 121.4☝1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN-MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
—————————————————————— 34.3☝2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
33.8👇2003_-_2007 Mortality (2011-2012)
34.6👇2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
35.0👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
36.0👇1998_-_2002 (2005-2006)
36.9👇1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
—————————————————————— HISPANIC-INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
80.1👇2006_-_2010 (2013-2014) 92.7☝2004_-_2008 Incidence (2011-2012)
—————————————————————— HISPANIC-MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
—————————————————————— 15.8☝2006_-_2010 (2013-2014) 14.26☝2003_-_2007 Mortality (2011-2012)
—————————————————————— INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000) COMBINED
—————————————————————— 119.4☝2006_-_2010 AFRICAN AMERICAN (2013-2014)
118.7👇2006_-_2010 WHITE (2013-2014)
80.1👇2006_-_2010 HISPANIC (2013-2014)
—————————————————————— MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000) COMBINED
—————————————————————— 34.3☝2006_-_2010 AFRICAN AMERICAN (2013-2014)
22.8👇2006_-_2010 WHITE (2013-2014) 15.8☝2006_-_2010 HISPANIC (2013-2014)
—————————————————————— MICHIGAN – Estimated New Breast Cancer Cases:
—————————————————————— 8,140☝2013 (State with 8th most)
7,710👇2012 (State with 8th most) 7,890☝2011 (State with 8th most) 7,340☝2010 (State with 8th most) 6,480☝2009 (State with 8th most)
6,120👇2008 (State with 9th most)
7,210👇2005 (State with 9th most)
7,270👇2004 (State with 9th most) 7,500☝2003 (State with 8th most) 7,300☝2002 (State with 8th most)
—————————————————————— Are these Dr. David H. Gorski’s “success stories” ?
—————————————————————— MICHIGAN – Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths:
—————————————————————— 1,360☝2013 (State with 8th most) 1,350☝2012 (State with 8th most)
1,320 – 2011 (State with 9th most)
1,320👇2010 (State with 10th most) 1,350☝2009 (State with 9th most)
1,310 👇2008 (State with 9th most)
1,320 👇2007 (State with 9th most)
1,360 👇2006 (State with 9th most) 1,380☝2005 (State with 9th most)
1,350👇2004 (State with 9th most)
1,400 – 2003 (State tied with 8th most) 1,400☝2002 (State tied with 8th most)
—————————————————————— MICHIGAN – Cancer Incidence Rates
——————————————————————
120.3 – 2013 (State with 32nd most)
120.3👇2012 (State with 30th most)
122.2👇2011 (State with 24th most)
124.2👇2010 (State with 17th most)
127.0👇2009 (State with 11th most)
128.8👇2008 (State with 13th most)
129.4👇2007 (State tied with 18th most)
132.4👇2006 (State with 14th most) 133.5☝2005 (State with 13th most) 132.0☝1996_-_2000 (State with 14th most) 2004 129.8☝1995_-_1999 (State with 23rd most)(31st State’s) 2003
109.9👇1994_-_1998 Michigan – Cancer Incidence Rates (2002) 132.0☝1996_-_2000 (State with 14th most) (2004) 129.8☝1995_-_1999 (State with 23rd most) (2003) 109.9☝1994_-_1998 (State with 20th most) (2002)
—————————————————————— MICHIGAN – Cancer Death Rates:
——————————————————————
24.0👇2013 (State tied with 11th most)
24.4👇2012 (State tied with 13th most)
24.5👇2011 (State tied with 16th most)
25.1👇2010 (State tied with 12th most)
25.3👇2009 (State tied with 17th most)
25.8👇2008 (State tied with 18th most)
26.6👇2007 (State tied with 14th most)
27. 5 – 2006 (State tied with 12th most)
27.5👇2005 (State tied with 13th most)
28.4👇1996_-_2000 (State tied with 14th most) (2004) 29.5☝1995_-_1999 (State tied with 14th most) 2003 24.8☝1994_-_1998 (State with 14th most) 2002
——————————————————————
The problem, is that, when the Hippocratic Oath
was mentioned, Gorski may have opted for the Hypocrite Oath
Rather than address the BILLIONS of dollars in fines which Big Pharma racked up, and Pharma’s seeming dedication to getting members of the unwitting public, to take medications for symptoms which they were not approved for; and thus possibly experience adverse effects those drugs cause, Gorski chose to NOT comment about his goose that might lay the golden (parachute) nest egg
Instead, he tried the Tricky-Dickytrickle-down theory of Hackademic Mudicine(“Quackademic Medicine”); which did NOT work when Richard Milhous (“War on Cancer”) Nixon was told:
“There’s a cancer on the Presidency”
What Gorski seems hilariously oblivious to, is that his opprobrium; to turn a phrase, applies to him:
—————————————————————— (.3:16)
——————————————————————
When he mentions:
“ineffective and potentially harmful medical practices that were not, that are not supported by evidence”
he may as well be saying, in regards to surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation:
“ineffective and potentially harmful medical practices that were, that are supported by evidence“
(the evidence that they do NOT work for everyone)
—————————————————————— (.3:42)
——————————————————————
To use his own words, he seems:
“confused, at best”
—————————————————————— (.4:45)
——————————————————————
He also displays:
“an animosity toward reason”
—————————————————————— (.4:49)
—————————————————————— “Nothing’s changed within 30 years
If anything, it’s worse”
—————————————————————— (.6:45)
——————————————————————
He states:
“Alternative = unproved”
There goes “Alternative Rock,” or the “alternative” to an attemptedGorskijoke: “happiness is a warm gun”
I’m somewhat surprised that Gorski has yet to classify antineoplastons as “Homeopathy: Ultra-diluted chemotherapy”
—————————————————————— (28:15)
——————————————————————
But he does rant that rival Cleveland Clinic where he had his residency, has been infiltrated by the Q.M.
—————————————————————— (39:10)
——————————————————————
And that his alma-mater, the University of Michigan has also queued in the “Quackademic” line
—————————————————————— (44:00)
——————————————————————
He bemoans the mighty wolverine:
“Again my alma-mater”
“I hang my head in shame”
—————————————————————— (44:10)
——————————————————————
And to add injury to insult, his “former employer,” UMDNJ(University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey)-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, has also been bitten by the Quackademic Duck
I’m sure Gorski will be able to formulate a usual factoid #fail for his #failure to “cure” cancer, vis-a-vis “Orac”, the literary Hack, braying in the wilderness and awaiting his Red Badge of Courage
Maybe “too many people copulating” in Detroit, or too many Louisiana hurricane Katrina survivors added to the sandbox
Is Gorski a racist?
That’s up to all the African American women in Detroit, Michigan, to decide
Maybe he’s just a really bad hypocrite
NOr, maybe he needs to spend less time on the “hypocuresy,” and more time on the “CURE”
Maybe the African American women of Detroit, Michigan, and the United States of America should ask Gorski:
What have you done for me lately ?
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— “And, make no mistake about it, antineoplastons (ANPs) are chemotherapy, no matter how much Burzynski tries to claim otherwise”
—————————————————————— NO, Gorski, the United States’ 5th Circuit Court of Appeals claimed that antineoplastons (ANPs) are:
“…an unapproved drug, not ordinary “chemotherapy”
no matter how much YOU try to claim otherwise
What are you ?
A Saul Green closet communist who does NOT believe what the United States’ Federal Courtsrule ?
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
“Indeed, it was a blatant ploy, as Burzynski’s lawyer, Richard Jaffe, acknowledged, referring to one of his clinical trials as a “joke” and the others as a way to make sure there was a constant supply of new cancer patients to the Burzynski Clinic“
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— ” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials“
“As a result of the expansion of Dr. Burzynski’s medical practice, the financial condition of the medical practice has improved Dr. Burzynski’s ability to fund the Company’s operations”
—————————————————————— GorskGeek, my citations, references, and / or links, beat your NON-citations, NON-references, and / or NON-links ====================================== AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY:
CANCER FACTS & FIGURES (2002-2014) ======================================
2002_-_2003 – 1 of every 4 deaths
====================================== Deaths – United States of America
—————————————————————— 2013 – almost 1,600 a day 2002-2012☝1,500+ a day
—————————————————————— Expected to Die – United States
—————————————————————— 2013☝580,350_-_(3,160 more than 2012)
2012☝577,190_-_(5,240 more than 2011)
2011☝571,950_-_(2,460 more than 2010)
2010☝569,490_-_(7,150 more than 2009)
2009👇562,340_-_(3,310 less than 2008) 2008☝565,650_-_(6,000 more than 2007)
2007👇559,650_-_(5,180 less than 2006)
2006👇564,830_-_(5,450 less than 2005) 2005☝570,280_-_(6,580 more than 2004
2004☝563,700_-_(7,200 more than 2003)
2003☝556,500_-_(6,000 more than 2002)
2002☝555,500
—————————————————————— Estimated All Cancer Deaths (Women)
——————————————————————
2013👇273,430 (1,940 less than 2012) 2012☝275,370 (3,850 more than 2011)
2011☝271,520 (1,230 more than 2010)
2010☝270,290 (490 more than 2009)
2009👇269,800 (1,730 less than 2008) 2008☝271,530 (1,430 more than 2007)
2007👇270,100 (3,460 less than 2006)
2006👇273,560 (1,440 less than 2005) 2005☝275,000 (2,190 more than 2004)
2004☝272,810 (2,210 more than 2003)
2003☝270,600 (3,300 more than 2002)
2002_-_267,300
—————————————————————— Estimated cancer deaths – African Americans expected to die from cancer:
——————————————————————
2013👇64,645 – 22.6% (2013-2014) 2011☝65,540 (About) (2011-2012)
2009☝63,360 (About) (2009-2010)
2007☝62,780 (About) (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝39,620 (14%) (110 more than 2012)
2012👇39,510 (14%) (10 less than 2011)
2011👇39,520 (15%) (320 less than 2010)
2010👇39,840 (15%) (330 less than 2009)
2009👇40,170 (15%) (310 less than 2008) 2008☝40,480 (15%) (20 more than 2007)
2007👇40,460 (15%) (2007-2008) (510 less than 2006) 2006☝40,970 (15%) (560 more than 2005)
2005☝40,410 (15%) (300 more than 2004)
2004☝40,110 (15%) (310 more than 2003)
2003☝39,800 (15%) (200 more than 2002)
2002 – 39,600 (15%)
—————————————————————— Estimated Deaths from Breast cancer expected to occur among African American women:
—————————————————————— 6,080☝2013 – 19% (2013-2014)
6,040☝2011 – 19% (2011-2012)
6,020☝2009 – 19% (2009-2010)
5,830☝2007 – 19% (2007-2008)
5,640☝(2005-2006)
5,640 – 1969-2002 – 18.4% – 2005 (2005-2006) ====================================== New Cancer Cases Expected to be diagnosed – USA
—————————————————————— 2013☝1,660,290 – (21,380 more than 2012)
2012☝1,638,910 – (42,240 more than 2011)
2011☝1,596,670 – (67,160 more than 2010)
2010☝1,529,560 – (49,810 more than 2009)
2009☝1,479,350 – (42,170 more than 2008)
2008👇1,437,180 – ( 7,740 less than 2007) 2007☝1,444,920 – (45,130 more than 2006)
2006☝1,399,790 – (26,880 more than 2005)
2005☝1,372,910 – ( 4,870 more than 2004)
2004☝1,368,030 – (33,930 more than 2003)
2003☝1,334,100 – (49,200 more than 2002)
2002☝1,284,900
—————————————————————— Estimated New Cancer All (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝805,500 – (14,760 more than 2012)
2012☝790,740 – (16,370 more than 2011)
2011☝774,370 – (34,430 more than 2010)
2010☝739,940 – (26,720 more than 2009)
2009☝713,220 – (21,220 more than 2008)
2008☝692,000 – (13,940 more than 2007)
2007👇678,060 – (1,450 less than 2006) 2006☝679,510 – (16,640 more than 2005)
2005👇662,870 – (5,600 less than 2004) 2004☝668,470 – (9,670 more than 2003)
2003☝658,800 – (11,400 more than 2002)
2002_-_647,400
—————————————————————— Estimated New invasive Breast Cancer Cases: (Women)
—————————————————————— 2013☝232,340 (29%) (5,470 more than 2012)
2012👇226,870 (29%) (11,610 less than 2011) 2011☝238,480 (30%) (31,390 more than 2010)
2010☝207,090 (28%) (14,720 more than 2009)
2009☝192,370 (27%) (9,910 more than 2008)
2008☝182,460 (26%) (3,980 more than 2007)
2007👇178,480 (26%) (2007-2008) (34,440 less than 2006) 2006☝212,920 (31%) (1,680 more than 2005)
2005👇211,240 (32%) (4,660 less than 2004) 2004☝215,900 (32%) (4,600 more than 2003)
2003☝211,300 (32%) (7,800 more than 2002)
2002_-_203,500 (31%)
—————————————————————— Estimated new cases – new cancer cases expected to be diagnosed among African Americans:
—————————————————————— 2013☝176,620 (2013-2014)
2011☝168,900 (About) (2011-2012)
2009👇150,090 (About) (2009-2010) 2008☝182,460 (26%)
2007_-_152,900 (About) (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— Estimated new cases of in situ breast cancer expected to occur:
—————————————————————— 64,640☝(2013) (1,340 more than 2012)
63,300☝(2012) (5,650 more than 2011)
57,650☝(2011) (3,640 more than 2010)
54,010👇(2010) (8,270 less than 2009)
62,280👇(2009) (5,490 less than 2008) 67,770☝(2008) (5,740 more than 2007-2008)
62,030☝(2007-2008) (50 more than 2006)
61,980☝(2006) (3,490 more than 2005-2006)
58,490👇(2005-2006) (900 less than 2004) 59,390☝(2004) (3,690 more than 2003)
55,700☝(2003) (1,400 more than 2002)
54,300☝(2002)
—————————————————————— Estimated New Cancer Cases – African Americans – Breast
—————————————————————— 2013☝27,060 – 33% (2013-2014)
2011☝26,840 – 34% (2011-2012)
2009☝19,540 – 25% (2009-2010)
2007☝19,010 – 27% (2007-2008)
19,240 – 1979-2001 – 29.9% – 2005 (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Estimated new cases of in situ breast cancer expected to occur = detection of below # of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS):
——————————————————————
54,944 (2013)
85% (2003-2012)
88% (2002)
1998-2002 accounted for about 85% of in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2005-2006)
1980-2001 – Incidence rates of DCIS increased more than sevenfold in all age groups, although greatest in women 50 and older (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH
——————————————————————
2013 – breast cancer expected to be most commonly diagnosed cancer in women
—————————————————————— BREAST CANCER – 2nd
——————————————————————
2013 – Breast cancer 2nd most common cause of cancer death among African American women, surpassed only by lung cancer (2009-2012)
(2007)
——————————————————————
2003 – Breast cancer is 2nd among cancer deaths in women
2002-2003: 2nd leading cause of death
2002 – Breast cancer 2nd leading cause of death
————————————-
Breast cancer most common cancer among African American women
New Cases: Breast cancer most commonly diagnosed cancer among African American women
—————————————————————— BREAST CANCER – AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN
——————————————————————
34% – African American women most common cancer (2011-2012)
African American Women Most common cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005 – African American women – more likely to die from at any age
—————————————————————— ESTIMATED WOMEN BREAST CANCER DEATHS
——————————————————————
19% – number of cancer deaths breast cancer in women (2007-2012)
——————————————————————
since 1990 – Death rates from breast cancer steadily decreased in women (2009-2010)
since 1990 – death rate from breast cancer in women decreased (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
1.9% – 2000-2009 cancer mortality rate for women of all races combined declined annually (2012-2013)
——————————————————————
1990-2006 – death rate from breast cancer in women decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2.2% – 1990-2004 cancer mortality rate for women of all races combined decreased annually (2007-2008)
decline larger among younger age groups (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2002 rate decreased annually – percentage of decline larger among younger age groups (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2000 breast cancer death rates decreased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1992-1998 – mortality rates declined significantly
largest decreases in younger women, both white and black (2002)
——————————————————————
1.6% – 1975-1991 – Breast Cancer Death Rates Increased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
0.4% – 1975-1990 – breast cancer death rates increased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
0.4% – 1975-1990 death rate for all races combined increased annually (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
rate for women of all races combined decreased annually (2007-2008)
decline larger among younger age groups (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— BREAST CANCER – OLDER WOMEN
——————————————————————
Older women much more likely to get breast cancer than younger women
—————————————————————— % FEMALE BREAST CANCER DEATH RATES (age)
——————————————————————
97% – 1998-2002 – age 40 and older (2005-2008)
96% – 1996-2000 – age 40 and older (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— WOMEN YOUNGER than 50
——————————————————————
3.0% – under age of 50 – Mortality from breast cancer declined faster for women (annually from 2005-2009) regardless of race/ethnicity (2013)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2001 Breast Cancer Death Rates decrease
largest decrease in < 50 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
3.7% – 1991-2000 under 50 breast cancer Death rates decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
3.3% – 1990-2004 – death rates decreased per year among women younger than 50 (2005c-2008)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2002 Death rates from breast cancer declined average per year in all women combined, with larger decreases in younger (<50 years) women (2006)
—————————————————————— WOMEN 50 and older
——————————————————————
1.2% – 50 and older – decrease in breast cancer death rates smaller in African American than white women (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
2.0% – 50 and older – 1990-2004 – death rates decreased per year among women (2005-2008)
—————————————————————— WHITE WOMEN
——————————————————————
2.1% – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined per year in white women
——————————————————————
2.6% – 1992-2000 – breast cancer Death rates Whites (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2.4% – 1990-2004 female breast cancer death rates declined per year in whites (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
early 1980’s – Breast Cancer Death Rates equal – African American / White (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – ALL CANCERS
——————————————————————
1.5% – since 1999 – Death rates among women (African Americans for all cancers combined) per year have been decreasing (2011-2012)
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN BREAST CANCER DEATHS
——————————————————————
black women more likely to die of breast cancer than white women (2012-2013)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 African American women more likely to die from breast cancer at every age
——————————————————————
41% – 2005-2009 African American women had higher death rate than white women despite lower incidence rate
39% – 2003-2007 – African American women had higher death rate than white women, despite lower incidence rate (2011-2012)
difference accounts for more than one-third (37%) of overall cancer mortality disparity between African American and white women (2011-2012)
37% – 2001-2005 – African American women had higher death rate than white women (2009-2010)
higher breast cancer mortality rate among African American women compared to white women occurs despite lower incidence rate (2009-2010)
difference accounts for more than one-third (37%) of overall cancer mortality disparity between African American and white women (2009-2010)
higher breast cancer mortality rate among African American women compared to white women occurs despite lower incidence rate (2007)
notable, striking divergence in long-term breast cancer mortality rates trends between African American and white women (2005-2008)
36% – by 2004 – death rates higher in African Americans than white women (2007-2008)
37% – by 2002 – death rates higher in African American women than white women (2005-2006)
36% – 2000-2003 – death rates higher in African American women than white women (2007)
difference accounts for one-third of excess cancer mortality experienced by African American women compared to white women (2007)
32% – 2000 – Breast Cancer Death rate higher in African American women even though had lower incidence rates (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – 50 and older
——————————————————————
1.2% – 50 and older – 1992-2012 – per year – women (2011-2012)
2.0% – 50 and older – Breast Cancer Death Rates – per year (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
1.2% – 50 and older – decrease in breast cancer death rates smaller in African American than white women (2009-2010)
1.1% – 50 and older – 1991-2007 – African American women Breast cancer death rates declined annually (2007)
2.0% – 50 and older – 1990-2000 – breast cancer Death rates decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990 – 50 and older – Breast Cancer Death Rates Increase predominantly due to
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – under 50
——————————————————————
2.0% – 1992-2012 – decrease larger in women under 50 – declined thereafter per year (2011-2012)
1.9% – 1992-2009 – decrease larger in women under 50 – declined thereafter per year (2009-2010)
resulted in growing disparity
3.3% per year – larger decreases in women younger than 50 – Breast Cancer Death Rates (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
1.9% – 1991_-_2007 – decrease larger in women under 50 – African American women Breast cancer death rates declined annually per year
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN
——————————————————————
2000-2009 – death among females, rate of decline similar
As result, overall racial disparity narrowed
——————————————————————
2000-2009 death rate declined faster among African Americans females rate of decline than whites
1.5% – 2000-2009 African Americans females rate of decline per year (2013-2014)
1.4% – 2000-2009 whites rate of decline per year (2013-2014 )
——————————————————————
1.4% – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined more slowly per year in African American women
——————————————————————
1990-2002
African American women benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
1.1% – breast cancer death rates African Americans (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1.6% – 1995-2004 – female breast cancer death rates declined per year in African Americans (2007-2008)
1.0% – 1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined per year – African Americans (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1990s – Death rates among African Americans for all cancers combined have been decreasing (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
breast cancer death rates have declined more slowly in African American women compared to white women, which has resulted in growing disparity (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
gap much smaller among women
racial difference in overall cancer death rates due largely to cancers of breast and colorectum in women
racial disparity has widened for breast cancer in women (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women began in (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women approximately equal (2007)
——————————————————————
30% – early 1980’s-2000 – disparity between African American and white Deaths (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women appeared (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women
similar (2011-2014)
equal (2009-2010)
early 1980’s – Breast Cancer Death Rates equal – African American / White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1.5% – 1975-1992 – Breast cancer death rates among African American women increased annually (2009-2012)
1.6% – 1975-1991 – African American women Breast cancer death rates increased annually (2007)
——————————————————————
1975-2007 – death rates for all cancers combined continued to be substantially higher among African Americans than whites (2011-2012)
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN BREAST CANCER DEATH RATE RATIOS per 100,000 women
——————————————————————
35.4 – African American – 1997-2001 – Breast Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000 (2005-2006)
26.4 – White – 1997-2001 – Breast Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000 (2005-2006)
1.3 – African American / White Ratio – 1997-2001 – Breast Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000 (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— HISPANIC / LATINA WOMEN
——————————————————————
2.4% – 1995-2004 female breast cancer death rates declined per year in Hispanics / Latinas (2007-2008)
1.8% – 1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined per year in Hispanics / Latinas (2005-2006)
1.4% – breast cancer Death rates Hispanics (2005-2006)
1990-2002
women of other racial and ethnic groups benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
—————————————————————— ASIAN AMERICAN / PACIFIC ISLANDER WOMEN
——————————————————————
1995-2004 female breast cancer death rates remained unchanged among Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (2007-2008)
1.1% – breast cancer Death rates Asian and Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)
1.0% – 1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined per year – Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2002
women of other racial and ethnic groups benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
—————————————————————— AMERICAN INDIAN / ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN
——————————————————————
1995-2004 female breast cancer death rates remained unchanged among American Indians / Alaska Natives (2007-2008)
1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates did not decline in American Indian / Alaska Natives (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2002
women of other racial and ethnic groups benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
breast cancer Death rates American Indian and Alaska Native – constant (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— DEATHS – 2007-2008
——————————————————————
40,460 – Deaths – All ages (2007-2008)
23,510 – Deaths – 65 and older (2007-2008)
16,950 – Deaths – Younger than 65 (2007-2008)
31,320 – Deaths – 55 and older (2007-2008)
9,140 – Deaths – Younger than 55 (2007-2008)
37,630 – Deaths – 45 and older (2007-2008)
2,830 – Deaths – Younger than 45 (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— MORTALITY (DEATH) RATES
——————————————————————
31.0 – Black – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
24.3 – White – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
14.8 – Hispanic – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
12.4 – American Indian / Alaskan Native – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
11.0 – Asian / Pacific Islander – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
—————————————————————— WHITE WOMEN – MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
Combining all age groups, white (non-Hispanic) women more likely to develop breast cancer than black women
—————————————————————— PROBABILITY of DEVELOPING BREAST CANCER in NEXT 10 YEARS (Age)
—————————————————————— 20
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 2,152 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 1,985 – 2000-2002 probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in: 1,837 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— 30
——————————————————————
30 – 0.44% – 1 in: 229 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
30 – 0.43% – 1 in: 234 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
30 – 0.40% – 1 in 251 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 40
——————————————————————
40 – 1.46% – 1 in: 68 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
40 – 1.45% – 1 in 69 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
40 – 1.43% – 1 in: 70 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— 50
——————————————————————
50 – 2.78% – 1 in 36 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
50 – 2.73% – 1 in: 37 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
50 – 2.51% – 1 in: 40 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— 60
——————————————————————
60 – 3.82% – 1 in: 26 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
60 – 3.81% – 1 in 26 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
60 – 3.51% – 1 in: 28 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— 70
——————————————————————
70 – 4.31% – 1 in 23 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
70 – 4.14% – 1 in: 24 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
70 – 3.88% – 1 in: 26 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— LIFETIME RISK
——————————————————————
13.2% – 1 in 8 – 2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has, or, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer
——————————————————————
13.22% – Lifetime risk – 1 in: 8 – 2000-2002 probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
12.28% – Lifetime risk – 1 in: 8 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN LIFE EXPECTANCY
——————————————————————
2007 – life expectancy lower for African Americans than whites among women
(76.5 vs. 80.6 years) (2011-2012)
—————————————————————— DEVELOPING INVASIVE BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
1 in 8 – 2013 – chance of developing invasive breast cancer during lifetime
——————————————————————
1 in 8 – 12.3% – Currently, woman living in US has lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
about 1 in 11 – 1975
——————————————————————
1 in 11 – 1970s – lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8
Overall, lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer gradually increased over past 3 decades (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— INVASIVE BREAST CANCER – by age (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
178,480 – All ages
72,520 – 65 and older
105,960 – Younger than 65
124,300 – 55 and older
54,180 – Younger than 55
162,330 – 45 and older
16,150 – Younger than 45
—————————————————————— INVASIVE BREAST CANCER – by # (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
178,480 – All ages
162,330 – 45 and older
124,300 – 55 and older
105,960 – Younger than 65
72,520 – 65 and older
54,180 – Younger than 55
16,150 – Younger than 45
—————————————————————— INVASIVE BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
0.3% – 1987-2002 – Incidence Trends: increased per year (2005-2006)
————————————-
—————————–
4% (almost) – 1980-1987 – increased (almost +4% a year) Incidence Trends (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— age 40-49
——————————————————————
Since 1987 – age 40-49 – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer have slightly declined (2005-2006)
3.5% – 40-49 (age) – 1980-1987 – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer increased among women per year – Incidence Trends: Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— age 50 and older
——————————————————————
Since 1987 – 50 and older – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer have continued to increase among women, though at much slower rate (2005-2006)
4.2% – 50 and older – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer increased among women per year – Incidence Trends: Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Under 40
——————————————————————
Under 40 – remained essentially constant (2005-2006)
Since 1987 – younger than 40 – relatively little change in incidence rates of invasive breast cancer in women (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Invasive Breast Cancer
——————————————————————
1975-2000 – Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006):
4% – 40 and older – increased 1980-1987 then stabilized (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1992-2002 – overall incidence rates did not change significantly among whites, African Americans, and Hispanics / Latinas (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1.3% – Hispanics – increased overall (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
0.9% – Whites – increased overall (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
African Americans – stabilized (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders
——————————————————————
2.1% – 1992-2002 – Asian and Pacific Islanders – overall incidence rates increased overall (2005-2006)
1.5% – 1992-2002 – Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders – overall incidence rates increased per year (2005-2006)
trends in invasive female breast cancer incidence rates (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— American Indian / Alaska Natives
——————————————————————
3.7% – American Indian / Alaska Native – decreased overall (2005-2006)
3.5% – 1992-2002 – American Indian / Alaska Natives – overall incidence rates decreased per year (2005-2006)
trends in invasive female breast cancer incidence rates (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— essentially constant – Incidence Trends
——————————————————————
1973-1980 – essentially constant – Incidence Trends (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
African Americans more likely to be diagnosed at later stage of disease when treatment choices are more limited and less effective (2013-2014)
—————————————————————— MEDIAN AGE of DIAGNOSIS
——————————————————————
62 – median age of diagnosis for -white women
——————————————————————
57 – median age of diagnosis for African American women
—————————————————————— DIAGNOSIS at LOCAL STAGE
——————————————————————
61% – breast cancers diagnosed among white women at local stage (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
51% (Only about half) – of breast cancers diagnosed among African American women are local stage (2011-2014)
—————————————————————— MEDIAN AGE AT TIME OF BREAST CANCER DIAGNOSIS
——————————————————————
61 – 2000_-_2004 median age at time of breast cancer diagnosis (2007-2008)
61 – 1998_-_2002 median age at time of breast cancer diagnosis
——————————————————————
61 – means 50% of women who developed breast cancer were 61 or younger (2007-2008)
50% of women who developed breast cancer were age 61 or younger 1998_-_2002
——————————————————————
61 – 50% were older than 61 when diagnosed (2007-2008)
50% were older than age 61 when diagnosed 1998_-_2002
—————————————————————— 2005_-_2009 % / age DIAGNOSED with BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
61 – median age for breast cancer diagnosis
0.0% – under age 20
1.8% – between 20-34
9.9% – between 35-44
22.5% – between 45-54
24.8% – between 55-64
20.2% – between 65-74
15.1% – between 75-84
5.7% – 85+
—————————————————————— 2005_-_2009 % / age DIAGNOSED with BREAST CANCER by % (SEER, 2012)
——————————————————————
24.8% – between 55-64
22.5% – between 45-54
20.2% – between 65-74
15.1% – between 75-84
9.9% – between 35-44
5.7% – 85+
1.8% – between 20-34
0.0% – under age 20
—————————————————————— IN SITU BREAST CANCER – by age (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
62,030 – All ages
21,510 – 65 and older
40,520 – Younger than 65
37,110 – 55 and older
24,920 – Younger than 55
54,390 – 45 and older
7,640 – Younger than 45
—————————————————————— IN SITU BREAST CANCER – by # (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
62,030 – All ages
54,390 – 45 and older
40,520 – Younger than 65
37,110 – 55 and older
24,920 – Younger than 55
21,510 – 65 and older
7,640 – Younger than 45
—————————————————————— NEW CASES – IN SITU BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
increase observed in all age groups, although greatest in women 50 and older (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
Since 2000 – incidence rates of in situ breast cancer leveled off among women 50 and older (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
Since 2000 – incidence rates of in situ breast cancer have continued to increase in younger women (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
80% – 2000-2004 – Most in situ breast cancers are ductal carcinoma (DCIS), which accounted for about 80% of in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
2000-2004 – Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) less common than DCIS, accounting for about 10% of female in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2007-2008)
Similar to DCIS, overall incidence rate of LCIS increased more rapidly than incidence of invasive breast cancer (2007-2008)
increase limited to women older than age 40 and largely to postmenopausal women (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
1998-2002 accounting for female in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2005-2006):
12% – Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) less common than DCIS
Similar to DCIS, overall incidence rate of LCIS increased more rapidly than incidence of invasive breast cancer
increase limited to women older than 40 and largely to postmenopausal women
——————————————————————
1980s and 1990s – Incidence rates of in situ breast cancer increased rapidly (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— New cancer cases in women expected to be newly diagnosed among African Americans:
——————————————————————
2013 – 82,080 (About)
——————————————————————
19% – breast cancer in women (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
2002 – Breast cancer ranks 2nd among cancer deaths in women
——————————————————————
2002-2003: 2nd leading cause of death
—————————————————————— African American women expected to die from cancer:
——————————————————————
African Americans have the highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial and ethnic group in the US for most cancers
(2007-2014)
African Americans have the highest mortality rate of any racial and ethnic group in the US for most cancers
(2005-2006)
——————————————————————
higher death rate in African
American women compared to white women occurs despite lower cancer incidence rate (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
African American women have higher death rates overall and for breast and several other cancer sites (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
15% – 2009 – death rate for all cancers combined continued to be higher in African American women than in white women (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
racial difference in overall cancer death rates is due largely to cancers of the breast and colorectum in women (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
overall racial disparity in cancer death rates decreasing (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
16% – 2007 – death rate for all cancers combined higher in African American women than white women (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
37% – by 2002 – death rates higher in African Americans than white women (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
since early 1990s – death rates among African Americans for all cancers combined have been decreasing (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
30% – early 1980’s–2000 – Deaths disparity between African American and white (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
1975-2009 – Despite declines, death rates for all cancers combined continued to be higher among African Americans than whites (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1992-2014 – Breast cancer death rates among African American women declined
——————————————————————
1.4% per year – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined more slowly in African American women
——————————————————————
2.1% per year – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined white women
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women similar
——————————————————————
1975-1992 – Breast cancer death rates among African American women increased
resulted in growing disparity
——————————————————————
through 1998 – breast cancer incidence rates among young white women continued to increase more slowly (2002)
——————————————————————
1980s – 4.5% per year increase (2002)
——————————————————————
As result, overall racial disparity narrowed (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1992-1998 – mortality rates declined significantly – largest decreases in younger women, both white and black (2002)
—————————————————————— 1992-1998 – Incidence and Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
—————————————————————— Incidence
——————————————————————
115.5 – White
101.5 – Black
78.1 – Asian / Pacific Islander
50.5 – American Indian / Alaskan Native
68.5 – Hispanic
—————————————————————— Mortality
——————————————————————
31.0 – Black
24.3 – White
14.8 – Hispanic
12.4 – American Indian / Alaskan Native
11.0 – Asian / Pacific Islander
—————————————————————— Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans 2005-2006
—————————————————————— 1995-2000 (2001) – Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006):
—————————————————————— Localized
——————————————————————
64% – White (2005-2006)
53% – African American (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Regional
——————————————————————
35% – African American (2005-2006)
28% – White (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Distant
——————————————————————
9% – African American (2005-2006)
5% – White (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Unstaged
——————————————————————
3% – African American (2005-2006)
2% – White (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 2005-2006 – Cancer Incidence Rates Ratios per 100,000 (1975-2001)
——————————————————————
1997-2001 – Breast (2005-2006)
143.2 – White (2005-2006)
118.6 – African American (2005-2006)
0.8 – African American / White Ratio (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 2005-2006 – Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000
——————————————————————
1997-2001 – Breast (2005-2006)
35.4 – African American (2005-2006)
26.4 – White (2005-2006)
1.3 – African American / White Ratio (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Most common cancer among African American Women (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
17% lower incidence rate in African American than White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
under 40 – higher incidence rate in African American than White (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 25 years incidence:
——————————————————————
1999-2001 – leveling off (2005-2006)
1986-1999 – less rapid increase (2005-2006)
1978-1986 – rapid increase (2005-2006)
1975-1978 – stable (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Breast Cancer Death Rates Increased (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
1975-1991 – + 1.6% – annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1991 – decided annually: particularly in women younger than 50 (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Breast Cancer Death Rates (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
early 1980’s – equal – African American / White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2000 – 32% – higher African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Death rate higher in African American even though had lower incidence rates (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Rate per 100,000
——————————————————————
White
African American
Asian or Pacific Islander
Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska Native
—————————————————————— 1996-2000 – Incidences:
140.8 – White
121.7 – African American
97.2 – Asian or Pacific Islander
89.8 – Hispanic
58 – American Indian or Alaska Native
—————————————————————— 1996-2000 – Deaths
35.9 – African American
27.2 – White
17.9 – Hispanic
14.9 – American Indian or Alaska Native
12.5 – Asian or Pacific Islander
—————————————————————— Estimated New In Situ Cases:
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – < 30
2005 – 1,600 – Under 40
2003 – 2,100 – 30-39
2005 – 56,890 – 40 and older
2005 – 13,760 – Under 50
2003 -12,600 – 40-49
2005 – 44,730 – 50 and older
2005 – 37,040 – Under 65
2003 – 15,700 – 50-59
2005 – 21,450 – 65 and older
2003 – 11,500 – 60-69
2003 – 10,100 – 70-79
2003 – 3,500 – 80 +
2005 – 58,490 – All ages
TOTAL
2003 – 55,700
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – 0.2%
2003 – 2,100 – 3.8%
2003 – 12,600 – 22.6%
2003 – 15,700 – 28.2%
2003 – 11,500 – 20.6%
2003 – 10,100 – 18.1%
2003 – 3,500 – 16.3
TOTAL
2003 – 100.0%
—————————————————————— Estimated New Invasive Cases:
——————————————————————
2003 – 1,000 – < 30
2005 – 9,510 – Under 40
2003 – 10,500 – 30-39
2005_-_201,730 – 40 and older
2005 – 45,780 – Under 50
2003 – 35,500 – 40-49
2005_-_165,460 – 50 and older
2005_-_123,070 – Under 65
2003 – 48,700 – 50-59
2005 – 88,170 – 65 and older
2003 – 43,100 – 60-69
2003 – 45,600 – 70-79
2003 – 27,000 – 80 +
2005_-_211,240 – All ages
TOTAL
2003 – 55,700 –
——————————————————————
2003 – 1,000 – 0.5%
2003 – 10,500 – 5.0%
2003 – 35,500 – 16.8%
2003 – 48,700 – 23.0%
2003 – 43,100 – 20.4%
2003 – 45,600 – 21.6%
2003 – 27,000 – 12.8%
TOTAL
2003 – 100.00%
—————————————————————— Deaths:
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – < 30
2005 – 1,110 – Under 40
2003 – 1,300 – 30-39
2005 – 39,300 – 40 and older
2005 – 5,590 – Under 50
2003 – 4,300 – 40-49
2005 – 34,820 – 50 and older
2005 – 17,470 – Under 65
2003 – 7,000 – 50-59
2005 – 22,940 – 65 and older
2003 – 7,400 – 60-69
2003 – 9,500 – 70-79
2003 – 10,100 – 80 +
2005 – 40,410 – All ages
TOTAL
2003 – 39,800
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – 0.3%
2003 – 1,300 – 3.3%
2003 – 4,300 – 10.8%
2003 – 7,000 – 17.6 %
2003 – 7,400 – 18.6%
2003 – 9,500 – 23.9%
2003 – 10,100 – 25.4%
TOTAL
2003 – 100.0
——————————————————————
1990 – Increase since predominantly due to women 50 and older
——————————————————————
1998-2002 accounting for female in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
12% – Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) less common than DCIS
Similar to DCIS, overall incidence rate of LCIS increased more rapidly than incidence of invasive breast cancer
increase limited to women older than 40 and largely to postmenopausal women
—————————————————————— 1990-2001 (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
2.3% – decrease
largest decrease in < 50
—————————————————————— 1998-2002 women aged 40 and older (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
95% – new cases
97% – breast cancer deaths
—————————————————————— 1996-2000 Women 40 and older (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
94% – New Cases
96% – Deaths
——————————————————————
0.3% per year – Incidence rates declined slightly among white females (2013-2014)
—————————————————————— 1996-2002 (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
20-24 – 1.3 per 100,000 lowest incidence rate – 1998-2002 (2005-2006)
75-79 – 499.0 per 100,000 highest incidence rate – 1996-2000 (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 2005-2006
•
White women higher incidence of breast cancer than African American women after 35
African American women slightly higher incidence rate before 35
African American women more likely to die from breast cancer at every age
—————————————————————— 2005
White – higher incidence rate than African American women after 40
African American – slightly higher incidence rate before 40
African American women – more likely to die from at any age
——————————————————————
2005-2006 incidence and death rates from breast cancer lower among women of other racial and ethnic groups than white and African American women
——————————————————————
2000-2009 – stable among African American females (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1975-1980 essentially constant (2005-2006)
1980-1987 + almost 4% per year (2005-2006)
1987-2002 + 0.3% per year (2005-2006)
• Incidence Trends
Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006):
1973-1980 – essentially constant (2005-2006)
1980-1987 – + almost 4% year (2005-2006)
1987-2000 – 0.4% year (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 1980-1987 incidence rates of invasive breast cancer increased among women (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
40-49 (3.5% per year) (2005-2006)
50 and older (4.2% per year) (2005-2006)
Since 1987
50 and older – rates have continued to increase among women , though at much slower rate (2005-2006)
40-49 -rates have slightly declined (2005-2006)
younger than 40 – relatively little change in incidence rates of invasive breast cancer in women (2005-2006)
1975-2000 – Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006):
4% – 40 and older increased 1980 – 1987 then stabilized (2005-2006)
Under 40 – remained essentially constant (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 2005-2006 trends in invasive female breast cancer incidence rates:
——————————————————————
1992-2002
(1.5% per year) – overall incidence rates increased in Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)
(3.5% per year) – decreased in American Indian/Alaska Natives (2005-2006)
did not change significantly among whites, African Americans, and Hispanics/Latinas (2005-2006)
1992-2000 – Invasive (2005-2006):
2.1% – Asian and Pacific Islanders – increased overall (2005-2006)
1.3% – Hispanics – increased overall (2005-2006)
0.9% – Whites – increased overall (2005-2006)
3.7% – American Indian and Alaska Native – decreased overall (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
African Americans – stabilized (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
since 1990 – death rate from breast cancer in women decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1975-1990
0.4% – death rate for all races combined increased annually (2005-2006)
•
1990-2002
2.3% – rate decreased annually
percentage of decline larger among younger age groups (2005-2006)
1990-2002
3.3% – death rates decreased per year among women younger than 50 (2005-2006)
2.0% – per year among women 50 and older (2005-2006)
African American women and women of other racial and ethnic groups have benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2006)
1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined (2005-2006):
2.4% – per year – whites (2005-2006)
1.8% – per year – Hispanics/Latinas (2005-2006)
1.0% – per year – African Americans and Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)
did not decline in American Indian/ Alaska Natives (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
life expectancy lower for African Americans than whites among women (77.2 vs. 80.9 years) (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
As result, overall racial disparity narrowed (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
striking divergence in long-term mortality trends between African American and white females (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women appeared (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1975-1990 – Death (2005-2006):
0.4% – increased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2000
2.3% – decreased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1991-2000
3.7% – under 50 decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2000
2.0% – 50 and older decreased (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 1992-2000 – Death (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
2.6% – Whites (2005-2006)
1.4% – Hispanics (2005-2006)
1.1% – African Americans (2005-2006)
1.1% – Asian and Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)
American Indian and Alaska Native – constant (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years:
——————————————————————
Age
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 2,152 (2005-2006)
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 1,985 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
30 – 0.40% – 1 in 251 (2005-2006)
30 – 0.44% – 1 in: 229 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
40 – 1.45% – 1 in 69 (2005-2006)
40 – 1.46% – 1 in: 68 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
50 – 2.78% – 1 in 36 (2005-2006)
50 – 2.73% – 1 in: 37 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
60 – 3.81% – 1 in 26 (2005-2006)
60 – 3.82% – 1 in: 26 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
70 – 4.31% – 1 in 23 (2005-2006)
70 – 4.14% – 1 in: 24 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
—————————————————————— Lifetime Probability (%) of Developing or Dying from Invasive Cancers by Race and Sex
—————————————————————— Developing
12.73 (1 in 8) – White (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)
10.87 (1 in 9) – African American (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)
Dying
3.25 (1 in 31) – African American (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)
2.73 (1 in 37) – White (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)
2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has 13.2%, or 1 in 8, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2013-2014)
result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8
2005-2006: Overall, lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer gradually increased over past 3 decades (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
13.22% – Lifetime risk – 1 in: 8
Comparison of Cancer Incidence Rates between African Americans and Whites
——————————————————————
123.2 – White Rate* 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
121.7 – White Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
130.6 – White Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
118.1 – African American Rate* 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
114.7 – African American Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
117.6 – African American Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
-5.1 – Difference† 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
-7.0 – Absolute Difference† 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
-13.1 – Absolute Difference† 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
0.96 – Rate Ratio‡ 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
0.94 – Rate Ratio‡ 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
0.90 – Rate Ratio‡ 2001-2005 +
*Rates per 100,000 age adjusted to 2000 US standard population
†Difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites
†Absolute difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites
‡Rate ratio is unrounded rate in African Americans divided by unrounded rate in whites
‡Rate ratio is rate in African Americans divided by rate in whites based on 2 decimal places
+ Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries 2000-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
—————————————————————— Comparison of Cancer Death Rates between African Americans and Whites
——————————————————————
31.6 – African American Rate* 2005-2009
32.4 – African American Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
33.5 – African American Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
22.4 – White Rate* 2005-2009
23.4 – White Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
24.4 – White Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
9.2 – Difference† 2005-2009
9.0 – Absolute Difference† 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
9.1 – Absolute Difference† 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
1.41 – Rate Ratio‡ 2005-2009
1.39 – Rate Ratio‡ 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
1.37 – Rate Ratio‡ 2001-2005 +
*Rates per 100,000 and age adjusted to 2000 US standard population
†Difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites
†Absolute difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites
‡Rate ratio is unrounded rate in African Americans divided by unrounded rate in whites
‡Rate ratio is rate in African Americans divided by rate in whites based on 2 decimal places
+ Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries 2000-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
—————————————————————— Stage Distribution for Selected Cancers in African Americans and Whites
Stage Distribution African Americans and Whites
—————————————————————— Localized
——————————————————————
61% – White 2002-2008
61% – White 1999-2006
62% – White 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
51% – African American 2002-2008
51% – African American 1999-2006
51% – African American 1996-2004 +
—————————————————————— Regional
38% – African American 2002-2008
39% – African American 1999-2006
37% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
32% – White 2002-2008
32% – White 1999-2006
31% – White 1996-2004 +
—————————————————————— Distant
——————————————————————
8% – African American 2002-2008
8% – African American 1999-2006
10% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
5% – White 2002-2008
5% – White 1999-2006
6% – White 1996-2004 +
—————————————————————— Unstaged
——————————————————————
3% – African American 2002-2008
3% – African American 1999-2006
3% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
2% – White 2002-2008
2% – White 1999-2006
2% – White 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
+ Source:
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1973-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
—————————————————————— Probability of Developing Invasive Cancers Over Selected Age Intervals among African Americans by Sex +
Probability of Developing Invasive Cancers:
—————————————————————— Birth to 39 (%):
——————————————————————
0.53 (1 in 189) 2003-2005 * +
0.44 (1 in 229) 1998–2000 (2004)
0.44 (1 in 228) 1997–1999 (2003)
0.44 (1 in 229) 1996–1997 (2002)
—————————————————————— 40 to 59(%):
——————————————————————
3.56 (1 in 28) – 40 to 59(%) 2003-2005 * +
4.14 (1 in 24) 1998–2000 (2004)
4.17 (1 in 24) 1997–1999 (2003)
4.17 (1 in 24) 1996–1997 (2002)
2.96 (1 in 34) – 60 to 69 (%) 2003-2005 * +
—————————————————————— 60 to 79 (%):
——————————————————————
7.53 (1 in 13) 1998–2000 (2004)
7.14 (1 in 14) 1997–1999 (2003)
7.14 (1 in 14) 1996–1997 (2002)
5.44 (1 in 18) – 70 and Older (%) 2003-2005 * +
—————————————————————— Birth to Death (%)
——————————————————————
9.91 (1 in 10) – Birth to Death (%) 2003-2005 * +
13.36 (1 in 7) 1998–2000 (2004)
13.3 (1 in 8) 1997–1999 (2003)
12.5 (1 in 8) 1996–1997 (2002)
*For people free of cancer at beginning of age interval
+ Source:
DevCan:
Probability of Developing or Dying of Cancer Software, Version 6.3.0. Statistical Research and Applications Branch, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has 13.2%, or 1 in 8, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2013-2014)
result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8
——————————————————————
2005-2006: Overall, lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer gradually increased over past 3 decades (2013-2014)
—————————————————————— 5-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE – ALL
——————————————————————
Survival after diagnosis of breast cancer continues to decline after 5 years (2009-2010)
Survival after diagnosis of breast cancer continues to decline beyond 5 years (2006)
—————————————————————— 5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL LOWER
——————————————————————
5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage at diagnosis (2007-2008)
5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 2005-2006 African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years:
——————————————————————
90% – white
76% – African American
—————————————————————— Likely to survive 5 years (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
88% – White
74% – African American
—————————————————————— 5-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE – ALL STAGES – COMBINED
——————————————————————
89% – survival rate at 5 years for all stages combined (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
88% – all stages combined – 5 year
——————————————————————
77% – all stages combined – 10 year
—————————————————————— 5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATE for ALL CANCERS COMBINED
——————————————————————
63% – 2004
62% – 2002-2003
—————————————————————— 5-year Relative Survival Rates* for Cancers by Race and Stage
Five-year Relative Survival Rates* for Cancers by Race and Stage at Diagnosis
Five-Year Relative Survival Rates
5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975–2001 (2004)
—————————————————————— Localized
——————————————————————
99% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
61% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
99% – White 1996-2004 +
98% – White 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
93% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
51% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
93% – African American 1996-2004 +
91% – African American 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
—————————————————————— Regional
——————————————————————
85% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
32% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
85% – White 1996-2004 +
82% – White 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
73% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
39% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
72% – African American 1996-2004 +
68% – African American 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
—————————————————————— Distant
——————————————————————
25% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
5% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
29% – White 1996-2004 +
27% – White 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
15% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
8% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
17% – African American 1996-2004 +
15% – African American 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
—————————————————————— All Stages
——————————————————————
90% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
2% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
90% – White 1996-2004 +
56% – White 1995–2000
(2005–2006)
——————————————————————
78% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
3% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
77% – African American 1996-2004 +
50% – African American 1995–2000 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
*Survival rates based on patients diagnosed 2002-2008 followed through 2009
*Survival rates based on patients diagnosed 1999-2006 followed through 2007
Survival rates based on patients diagnosed 1996 – 2004 followed through 2005 +
Local:
invasive cancer confined entirely to organ of origin
Regional:
malignant cancer either
1) extended beyond limits of organ of origin directly into surrounding organs or tissues
2) involves regional lymph nodes by way of lymphatic system
3) both regional extension and involvement of regional lymph nodes
Distant:
malignant cancer spread to parts of body remote from primary tumor either by direct extension or by discontinuous metastasis to distant organs, tissues, or via lymphatic system to distant lymph nodes
+ Source:
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1973-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
—————————————————————— Considering all races, 5-year relative survival:
Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival
among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival:
92% – tumors less than or equal to 2.0 cm
77% – tumors 2.1-5.0 cm
65% – tumors greater than 5.0 cm
—————————————————————— OVERALL 5-YEAR CANCER SURVIVAL RATE (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
55% – 1995-2000 (2005-2006)
27% – 1960-1963 (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATES
——————————————————————
89% – 5 year relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer after diagnosis (2007-2008)
88% – 5 year relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer after diagnosis (2005-2006)
87% – 5 year Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— age 75 + – 5 year relative survival rate among women diagnosed with breast cancer
——————————————————————
88% – 75 and older (2005-2006)
86% – 75 and over (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— age 65 + – 5 year relative survival rate among women diagnosed with breast cancer
——————————————————————
89% – 65-74 (2005-2006)
88% – 65 and over (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 5-year relative survival rate among women diagnosed with breast cancer
——————————————————————
88% – 55-64 (2005-2006)
89% – 40-74 (2005-2006)
87% – 45-54 (2005-2006)
83% – 45 (less than) (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— 40 and older – 5-year relative survival rate
——————————————————————
89% – 40 and older – 5-year relative survival rate slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— younger than 40 – 5-year relative survival rate
——————————————————————
82% – before 40 – slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
82% – younger than 40 – slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 – may be due to tumors in age group being more aggressive (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— All – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
86% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
78% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
75% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
—————————————————————— WHITE WOMEN
——————————————————————
69% – white women (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
62% – white women (2007)
——————————————————————
90% – 1999-2006 white women (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2004 white women – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
90% – white women with breast cancer to survive 5 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
5-year survival greater among white women (2007)
——————————————————————
90% – 2002-2008 – overall 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed among white women
——————————————————————
88% – White women – Likely to survive 5 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
81% – White women – 5 year survivors: relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
62% – 1996-2004 – white women – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2002 – whites (2007) – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2002 – White – 5-Year Relative Survival – Breast 2007 (2007-2008) +
——————————————————————
89% – 1995-2000 – White – 5-year Relative Survival (1995-2000 (2001) Diagnosis) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
87% – 1992-1997 – White – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
79% – 1983-1985 – White – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
75% – 1974-1976 – White – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN
——————————————————————
78% – black women still living 5 years after getting disease (SEER, 2012)
——————————————————————
78% – 1999-2006 – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed among African American women Survival and Stage at Distribution (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
76% – African American – 5 year survivors relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
74% – African American – Likely to survive 5 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
60% – African Americans – continue to have lower 5-year survival than whites overall and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites (2013-2014)
African Americans continue to be less likely than whites to survive 5 years at each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites (2009-2010)
Within each stage, 5-year survival also lower among African American women (2009-2010)
78% – 2002-2008 – overall 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed among African American women
77% – African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years (2007-2008)
76% – African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years 2005-2006
59% – 1999-2006 – African Americans continue to be less likely than whites to survive 5 years at each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites (2011-2012)
77% – 1996-2002 – 5-Year Relative Survival – Breast – African American 2007 (2007-2008) +
77% – 1996-2002 – African American women (2007) – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
72% – 1992-1997 – Black – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
63% – 1983-1985 – Black – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
63% – 1974-1976 – Black – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
27% – 1960-1963 – overall 5-year relative survival rate among African Americans improved (2009-2014)
——————————————————————
1996-2002 – 5-Year Relative Survival – Breast 2007 – (Based on cancer patients diagnosed 1996-2002 followed through 2003) (2007-2008) +
(Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1975-2003, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2006) (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2005-2006):
•
88% – 5 years after diagnosis (2005-2006)
80% – 10 years (2005-2006)
71% – 15 years (2005-2006)
63% – 20 years (2005-2006)
• Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis:
•
87% – 5 years (2005-2006)
77% – 10 years (2005-2006)
63% – 15 years (2005-2006)
52% – 20 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 – 5-year relative survival rate slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40
•
may be due to tumors in age group being more aggressive and less responsive to hormonal therapy:
•
82% – younger than 40 (2005-2006)
89% – 40 – 74 (2005-2006)
88% – 75 and older (2005-2006)
• 5 year relative survival rate (2005-2006):
•
83% – < 45
87% – 45 – 54
88% – 55 – 64
89% – 65 – 74
88% – 65 and over
86% – 75 and over
—————————————————————— 5 year survivors
relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006):
•
81% – White
76% – African American
—————————————————————— 10 year survivors after diagnosis
relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
87% – White
85% – African American
—————————————————————— LOCALIZED CANCER INCIDENCE RATES RATIOS per 100,000 (1975-2001) – 1995-2000 (2001) – Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed 2005-2006
——————————————————————
143.2 – White
118.6 – African American
0.8 – African American / White Ratio
——————————————————————
2005-2006 1995-2000 – 5-year Relative Survival (1995-2000 (2001) Diagnosis) SEER 1975-2001 (2004)
89% – White (2005-2006)
75% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 1995-2000 – 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004)
Female breast
—————————————————————— Localized
——————————————————————
98% – White (2005-2006)
91% – African American (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Regional
——————————————————————
82% – White (2005-2006)
68% – African American (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Distant
——————————————————————
27% – White (2005-2006)
15% – African American (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— Unstaged
——————————————————————
56% – White (2005-2006)
50% – African American (2005-2006)
—————————————————————— LOCALIZED 5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATES (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
98% – 1995-2000 – White
91% – 1995-2000 – African American
—————————————————————— LOCALIZED
——————————————————————
98% – 2010 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (malignant cancer that has not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) has increased (2009-2010)
98% – 2006 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased
98% – localized disease – 2005-2006 5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis: Considering all races
98% – 2005 – 5 year relative survival for localized
97% – 2004 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased
96% – 2002 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased
99% – 1996-2002 White – localized (2007-2008) *
94% – 1996-2002 African American – localized (2007-2008) *
80% – 1950s – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (malignant cancer that has not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) has increased (2009-2010)
80% – 1950s – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased (2006)
72% – 1940s – 5-year relative survival rate for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased (2002)
—————————————————————— 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed at local stage
——————————————————————
77% – 1996-2004 – African American women – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed at local stage (2009-2010)
—————————————————————— LOCALIZED
——————————————————————
62% – 1996-2002 White – Localized – Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)
64% – White – Localized (2005–2006)
64% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
5% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
52% – 1996-2002 African American – Localized – Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)
53% – African American – Localized (2005–2006)
53% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
—————————————————————— REGIONAL 5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATES (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
82% – 1995-2000 – White
68% – 1995-2000 – African American
—————————————————————— REGIONALLY
——————————————————————
84% – cancer spread regionally, current 5-year survival (2009-2010)
81% – regional disease – 5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis: Considering all races 2005-2006
85% – 1996-2002 White – Regional (2007-2008) *
80% – cancer spread regionally
78% – 2002 – 5-year relative survival rate: breast cancer spread regionally
72% – 1996-2002 African American – Regional (2007-2008) *
——————————————————————
36% – 1996-2002 African American – Regional: Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)
30% – 1996-2002 White – Regional: Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)
35% – African American – Regional (2005–2006)
35% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006): Regional – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
28% – White – Regional (2005–2006)
—————————————————————— REGIONAL TUMORS
——————————————————————
94% – Larger tumor size at diagnosis also associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival for tumors less than or equal (2007-2008)
92% – tumors less than or equal to 2.0 cm – Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival
77% – tumors 2.1-5.0 cm – Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival
65% – tumors greater than 5.0 cm – Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival
—————————————————————— DISTANT
——————————————————————
27% – women with distant spread (metastases) 5-year survival (2009-2010)
27% – 1995-2000 – White – Distant 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)
26% – distant-stage disease – 2005-2006 5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis: Considering all races
28% – 1996-2002 White – Distant (2007-2008) *
21% – 2002 – 5-year relative survival rate: breast cancer distant metastasis
16% – 1996-2002 African American – Distant (2007-2008) *
28% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Distant – Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Of all breast cancers diagnosed
——————————————————————
9% – 1996-2002 African American – Distant – Stage Distribution African Americans – Female breast (2007-2008)
9% – African American – Distant (2005–2006)
9% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
6% – 1996-2002 White – Distant – Stage Distribution Whites – Female breast (2007-2008)
5% – White – Distant (2005–2006)
—————————————————————— UNSTAGED
——————————————————————
56% – 1996-2002 – Unstaged – White (2007-2008) *
56% – 1995-2000 – White – Unstaged 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)
45% – 1996-2002 – Unstaged – African American (2007-2008) *
——————————————————————
3% – 1996-2002 African American – Unstaged – Stage Distribution Whites – Female breast (2007-2008)
3% – African American – Unstaged (2005–2006)
3% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Unstaged – Of all breast cancers diagnosed – Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006)
2% – 1996-2002 White – Unstaged – Stage Distribution Whites – Female breast (2007-2008)
2% – White – Unstaged (2005–2006)
2% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Unstaged – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
—————————————————————— ALL – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
90% – 1999-2006 (2011) – 1975-2006
87% – 1992-1999 (2004)
87% – 1992-1999 (2004) – 1974-1999
86% – 1974-1998 (2003)
86% – 1992-1998 (2003) – 1974-1998
86% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
79% – 1984-1986 (2011) – 1975-2006
78% – 1983-1985 (2004)
78% – 1983-1985 (2004) – 1974-1999
78% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
75% – 1975-1977 (2011) – 1975-2006
78% – 1974-1998 (2003)
75% – 1974-1976 (2004)
75% – 1974-1976 (2004) – 1974-1999
75% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
—————————————————————— WHITE WOMEN – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
91% – 1999-2006 (2011) – 1975-2006
90% – 1996-2002 (2007)
88% – 1992-1999 (2004)
88% – 1992-1999 (2004) – 1974-1999
88% – 1992-1998 (2003) – 1974-1998
88% – 1974-1998 (2003)
87% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
81% – 1984-1986 (2011) – 1975-2006
79% – 1983-1985 (2004)
79% – 1983-1985 (2004) – 1974-1999
79% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
76% – 1975-1977 (2011) – 1975-2006
75% – 1974-1976 (2004)
75% – 1974-1976 (2004) – 1974-1999
75% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
—————————————————————— AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
78% – 1999-2006 (2011) – 1975-2006
77% – 1996-2002 (2007)
74% – 1992-1999 (2004)
74% – 1992-1999 (2004) – 1974-1999
73% – 1992-1998 (2003) – 1974-1998
73% – 1974-1998 (2003)
72% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
65% – 1984-1986 (2011) – 1975-2006
64% – 1983-1985 (2004)
64% – 1983-1985 (2004) – 1974-1999
63% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
63% – 1974-1998 (2003)
63% – 1974-1976 (2004)
63% – 1974-1976 (2004) – 1974-1999
63% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
62% – 1975-1977 (2011) – 1975-2006
—————————————————————— COMBINED – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
91% – 1999-2006 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
90% – 1999-2006 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
90% – 1996-2002 – White Women (2007)
87% – 1992-1997 – White Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
86% – 1992-1997 – All – 1974-1997 (2002)
81% – 1984-1986 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
79% – 1984-1986 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
79% – 1983-1985 – White Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
78% – 1999-2006 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
78% – 1983-1985 – All – 1974-1997 (2002)
77% – 1996-2002 – African American Women (2007)
76% – 1975-1977 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
75% – 1975-1977 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
75% – 1974-1976 – All – 1974-1997 (2002)
75% – 1974-1976 – White Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
72% – 1992-1997 – African American Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
65% – 1984-1986 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
63% – 1983-1985 – African American Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
63% – 1974-1976 – African American Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
62% – 1975-1977 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
—————————————————————— COMBINED by YEAR – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
91% – 1999-2006 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
90% – 1999-2006 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
78% – 1999-2006 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2002 – White Women (2007)
77% – 1996-2002 – African American Women (2007)
——————————————————————
87% – 1992-1997 – White Women (2002)
86% – 1992-1997 – All (2002)
72% – 1992-1997 – African American Women (2002)
——————————————————————
81% – 1984-1986 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
79% – 1984-1986 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
65% – 1984-1986 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
79% – 1983-1985 – White Women (2002)
78% – 1983-1985 – All (2002)
63% – 1983-1985 – African American Women (2002)
——————————————————————
76% – 1975-1977 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
75% – 1975-1977 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
62% – 1975-1977 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
75% – 1974-1976 – All (2002)
75% – 1974-1976 – White Women (2002)
63% – 1974-1976 – African American Women (2002)
—————————————————————— Stages (%) – 5-Year Relative Survival Rates by Stage at Diagnosis
——————————————————————
97.0% – 1992-1999 – Local (2004)
97% – 1992-1998 – Local (2003)
96% – 1992-1997 – Local (2002)
——————————————————————
88% – 2006 – All Stages (2006)
86.6% – 1992-1999 – All Stages (2004)
86% – 1992-1998 – All Stages (2003)
86% – 1992-1997 – All Stages (2002)
——————————————————————
81% – Regional (2006)
78.7% – 1992-1999 – Regional (2004)
78% – 1992-1998 – Regional (2003)
78% – 1992-1997 – Regional (2002)
——————————————————————
26% – 2006 – distant metastases (2006)
23.3% – 1992-1999 – Distant (2004)
23% – 1992-1998 – Distant (2003)
21% – 1992-1997 – Distant metastases (2002)
—————————————————————— *
——————————————————————
1996-2002 – 5-Year Relative Survival Rates (5-year relative survival rate among cancer patients diagnosed 1996-2002 followed through 2003) *
Female breast – (Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1973-2003, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2006) (2007-2008)
Local:
invasive cancer confined entirely to organ
Regional:
malignant cancer
1) extended beyond limits of organ of origin directly into surrounding organs or tissues
2) involves regional lymph nodes by way of lymphatic system
3) has both regional extension and involvement of regional lymph nodes
Distant:
cancer spread to parts of body remote from primary tumor either by direct extension or by discontinuous metastasis to distant organs, tissues, or via lymphatic system to distant lymph nodes
Source:
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1975-2003, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2006 (2007-2008)
—————————————————————— 5-YEAR SURVIVAL – INVASIVE BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
90% – 2002-2008 – women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer still living 5 years after getting disease (SEER, 2012)
—————————————————————— 10-YEAR SURVIVAL RATES
——————————————————————
Caution should be used when interpreting 10-year survival rates since they represent detection and treatment circumstances 5-17 years ago and may underestimate expected survival based on current conditions (2009-2010)
[WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)
Due & undue weight: [3]
“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”
[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)
(Neutral Point of View)
—————————————————————— TRANSLATION: Wikipedia editors, YOUR OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT
—————————————————————— MEANING: It is meaningless to attempt to slather your biased OPINION all over Wikipedia like butter on Texas toast, since supposedly, we only care about verifiable FACTS
======================================
Wikipedia, what the problem is ?
Jimmy Donal Wales
Who ?
No, “The Who” is actually really British!
(as opposed to some “furreigner” who plops across the pond, wants to pound one of your pelts after a celebrity hunt, pops it in his bonnet, pip-pips about, and mounts it up on his rented wall along with what’s left of his balls)
I’m writing, of course, about “Jimbo,” the one who got away . . . Thankfully
The recipient of the write-up earlier this year in The New York Times[1] (Oh, pithy!!)
—————————————————————— Wales, who no longer runs the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia
“He applies his libertarian worldview to the Internet and has taken on institutions like the United States government“
——————————————————————
You must be bloody well rightjoking me
(joking me ? Quit jokin’ me !)
JimCrow’s ’bout as “libertarian” as Fidel Castrowith a gun in his hand and (f)lies between his teeth; from traveling with the windows down
Stephen Colbert shoulda seen that comin’ from a 8 mile away
Hey Stephen, Report’ THAT !!!
—————————————————————— “He grew up in Huntsville, Ala., the son of a teacher and a retail man“
——————————————————————
And obviously, he didn’t “learnt” well
I think a refund’s in order
And here’s your free school Insolence to go with it
Happy eat in’
It is claimed that “HE” spends time:
—————————————————————— “traveling the world giving talks on free speech and Internet freedom“
——————————————————————
seriously ?
Seriously ??
SERIOUSLY ???
Welcome to MizFitTV
What would “Jymboree” know about “free speech” and “Internet freedom,“ anyway ?
How many days did you serve your country in the United States military ?
Oh, you did NOT realize that while you were in San Diego, you could have signed that contract ?
After all, he’s no Vincent Kennedy McMahon” (“HE” knows where “HIS”GRAPEFRUITS are)
====================================== “B.D.F.L., or the Benevolent Dictator for Life”
——————————————————————
How ’bout:
Big Disappointing Fascist Loser ?
—————————————————————— “Argumentum ad Jimbonem” means dutifully following what Wales says, but there are even arguments about that”
—————————————————————— WP:NICETRY, but that’s “SHEEPLE”
—————————————————————— “One Wikipedia editor said, for instance, that Wales was no longer comfortable with the B.D.F.L. description”
—————————————————————— Jiminy Cricket!
Whazzamatta Jiminy?
Did “FASCIST” hit a bit too close to home ?
—————————————————————— “(There is, among some, a debate over what to call him)”
“Some users have also disputed the Latinized version of “Jimbo.”“
“(Should it be “Jimboni” or “Jimbini”?)”
—————————————————————— Can you smell what “The Rock” is cookin’ ?
La-La-La-La-Laaaaaaawwww, JIMBRONI !!!!!!!
Get ready, and bend over, ’cause I’m gonna shine this thing up, turn it sideways, and shove it straight up your Candy AstroTurf hatch
—————————————————————— Introduction (statement of principles) [WP:SOP]
“This is a statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then”
—————————————————————— (Or if you go by The New York Times article, [1] Jimbroni is the “co-founder” who tries to re-write history to make it appear that “HE” is the one-and-onlyFascist Founder ?)
——————————————————————
“I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them”
“This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run”
—————————————————————— No, actually, it DOES mean that he will NOT listen to you, as was the case when he ignored my 2/7/2013 appeal
In his defense, perhaps Kate Garvey has his balls
—————————————————————— Principles
1. “Wikipedia’s success to date is entirely a function of our open community”
“This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing”
“Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty”
——————————————————————
The problem with this Wacky Tobacky“We are the (Wiki) World”WikiWhOReD Wonderland Jimbroni’s living in, is that “HE” has NOT been Doing The Right Thing since “HE”abdicated “his”“neutral point of view policy” and “culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty,” to “The Skeptics”
“The Skeptics,” who serve as gatekeepers of the Burzynski Clinic article, and who cite Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a “Orac” aka GorskGeekas if he were a “reliable source”
“The Skeptics,” who bring new meaning to the term“Wikipedia Zero”
“The Skeptics,” who are Intellectual Cowards like their falsegodGorski, the Closet Communist of Science-Based Medicine a/k/a Science-Basted Medicine aka Science-Based Mudicine(Spinning Bowel Movement), WikiWordsmith Wannabes, nut-jobbers, stale from their failure at the National Peanut Festival in Dothan, Alabama
——————————————————————
3. ““You can edit this page right now” is a core guiding check on everything that we do”
“We must respect this principle as sacred”
——————————————————————
Do the lies just dribble off your chin like phlegm?
You canNOT just go in and “edit” the Burzynski Clinic article “page right now”
That statement is pure, unadulteratedAlabamaB.S.
That’s NOT a “sacred principle,” it’s sacré “bull”
——————————————————————
7. “Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity”
——————————————————————
Unfortunately, you do NOT practice what you preach, do you, HYPOCRITE ?
—————————————————————— “They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way”
——————————————————————
So that you can ignore the problem(s), right, Jimbroni ?
—————————————————————— “Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored”
—————————————————————— THAT would automatically exclude all of “The Skeptics” now, wouldn’t it ?
——————————————————————
“We must not let the “squeaky wheel” be greased just for being a jerk”
—————————————————————— Jimbroni, why have you allowed “The Skeptics” to choose from their “squeaky” wheel-house bag o’ tricks, get all “greased” up and jerk” so many people around in such a big CIRCLE-JERK, for so long?
——————————————————————
8. “Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness”
“Both are objectively valuable moral principles”
“Be honest with me, but don’t be mean to me”
“Don’t misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I’ll treat you the same way”
—————————————————————— “Honesty” and “politeness” are really great “buzzwords,” Jimbroni, but they are as foreign to your “Skeptics,” as “moral principles”
——————————————————————
A great example of the questionable“honesty” and “moral principles” of one of your apparatchiks, was demonstrated 2/3/2013, 6:56, when I sent an arbitration appeale-mail to Wikipedia, advising, in part, that the e-mail listed on Wikipedia; as the one that blocked users should use, did NOT work, because there was NO “@” sign in it
There was a . (period) where the “@” sign belonged
——————————————————————
—————————————————————— 2/3/2013, 8:11 AM, Anthony (AGK) BASC wikiagk@gmail.com advised:
“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
Check the “time” and “place” where you are, so that you, too, can advise, that according to Wikipedia, pointing out to them that the e-mail they advise people to use, DOES NOT WORK; because there is no “@” sign in it (instead, there’s a . (period)), translates into meaning:
—————————————————————— “Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
====================================== Core principles
Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset [WP:SR]
Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct”
——————————————————————
I wish I could LIE like that, but I have a conscience
====================================== 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) –
“We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
——————————————————————
Does anyone other than me NOT think it a “coinkydink” that some “Guy” on Wikipedia, going by the name “Guy”, using the same 2 words (“Bullshit movie”) as a “Guy” on Twitter ?
======================================
2. Founding principles:
“Neutrality is mandatory . . . “
—————————————————————— I call B.S.
“Neutrality is mandatory,”EXCEPT on the Burzynski Clinic article, controlled by “The Skeptics”
——————————————————————
4. “Ignore all rules (IAR):”
“Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone”
——————————————————————
Especially when Jimbroni allows “The Skeptics”
to “dictator” the “rules”
——————————————————————
“The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule”
“The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both”
“This means that any rule can be broken for a very good reason, if it ultimately helps to improve the encyclopedia”
——————————————————————
And “The Skeptics” are NOT required to provide ANY reason for having broken “any rule”
——————————————————————
“It doesn’t mean that anything can be done just by claiming IAR, or that discussion is not necessary to explain one’s decision”
——————————————————————
But do NOT expect Wikipedia to require anything from The Skeptics”
—————————————————————— Founding principles
1. “Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle”
—————————————————————– EXCEPT when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic article
—————————————————————— 12/26/2012 – I attempted to get Wikipedia to reference the interview which Burzynski’s attorney, Richard (Rick) A. Jaffe, and Lola Quinlan’s attorney; who posted it on his web-site, had given: [4]
Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan’s claims:
“On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan’s allegations on Houston’s KPRC News.”
Thank you very much.[[User: Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
—————————————————————— So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news. — [[User: Arthur Rubin 15:24, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the articleincludes statements from attorneys representing both sides
17:51, 12/27/2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas
====================================== 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([User JzG/help|Help!])
“Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it” ?
Ignores independent research done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, & includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being published in China 12/17/2012?
FACTS:
1. I pointed out to Wikipedia, a 12/17/2012 scientific publication re antineoplastons, which referenced Burzynski@ 22. (antineoplaston AS21)
2. 7 days after this scientific journal was published, Wikipedia’a“Guy (Help!’s) ”response, Monday, 12/24/2012 @ 3:54 pm, is to advise me:
“What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
Guy (Help!) 3:54 pm, 12/24/2012, Monday
3. So, Wikipedia’s, Guy (Help!), defines an event having been published7 days ago (12/17/2012 to 12/24/2012) as:
“…nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it…”
12/17/2012 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3524164
CDA-2 (cell differentiation agent 2), a URINARY preparation http://po.st/g71N8P
CDA-2 and its main component PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PG or PAG)
Antineoplaston AS2-5 is PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG) http://redd.it/1dk974
Antineoplaston AS2-1 is a 4:1 mixture of phenylacetic acid (PA) and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)
Antineoplastons AS2-5 and AS2-1 are derived from Antineoplaston A10 BURZYNSKI Reference: 22.
antineoplaston AS21 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052117
====================================== 12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynskicontinues with his unethical practices.”
25. ↵ Burzynski SR
Treatments for astrocytic tumors in children: current and emerging strategies
Paediatr Drugs. 2006;8:167-178 http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165%2F00148581-200608030-00003
Pediatric Drugs
May 2006, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 167-178
======================================
—————————————————————— Rhode Island Redattempts to get away with misquoting me:
——————————————————————
——————————————————————
“The other argument is that the secondary sources (i.e., respected cancer organizations, FDA, etc.) are not reliable because they are Burzynski’s “competitors”
[[User: Rhode Island Red]] 4:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)
======================================
——————————————————————
What a Wipocrite (Wiki+Hypocrite)
Steve Pereira (SilkTork) is such a “WIPOCRITE,” that he claims:
—————————————————————— “the community were united that your contributions were biased”
——————————————————————
He conveniently; like a good little mini-Jimbroni would, ignores ALL of his fellow WIPOCRITES comments, which completely ignored:
—————————————————————— ([WP:SOP]“Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)
Due & undue weight: [3]
“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”
[WP:NPOV]“History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)
(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————
1. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
——————————————————————
2. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
——————————————————————
3. 12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynskicontinues with his unethical practices.”
——————————————————————
4. 12/30/2012 8:58 “The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?
——————————————————————
Am I NOT the only one convinced that “the community” was also “united” in something more than just their “goose-stepping ?
—————————————————————— Pereira, the imperfect‘pedia Pimp tries to Wow his readers by waxing WikiWhOReD, by ignoring that ALL the previous BIASED opinion B.S. that his fellow-Facist forged ahead with, and which Wikipediantic history says means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (say it again) because it is their BIASED OPINION and is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS, and it was as so much WikiLitter, well, he’s just facist-free speechless about that, as any Jimbroni AstroTurf Twerk should be
======================================
To show exactly what zealots these WikiPimps are, just absorb this exchange:
——————————————————————
“The Burzynski Clinic Article has:
“…a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit….”
But that was not what the study concluded
See below:
—————————————————————— “CONCLUSION:
Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
In the interest of Neutrality, please remove the reference to Mayo entirely or change to;
—————————————————————— “…a Mayo Clinic study found that “the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
Thank you very much
Didymus Judas Thomas 21:12, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————
“How is “found no benefit” not a a fair and pithy description of the Mayo Clinic study’s summary?”
Alexbrn 21:24, 12/10/2012
—————————————————————— “I feel this should be changed under WP:NPOV because not every reader is going to understand the “Fair & Pithy” reason I was provided
I feel that the average reader reading this will read it as meaning a study was done & completed with the necessary # of people for an effective study, when that was not the conclusion as pointed out in my above post
Thank you very much.”
Didymus Judas Thomas 11:02, 12/18/2012
—————————————————————— NO RESPONSE
That’s right !
“NO RESPONSE” from the “mini-b”(a/k/a “mini-brain”), wannabe Fascists who are so zealous about using their alleged“Fair and Pithy” “found no benefit” WikiWhOReD; which they utilize in an effort to deceive those who are NOTsmarter than a fifth-grader
These WikiPimps are so certain of the righteousness of their evangelical cause, that they do NOT even have the “GRAPEFRUITS” to use what the study’s conclusions actually said, and let the chips fall where they may
There are a lot of “chips” falling at Wikipedia
“BULL CHIPS”
JIMBRONI, you’re no Maggie Thatcher
You can’t even wear her pants
—————————————————————— Margaret Thatcher: “The Iron Lady”
Jimbroni: “No iron in the pants”
—————————————————————— Jimbroni’s list of Facist, mini-Hitler, Monty Pythonesque Women’s underwear wearing Wannabes on Wikipediantic:
These mini-b’s went so far as to allege all sorts of sockpuppetry
Wikipediantic, why don’t you list all the dates and times I was supposedly doing all of these activities; and don’t forget to include all the time I spent blogging, on Twitter, making comments on articles, etc., and once you have all that data compiled, explain how one individual could do all that in a 24-hour day
That’s right Wikipediantic
I’m challenging you to put up or shut up your cornholio
guychapman, THIS “good evidence” that you’re “without” ?
The FDA’s Drug Review Process:
Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective
“[T]he emphasis in Phase 2 is on EFFECTIVENESS”
“This phase aims to obtain PRELIMINARY DATA on whether the drug works in people who have a certain disease or condition”
“Phase 3 studies begin if EVIDENCE of EFFECTIVENESS is shown in Phase 2″
“These studies gather more information about safety and EFFECTIVENESS, studying different populations and different dosages and using the drug in combination with other drugs” http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm
“61 registered human trials, one completed, zero results published, from any of them.”
guychapman, do you mean THIS ?
clinicaltrials . gov does NOT contain the same data as the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) cancer . gov web-site:
61 TOTAL
1 – Not Yet Recruiting (Open)(Phase 3)
1 – Closed
2 – Terminated (Withdrawn due to slow enrollment)
7 – Withdrawn (This study has been withdrawn prior to enrollment)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)
10 – Recruiting (Open)
11 – Open (1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting)
40 – Active, not recruiting (Closed)
10=Open
11=1 Not Yet Recruiting / 10 Recruiting
40=Closed
61-TOTAL
“The Burzynski fans’ snowstorm of irrelevant, low-grade publications in low impact journals and conference abstracts that aren’t even peer-reviewed, do not address this at all.”
guychapman, are you referring to THIS ?
The “National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Cancer Clinical Trials,
15. What happens when a clinical trial is over?”
“The results of clinical trials are OFTEN published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”
” … WHETHER OR NOT the results are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal … “ http://m.cancer.gov/topics/factsheets/clinical-trials This makes it clear that clinical trial results “are OFTEN” published, but sometimes they are “NOT” published “in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”
“The Helsinki Declaration states the obligations of those conducting trials in humans, and getting the results (good or bad) published and available is a core requirement.”
guychapman, WHERE does the Declaration of Helsinki indicate WHEN the final results of human clinical trials MUST be published?
“Gerson’s therapy is known to be ineffective and potentially harmful, but he used patient anecdotes – people sincerely convinced they had undergone a miracle cure – to promote his business.”
“What *objective* mechanism do you propose we use to distinguish between Burzynski and the quack Gerson?”
guychapman, how about the publications and Securities and Exchange (SEC) filings cited on my page 9 critique?
“2. Burzynski has registered 61 clinical trials in humans, completed one and published no useful data from any.”
guychapman, you obviously have a very “fast and loose” definition of “no useful data”
Exactly WHAT is your definition of “no useful data”?
“Can you name any mainstream cancer research operations that have similar rates of failure to compete and publish?”
guychapman, can you name any mainstream publications like Forbes that have similar rates of failure to “compete” and publish my 15+ comments in reply to your 18 comments?
Do you think it was because they knew that I would “rip you a new one” and you would be left there as the proverbial “Emperor (who) has no clothes”?
“3. How many people do you estimate are involved, globally, in the conspiracy to suppress Burzynski’s treatment?”
“My rough guess is a few hundred thousand.”
“Can you give a better estimate with reasons?”
guychapman, let’s start with YOU, guychapman (Guy Chapman, @SceptiGuy, @vGuyUK, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg), your pals at Wikipedia; Jimmy (Jimbo) Donal Wales, http://www.jimmywales.com, (@jimmy_wales – whom you re-twit on Twitter), JzG|Guy, Guy, Anthony (AGK) BASC, Alexbrn, Dave Dial, Drmies, NE Ent, fluffernutter, foxj, jpgordon, Guerillero, Ironholds, John, Lord Sjones23, Tom Morris, Nstrauss, Steve Pereira/SilkTork, Rhode Island Red, Arthur Rubin, Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 (Seb az86556), Sgerbic, IRWolfie, Six words, Yobol, @RudyHellzapop, @_JosephineJones, @JCmacc1, @Malboury, @DianthusMed, @medTek, @StopBurzynski, @StortSkeptic, Dr. Peter A. Lipson (@palMD), #Forbes censor(s), Dr. David H. Gorski (@gorskon, @oracknows, @ScienceBasedMed, #sciencebasedmedicine, http://www.scienceblogs.com/Insolence, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org, The Faux Skeptic Revealed! Bob Blaskiewicz (@rjblaskiewicz, R.J. Blaskiewicz, Blatherskitewicz), C0nc0rdance, Boris Ogon, lilady, JGC2013, claire G, Sharon Hill, Allen Jones, Lynne, @JCmacc1, Paul Morgan (@drpaulmorgan), oval wooki, Vered Yasur, (the Forbes group) and http://burzynskimovie.com/images/stories/transcript/Documents/BurzynskiTriesToExposeNCI.pdf, etc.
“4. When you talk about Antineoplastons not being chemotherapy, what, in your mind, distinguishes the intravenous administration of one chemical from the intravenous administration of another, other than the fact that it’s Burzynski doing it?”
2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of HYPERNATREMIA in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive CANCER center http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23404230 Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the HYPERNATREMIA (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay
Division of Internal Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic
Support Care Cancer. 2013 Feb 13. [Epub ahead of print]
“In order to maintain their doses of ANP, patients are required to drink obscene amounts of water every day (some report up to 12 quarts or more)”
“If they fail to do so, they may lapse into unconsciousness or die”
Let’s put this in perspective
FACT: Some sources indicate:
1) A man should drink about
3 liters (101.44 ounces / 3 quarts 5.44 ounces) per day
{12 quarts = 384 ounces = 11.356 liters}
[12 quarts in 24 hours = 1/2 quart or 16 ounces per hour]
2) Extremely healthy kidneys could process about 30 ounces (approx .9 liters) of water in an hour
{30 ounces in 24 hours = 720 ounces}
[720 ounces = 22.5 quarts per day]
3) A person with healthy kidneys could develop water intoxication by drinking about 2 to 3 times what their kidneys can process
So, if extremely healthy kidneys could process about 30 ounces per hour and 12 quarts per day would require one to only drink 16 ounces per hour, that means one is being asked to drink 14 ounces less per hour than what extremely healthy kidneys could process
So even if one drinks more than 16 ounces per hour so that one does not have to be awake hourly, there is still opportunity to do that
Of course, there are certain other factors that might have to be taken into consideration depending on the patient
“6. Burzynski has convinced you that he can cure incurable cancers.”
“What figures has he given you for his five-year survival versus standard of care?”
guychapman, HERE:
2003 – Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma:
incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
6 patients were diagnosed with pilocytic astrocytoma
4 with low-grade astrocytoma
1 with astrocytoma grade 2
1 case of visual pathway glioma, a biopsy was not performed due to a dangerous location
1 patient was non-evaluable due to only 4 weeks of ANP and lack of follow-up scans
1 patient who had stable disease discontinued ANP against medical advice and died 4.5 years later
10 patients are alive and well from 2 to >14 years post-diagnosis
2004
Protocol – incurable recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma
12 – Patients Accrued
– Evaluable Patients
33% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
25% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
33% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
0 / 0% – # and % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
2005 – Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929 Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
13 children with recurrent disease or high risk
6 (46%) survived more than 5 years
2005
Protocol – recurrent disease or
high risk
– Patients Accrued
– Evaluable Patients
23% – % of Patients Showing Complete Response
8% – % of Patients Showing Partial Response
31% – % of Patients Showing Stable Disease
38% – % of Patients Showing Progressive Disease
2006 – Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713 Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
Brainstem glioma carries the worst prognosis of all malignancies of the brain
Most patients with brainstem glioma fail standard radiation therapy and chemotherapy and do not survive longer than 2 years
Treatment is even more challenging when an inoperable tumor is of high-grade pathology (HBSG)
patients with inoperable tumor of high-grade pathology (HBSG) treated with antineoplastons in 4 phase 2 trials
22% – overall survival at 5 years
17+ years maximum survival for a patient with anaplastic astrocytoma
5+ years for a patient with glioblastoma
5+ year survival in recurrent diffuse intrinsic glioblastomas and anaplastic astrocytomas of the brainstem in a small group of patients
“They refuse to fact check anything. Namely Phase 2 results showing a 25% cure rate for brainstem glioma, never accomplished in medical history—ever.”
“Published plan as day in a ‘internationally peer-reviewed’ article.”
“You mean PMIDs 12718563 and 16484713? (These, at least, are the ones that Merola cites, which I assume is the sum total of your “fact checking.”)”
“Namely Phase 2 results showing a 25% cure rate for brainstem glioma, never accomplished in medical history—ever”
“Notice the chart on page 172 (page 8 of PDF).”
“Find just one, any single cure for this tumor type and you can’t, outside of Antineoplastons FDA sanctioned clinical trials:”
“The first reference is to Drugs in R&D 4:91 (2003).”
“The second reference is to Integrative Cancer Therapies 4:168 (2005).”
The “chart on page 172 (page 8 of PDF):”
refers to:
2006 Adis – Pediatr Drugs 2006; 8 (3)
pg 172
Treatments for Astrocytic Tumors
Table II. Treatment of diffuse, intrinsic brainstem glioma in children
Burzynski et al. [88] – Reference
Phase II – Study Type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
RP (30) – RP = recurrent and progressive tumor – Tumor type
ANP – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment – ANP
OS (%) – OS = overall survival
[2y; 5y]
46.7; 30 – Efficacy
MST (mo)
19.9 – MST = median survival time
[% (no. )]
27 (8) – CR – CR = complete response
[% (no. )]
20% (6) – PR – PR = partial response
[% (no. )]
23% (7) – SD – SD = stabile disease
30% (9) – PD = progressive disease pg 177
88. Burzynski SR, Weaver RA, Janicki T. Long-term survival in phase II studies of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) in patients with diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma [abstract]. Neuro-oncol 2004; 6: 386
This is the 2004 publication, NOT 2003
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in children with recurrent and progressive multicentric glioma : a preliminary report. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15563234 Drugs R D. 2004;5(6):315-26
pg 172
Burzynski et al. [89] – Reference
Phase II – Study Type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
RPS (10) – RPS = recurrent and progressive tumors in children aged <4y – Tumor type {(66) = most in a study}
ANP – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment – ANP
OS (%) – OS = overall survival
[2y; 5y] – Efficacy
60; 20 {46.7 (30) = next best study}
MST (mo)
26.3 – MST = median survival time – {19.9 = next best study}
[% (no. )]
30% (3) – CR = complete response – {27% (8) = next best study}
[% (no. )]
0% (0) – PR = partial response – {56% (1) = next best}
[% (no. )]
40% (4) – SD = stable disease – {44% (25) = best}
[% (no. )]
30% (3) – PD = progressive disease – {23% (13) = best}
(Above, I also provide the best next case to compare to)
pg 177
89. Burzynski SR, Weaver RA, Janicki TJ, et al. Targeted therapy with ANP in children less than 4 years old with inoperable brain stem gliomas [abstract]. Neuro-oncol 2005; 7: 300
Long-term survival of high-risk pediatric patients with primitive neuroectodermal tumors treated with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15911929 Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Jun;4(2):168-77
pg 173
1.4.3 Targeted Therapy
“…multi-targeted therapy with ANP has shown promising results [12;88-91]”
pg 176
90. Burzynski SR, Lewy RI, Weaver RA, et al. Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report. Drugs R D 2003; 4: 91-101
Phase II study of antineoplaston A10 and AS2-1 in patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brain stem glioma: a preliminary report. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12718563 Drugs R D. 2003;4(2):91-101
91. Burzynski SR, Weaver RA, Janicki T. et al. Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP) of high-grade, recurrent and progressive brain stem glioma. Integr Cancer Ther 2006 Mar; 5 (1): 40-7
Targeted therapy with antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 of high-grade, recurrent, and progressive brainstem glioma. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16484713 Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Mar;5(1):40-7
30 evaluable patients with recurrent and progressive DBSG
“>40% of patients survived for more than 2 years
30% more than 5 years.”
Multi-targeted ANP therapy is free from chronic toxicity in children and adults based on the results of numerous clinical studies involving
1652 adults
335 children
[147]
pg 178
147. Burzynski SR. Annual report to the FDA, IND 43,742, 2006
pg 174
Long-term follow-up of children treated with ANP for astrocytomas revealed:
normal development
no cognitive or endocrine deficiencies
normal fertility
>5 years – substantial number of patients tumor free
>17 years – follow-up period for some patients
pg 169
1.1.4. Targeted Therapy
Clinical trials with agents affecting single targets are in progress and the preliminary results of multi-targeted therapy with
antineoplastons (ANP) A10
and
AS2-1 have been reported
[39]
small group of patients with progressive LGA, ANP
60% – CR rate – Complete Response
10% – PR rate – Partial Response
median survival 7 years 9 months
maximum survival of more than 15 years
[39]
LGA = Low-Grade Astrocytomas
Table I. Selected chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of low- grade astrocytoma in children
Burzynski [39] – Reference
Phase II d – d = Preliminary results – Study type
P – P = progressive tumor – Tumor type
(no. of pts) – pts = patients
ANP (10) – ANP = antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 – Treatment {(78) = most in a study}
OS [%] – OS = overall survival
100% (1 yr) – 90% (3 yr) – Efficacy
93 mo – MST = MST = median survival time – {96 (1 y) next closest}
CR [% (no.)]
60% (6) – CR = complete response {24 (11) next closest}
PR [% (no.)]
10% (1) – PR = partial response {60% (9) best other study}
[% (no.)]
30% (3) – SD = stable disease + MR = minor response {70% (14) best other study}
[% (no.)]
0% (0) – PD = progressive disease {4% (2) next closest}
PFS (%)
90 (1 y) – 90 (3 y) – PFS = progression-free survival {100 (1 y) – 68 (3 y) best other study
(Above, I also provide the best next case to compare to)
pg 176
39. Burzynski SR Clinical application of body epigenetic system: multi-targeted therapy for primary brain tumors. World and Ehrlich Conference on Dosing of Magic Bullets; 2004 Sep 9-11 Nurnberg
Otherwise, check with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Where are they published?
guychapman, if you have NOT yet figured THAT out…
“7. There are numerous cases where the Burzynski clinic has said a tumour is “dying from the inside”, but where it turns out that it is growing aggressively and suffering necrosis due to outstripping its blood supply; this is usually a precursor to the death of a patient only weeks after being told they were on the way to a cure.”
“How do you account for this repeated error?”
guychapman, WHERE is the documentation?
Boris Ogon
“You are right now having a live “debate” in front of more than 10,000 people, … “
3,919 views
Not so much
Waiting for the 10,000
4/19/2013 @ 9:43PM
Peter Lipson: “Speech is best countered by more speech”
