I was thinking the same, I thought you were more likely to die from heart disease than cancer anyway.

I think the issue is that the cancer treatments destroy the body and they usually die from something else.

How about an Oz of prevention or a Lb of cure instead of a giga-ton and a trillion $ of treatment

We all die of something some day. Unfortunately some people are delusional and think they are going to live forever.

Why is this news? I don't even know why I bother reading anything on this website anymore... must be some sort of masochistic streak ;-(

No, James, the article says that people who die from cancers have weakened bodies from their terrible life styles and there for are usually already sick when they get cancer and die from something else after the cancer is gone.

Eat right, Exercise regularly...

journal journal

.......Eat right, Exercise regularly...

And then die like the rest of us.. Sigh....

lol @ journal journal. I completely agree. These "cancer survivors" become a statistic towards the deaths related to anything else BUT cancer. This professor is more decorated than I am, but lacking in common sense. What is the number one killer of Americans? Uhhhh cardiovascular disease?! Goodness gracious....

Has anybody ever died healthy??

are you people really that dumb?

you can survive one cancer, and die from another.

or, you can initially beat the cancer you have...and have it come back again, then spread like wildfire.

seriously....this shouldnt have to be explained, but this is the vine and most people dont bother to pause and take a few seconds of thought on anything, just shoot straight from your finger tips.

as for this study - it would be a better study if the compared the life exptencies to that of the general (non-diseased) population, but then...how can the two really compare? My guess is you take any "disease" and you'll find that most people die from that, or another disease, much sooner than non-diseased people do.

Partly - because it's too costly to treat every last thing that ails you.

Partly - because people just dont care to take care of themselves (give me meds so i can still eat my cheeseburgers and not worry about my cholestoral)

And mostly - because genetically, something is amiss and if you were capable of getting cancer, I suspect your DNA has set you up to be susceptible to a lot of things.

People who live to be 100 dont just get there because they "eat right and exercise", though thats part of it. Many of them simply won the genetic lottery and the things that kill other people, just dont have a chance at killing them...period.

you can initially beat the cancer you have...and have it come back again, then spread like wildfire.

Doesn't that make you not a cancer survivor?

I do believe that the ridiculous reporting, the total lack of effort by the reporter and the stupidity of the editor to publish it in the first place are more at fault than the study itself.

The study was purposed to present facts rather than speculation, that most primary care physicians are focused on the cancer treatment and signs, rather than continuing with primary health risks in other areas.

"You've survived the cancer, but now we need to refocus on present or pre-conditions (ie: high blood pressure, dietary habits, etc.)"

The reporter seemed to purposely make the article short, non-precise, and lacked point. Where were the actual statistics, as per health conditions or deaths in the 20 years addressed, life spans of 1-3 yrs, 1-5 years, 1-10 yrs etc. What were the causes of death during those time periods. Were the patients being treated for those ailments prior to the deaths (ie: overweight, smoking, diabetics).

Sometimes studies are stupid, or controversial in that they are sponsored by profiteers (pharmaceutical companies trying to promote a disease or disorder).

Yet I can see a valid point to be made in the study if it showed that doctors are failing their patients, who are lead to believe that "the doctor knows best" in most case scenarios, when in reality the doctor learns more from a patient's input than they do from testing and prodding and general physicals.

The class of primary care physicians we have available today to us today are an aftermarket copy, with the larger percentage more tuned to their careers than their patients. Wary to prescribe narcotics for genuine pain sufferers of progressive ailments and disorders rather than putting in the extra time to monitor prescribed patients. In the mass volume meat market industry that health care has become, doctors have fast become programmed to rush them in and rush them out, referring any time consuming ailments or problems to specialists which costs Medicare and Medicaid millions in alternative visits to higher priced doctors.

An ear or throat infection that doesn't respond promptly to antibiotic treatment, refer the patient to an expensive specialist.

An elderly patient suffering from progressive degenerative arthritis who needs pain medication, refer them to a specialist.

No wonder in this era of 10 minute clinical visits, we have doctors not focusing on pre-conditions after cancer therapy.

I just have no words to describe the utter stupidity in this study.

The burning question is, of course, whose money PAID for this completely asinine study.

Lets see. You get cancer, go through surgery, having your cells irradiated, having toxic chemicals pumped through your body. Have significant weight loss due to the treatments. Hmmmm, you think that might have a little effect on your later health?

Most people I see that have cancer usually have a pretty big lifestyle change following all that.

"Half of cancer survivors die from other diseases". What happens to the other half - do they live forever!

Tell us what their secret is and we would not have a health insurance crisis on our hands.

They forgot to mention that someone is considered a survivor if they are still alive after 5 years of remission. With this little piece of information, the rest might have made more sense.

Newsflash! If you don't die of cancer, you die of something else!

Witness our tax dollars at work!

This is an idiotic study. As a guy who's had cancer 3 times over the last 30+ years, I know I'm going to die of something. It could be cancer, but it will probably be cardiovascular failure. Heck, it could even be an accident or I could do something stupid like walk somewhere in Florida.

It's nice to know that half the people who had cancer died of something else. The higher the something else number is, the better the chances that cancer is being controlled. But none of us should ever expect to live forever. I know I wouldn't want to.

Why does this headline remind me of the old Marx Brothers line:

When you go see a doctor for liver trouble you die from heart trouble, but when you go see my doctor for liver trouble you DIE from liver trouble . . . .

and you know, almost every 'cause of death' on a death certificate is either respiratory arrest or cardiac arrest . . . .cancer RARELY is the first cause of death!

"About half of cancer survivors die from diseases other than cancer, such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, a new study says."

And about 100% of people who don't get cancer die from other diseases.

So the point is????????????????

"Over the course of the study, 776 cancer survivors died: fifty-one percent from cancer and 49 percent died from other causes."

Surviving a battle does not mean you survived the war.

They survived a bout with cancer, they quite obviously didn't survive cancer.

Forks Over Knives - Official Trailer

How many people die because radiation was used? How many people died because the DEA has been lying about cannabis since they found out it shrinks tumors? How many people got cancer in the first place because of chemicals and food that are supposed to be safe and aren't?

Most cancer patients do not normally understand the lasting effects of chemo and radiation on your body. While my husband survived Hodgkin's Lymphoma, the chemo and radiation have caused serious problems with his kidneys years later. However at the time of treatment, he was so focused on survival that he did not realize the future would not only include daily bone pain, but serious, life threatening organ damage.

This is why people should avoid commenting on a scientific article when they've only read a story with the headlines... They kind of come to conclusions based upon only part of the story. The sad part is people read the story and then think they now know everything about the research and then make a judgment call about the usefulness of the research.

For instance, in this news piece, they never give you the ages of the people in the study. You can be quite sure this data was collected and accounted for in the actual study. So, they're not likely to be looking at 80-90 year old individuals and then suddenly say "ah ha, they died". That's not how this type of research works... If you think it is, you need to pull your head from your ass and read one of these studies instead of a news article on it.

Second, this article doesn't give you the baseline for people without cancer for the age groups being tested. You can also be pretty sure that this information was shown in the research and is probably different for these cancer patients. There's this review process for articles where they kind of check these types of things... If these deaths and ages of deaths match a normal population, then it's not anything special. If they're causing deaths at an earlier age, then that is something different. The fact that they're commenting about these types of deaths indicates that they probably happen sooner than for people without cancer. Otherwise the headline would read, "Cancer survivors lead normal live after treatment and don't from other causes earlier than normal people".

Take the source of studies and their purpose, then you can get an idea as to their validity. An example would be making a study of how many cigarette smokers survive 5 years or more after they quit smoking cold turkey. You might be surprised at the statistics and of the outstanding results of those numbers that die of heart failure within a mere 5 years after quitting. Yet no medical or pharmaceutics group wishes to promote a study like that, since it would be saying more or less that quitting smoking after being a life long smoker poses serious medical risks. Yet there is an acute necessity to monitor patients closely after they quit, for the stress on the heart and body is definitely a need for awareness.

Jessica-1170252 made a snarky remark about people taking medications so that they can continue to eat their cheeseburgers.

Jessica--there is nothing wrong with a cheeseburger. It is a perfectly good meal. There is no distinction, nutritionally, between a cheeseburger and lasagna or . . . you know, I could go on. It's just some bread, some ground meat, and a little bit of cheese. It is completely analogous to many, many other dishes. The cheeseburger is not a symbol of unhealthiness.

It is true that there are some people who cannot taste their food--to them, food is something they eat periodically because otherwise they feel faint. Fine. On the one hand, it is great that such people can eat rabbit food and it doesn't bother them. They could eat dog kibble, and it wouldn't bother them. Some of us, however, like food and consider it an art form. Some varieties of the "cheeseburger," in fact, elevate to an art form (though it would probably be called Filet de Boeuf en Croûte).

It gets very old to be told that by eating things that taste yummy, we are all at fault for bringing health problems on ourselves. Fine, and the people who play sports and tear an ACL brought that on themselves. And the runners who get shin splints brought that on themselves. And the people who suntan bring melanoma on themselves.

Sweetie--anything that is amusing probably exposes one to some sort of health problem. I suppose we could all live like Tibetan monks--eating a handful of rice with a sip of water every other day, meditating, and never really doing anything other than seeking enlightenment. I'll bet Tibetan monks are, on average, really healthy. But, critiquing people for doing things that are amusing--in this case, eating--rather than sitting around and spending all day, every day, obsessing on their health . . . given that the person who does that will just die anyway, and probably will die first from the anxiety . . . is really pretty stupid.

First demonstrate that absolutely nothing you do in your life subjects you to the chance of a health problem--then criticize others. Or, watch out when you choose to cast that first stone, as you probably aren't justified.

There is really good ways that produce good food and maintains healthy diverse populations and environments. Most food systems are not maintaining either.

Unless your dick C and get a heart at 71.....

That was shameful..... I wonder who he bumped off the list to get his new heart? I wonder if they died waiting for their next shot at a heart and I wonder if it bothered him one bit that he may have caused the death of someone else again?

Did you not hear the study results that vegetarians who exercise don't smoke and don't drink, also don't die? I guess the results are not in yet....

Dammit!!! I knew I couldn't trust those crosswalks!

I agree with you, Laura. Cancer is a business more than anything. Chemotherapy relies on poisoning the body and hoping the cancer dies before the patient does. It's no wonder cancer patients die of other causes - but they're most likely side effects of the aggressive treatment.

Laura, it's a personal choice whether or not to have these tests. A life-long friend of mine was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year and after he was given all the options of treatment, he decided not to do anything. I couldn't argue with him. However, the colonoscopy I believe is the most useful test they have today, because it can catch cancers that have no other symptoms early enough to have a very high cure rate, without a lot of side effects. They don't do rads for colon cancer so that's not an issue, and the test is not bad, I've had 3 of them and if you feel any pain they just increase the Versed and you're pretty much out until it's over. Please reconsider on that one, it may save your life.

laura, i've known some people who've survived cancer treatments and have gone on to live longer lives than maybe they deserved.

and i've known some who beat cancer, only to have it come back full force and take them out of this world.

there isnt as much rhyme or reason as you'd think...

but ignorance is bliss is an option, just dont be shocked or dismayed when you die of a curable cancer, all because you refused to believe it really exists beyond some doctors doing.

Laure, I am currently being treated for 4th stage colon cancer. I'll be treated for the rest of my life because the chemo is keeping the cancer from spreading, so far. The tumors don't appear to be shrinking but they're not getting any bigger and they're not spreading. Colonoscopies are no fun, I admit, but having one saved my life. My doctor just thought I was suffering from IBS. He also thought I was "too young" to have anything like cancer but he ordered the test anyway and I got the diagnosis nobody wants. Even though I have a 5and I believe that I'll live longer than the 23 months my oncologist told me. Even though I have a 5% chance of survival, according to the statistics, I believe that I'll die "with the cancer" rather than from it I still see my primary care doctor and my GYN. Also, save for the cancer, I wasn't overweight, had diabetes or high blood pressure. These factors contribute very much to a cancer patients chances for survival and successful treatment.

Laura, don't be afraid to have a cancer screening. The life you save maybe your own.

Peace and God's blessings to all this day.

Just because you have a test doesn't force you to have chemo. Colonoscopies very rarely diagnose cancers, they much more commonly find pre-cancerous polyps which are looped off and never become cancer and require no further treatment, similarly mot mammograms detect very early changes which can be taken out in a small lumpectomy with little problem and often no need for radiation or chemotherapy.
If either were to show advanced cancer you have every right to choose what treatment you do and don't have.

What do you mean everyone dies I just got my new iPad 3.

So if you were diagnosed with Stage I cancer, which could be successfully treated with surgery and a round of chemo, you'd opt to die instead? Something tells me you'd change your mind. I hope so, anyway. Nobody gets any brownie points for giving up without a fight.

Depending on the cancer and the stage you were in, and your overall health at the time of diagnosis, going without treatment could end up leading to a very painful, slow demise. You could end up spending six months in hospice!

If a person opts to not have treatment, that's their choice. But make sure that if you decide not to have any treatment, you have a clear understanding as to how the disease will effect your life for six months etc.

Peace.

Unfortunately, having the Treatment (chemo) often only prolongs the inevitable and ends up leading to a very slow, painful demise as well. I lost my mother to uterine cancer and my BIL to esoph cancer. I belong to a cancer survivors network online. I can't tell you how many brave, men and women opted for conventional treatment, fought tooth and nail, and the harder they fought, the more aggressive and unrelenting the cancer seemed to become. Nobody, absolutely nobody know how the treatments or lack of will work . It's a crap shoot and I cringe every time someone says their dr. told them their cancer isn't curable but it can be treated like a chronic disease or how doable chemo is or how chemo and radiation are "Insurance" against recurrence. There's no such thing.

ithad2bsaid is right. Quality of life is a lot more important to a person that's gone through the chemo and radiation than the length of a life. By the time chemo and radiation are done with you, just living can be miserable. But it is a personal choice, and shouldn't be forced on us by our relatives.

I had testicular cancer when I was 20. It is very curable but I waited a while because I was young and stupid. The main tumor in my body was the size of a grapefruit and is had spread to my lymph nodes. I was treated with radiation from my neck to my groin. That was 35 years ago. Don't give up people. Learn about your cancer and survival rates before you decide not to get treatment.

Actually, 100% of living organisms die.

This may come as a shock but actually if you eatch a group of people long enough ALL of them die.

Yup. I think a survivor is classified as anyone who makes it past five years from diagnosis. I had a very good friend who passed away last month after fighting ovarian cancer for six grueling years. I guess she would be classified a "survivor", which is beyond ridiculous.

I agree Robbie. Genetics plays a much stronger role than any of us wants to admit. I lost my dear , sweet, mother to uterine cancer . She was 79. She never smoked, never took hormones, rately drank loved to walk, ate well, she was diagnosed stage IV and died 4 mos. into treatment. Her father, my grandfather, died of prostate cancer at the exact same age. She was his genetic twin. If only broccoli, or aspirin or red wine were the answer.

Actually I think asprin, red wine, exercise, etc... are all things to help prevent heart attacks and stroke. And they actually do help prevent those things. Eating right and getting exercise helps your immune system, which in turn helps you fight various cancers. Does'nt mean you won't get cancer, just slightly lowers your chances.

Well, I've read too many sarcastic replies in this one page alone! Yes, everyone is going to die sometime!! And half of all cancer patients might die of some other disease. I haven't had cancer, but do have enough chronic diseases and take enough medications where I cannot even think to try the benefits of aspirin or red wine or anything else for that matter! Exercise I can do!! But nothing will prevent you from getting cancer or dying from cancer or anything else, if that's what is going to happen anyway! All you can do is have an open and honest relationship with the doctors and other healthcare professionals who are providing your care!!! You let them know if you are not feeling well, and let them know that you don't think it is from the cancer!!! They have the obligation to check this out. That is the best thing you can do for yourself!