Are we prepared for 18 million cancer survivors?
June 14th, 2012
12:02 PM ET

Are we prepared for 18 million cancer survivors?

An estimated 13.7 million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2012, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute. Researchers expect the number of cancer survivors to rise to 18 million by 2022.

The report, published Thursday, says currently one in three women and one in two men in the U.S. will develop cancer during their lifetime.

“Increases in the number of individuals diagnosed with cancer each year, due in large part to aging and growth of the population, as well as improving survival rates, have led to an ever-increasing number of cancer survivors,"  the authors of the report write.

For example, the 5-year survival rate for breast cancer improved from 75.1% in 1977 to 90% in 2007.  And 5-year survival rates for childhood cancers are at 82.5%, an increase of more than 24% since the mid-1970s.  Nearly half of all cancer survivors are 70 years or older.

Unfortunately, doctors may not be prepared to deal with the problems cancer survivors face.

"More can certainly be done [in terms] of what the needs are and how they can best be met," study author and ACS epidemiologist Carol DeSantis said. "ACS assesses the gaps in resources and finds ways to fulfill those needs."

Long-term effects from the treatment, including chemotherapy and radiation, and from the cancer itself can be debilitating.  For example, cancer survivors like Robin Roberts, can face blood disorders years after they go into remission.  Others deal with osteoporosis from the damage chemotherapy inflicts on a body's bone marrow.

Treatment can also cause cardiovascular problems, cognitive defects and muscle pain.

Just as pressing may be the psychological effects for patients who fear the recurrence of their cancer, or who realize the higher risk of being diagnosed with a secondary cancer.

“Survivors are relieved to have completed treatment, but may need to make physical, emotional, social, and spiritual adjustments to find a 'new normal,'" the authors write.

soundoff (126 Responses)
  1. Kathy

    If you are interested in a new, and very different, idea concerning the origin of cancer and its treatment please visit newalternativecancertherapy.com. Thank you.

    June 14, 2012 at 13:31 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Mitch

      That was, by far, the most ridiculous and uneducated thing I have ever read. I am ashamed that I actually read it. If you actually believe this junk, then you, Kathy, are in for a rude awakening one day if you shall ever get cancer.

      June 14, 2012 at 15:32 | Report abuse |
    • Max Brooks from Florida

      Marijuana has been shown to be effective for many different types of cancer. (Directly for the cancer. Not just nausea for patients undergoing chemotherapy.)

      June 14, 2012 at 20:41 | Report abuse |
    • Pm67

      Yep, max, Andy Kaufman agrees with you.

      June 14, 2012 at 22:39 | Report abuse |
    • Luca

      Haha. Wow. Just wow. For those of you who did read it, here's another observation and accompanying hypothesis: People who discover cancer too late where there are no treatment options almost invariably pass away from cancer. My hypothesis: untreated cancer kills people. This article, however, suggests that cancer growth is the body trying to survive and that removing/killing the tumor is the worst possible course of action.

      Whats especially telling is that I did find this article in a scholarly journal search. It was published in 2006 and has NEVER been cited.

      June 14, 2012 at 22:58 | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      @Max – Please cite your sources.

      June 14, 2012 at 22:58 | Report abuse |
    • Kat

      @ Bill, watch on youtube "Run from the Cure" and I can say personally that eating oil has helped me out at least when it comes to combating the overwhelming negative effects of chemo with overwhelming positive, and I can eat! My 12 chemo treatments did not work, and going through more now. I've lost faith in the health care system, the government, and the FDA. It really has changed my view on lots of things I was blind to before.

      June 14, 2012 at 23:55 | Report abuse |
    • mgaiser

      Untreated people die of cancer. Explain that part of it.

      June 15, 2012 at 00:19 | Report abuse |
    • majicdanser

      This article is poorly written, and would be acceptable as an undergraduate paper if there were citations added. For example, you say that a literature review confirms an hypothesis that your stipulate. Your sources should be cited, referenced, and used within the text. You're going up against the entire scientific community, and putting a pedestrian stream of questions out there does help us answer the question that the article poses. Here, the real question is, "How do we fund the healthcare of those who survive cancer now that available treatments are increasingly successful?"

      June 15, 2012 at 01:30 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      A good article Kathy, most people don't research things like this. When they were complaining about cancer fighting drugs being in short supply a couple of months ago, I looked up the lawsuits against the drugs that were in short supply... It wasn't a wonder to me that the same drugs doctors and lawyers were stating were "Needed", were already getting sued... Most people don't realize that most of what is supposed "Modern Medicine" has been sued over and over again for over one hundred years, meanwhile a doctor will recommend it as they'll bring you right back to him or her...

      June 15, 2012 at 06:10 | Report abuse |
  2. JJ

    I'm glad they are projecting there will be more "survivors". However, what bothers me is that, in order to survive, that means there will be many more cases of cancer diagnosed. Cures are awesome, but we need to start doing more to find the CAUSES.

    June 14, 2012 at 13:31 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Annie

      Do you mean Big Pharma should not make as much as they're making now by preventing deseses? God forbid!

      June 14, 2012 at 14:11 | Report abuse |
    • A scientist

      The biggest cause of the increase in cancer is that people are living longer and our population is aging. Cancer is a disease of old age. If you live long enough, you will likely get it.

      That being said, many researchers are looking into causes of cancer. However, it is tough work - humans are exposed to thousands of potential carcinogens in their lives (most of which individually have only a modest effect on cancer rates), so connecting a single one to cancer is challenging.

      Furthermore, if you want to see the headwinds that such researchers face, read the comments on the recent article about Diesel fuel potentially causing cancer. Any time there is a study linking anything to cancer, there is always an angry backlash - from those on the far right who believe that any attempt to discover the cause of cancer is an attempt to infringe on their rights (and who would thus prefer to just bury their heads in the sand) and from industry, who wage active campaigns to cast doubt on any studies that might cost them money.

      June 14, 2012 at 15:04 | Report abuse |
    • Brian

      Most cancers are lifestyle related. if everyone stopped smoking, drinking, stopped sunbathing/tanning/, ate right, exercised stopped having unprotected sex with multiple partners you prevent 80% of all cases of cancer.

      June 14, 2012 at 22:02 | Report abuse |
    • Karl

      Age is by far the biggest cause, and we haven't found a cure for that, nor would we probably want to.

      June 14, 2012 at 22:31 | Report abuse |
    • horseybebe

      you are the only one I agree with on this thread of ignorant people. A.L.L. Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia the kind of cancer I was diagnosed with at 13, we were told that everyone has Leukemic cells but whatever triggered mine did. Is it the electric wires, the chemicals that are put on lawns in food the plastic we heat food in. No one knows for certain sure they have a clue but mine is genetic so that is automatically taken out.

      June 14, 2012 at 22:44 | Report abuse |
    • horseybebe


      June 14, 2012 at 22:45 | Report abuse |
    • horseybebe

      this isn't at you JJ but at A Scientist cancer is a disease of old age.Really I would love for you to walk into a ped cancer unit and tell that to parents of children whose ages range from infants up until teenagers. This was the far the stupidest thing I have read on this thread. If you say children don't get cancer than you are by far the stupidest person ever because cancer isn't bias on age,sex,nationality,skin color. So I would reconsider that statement.

      June 14, 2012 at 22:51 | Report abuse |
    • A scientist

      Horseybebe: I am sorry to hear that you had A.L.L. However, there is no reason to personally attack others in your posts. I spent years studying CML, so am well aware that children can get cancer. However, the vast, vast majority of cancers are in older people. Less than 1% of all cancers occur in people under the age of twenty cancer.

      So, I probably should have been more clear and said that cancer is *predominantly* a disease of old age. However, for the topic at hand (why cancer rates are rising), the reason is almost entirely an aging population. It is true that cancer rates have crept up in children (from 11.5 cases per 100,000 children in 1975 to 14.8 per 100,000 children). This is a significant cause for concern and an active area of research, but because childhood cancers represent such a tiny fraction of total cancers, the increase in childhood cancers has little impact on total cancer rates.

      June 15, 2012 at 12:47 | Report abuse |
    • anna

      Ideally they need to find a medicine that prevents you getting cancer like they did when they found out how to prevent polio. That would be a real breakthough.

      June 15, 2012 at 14:34 | Report abuse |
    • teesoepke

      so, scientist, cancer is a disease of old age? so then, according to your post, old age now begins at 20? cancer can strike anyone anytime. and yes they do know what causes the majority of cancers. and it's in everyone's genes. and, no, there probably will never be a "cure". i'd suggest you read "the emperor of all maladies" and get up to date. and, yes, i'm proud to have survived cancer, despite everything i've had to endure.

      June 15, 2012 at 16:17 | Report abuse |
    • Ken

      A Scientist – I agree that the fraction of pediatric cancers is dwarfed by the adult cancer population. However, considering that the cure rates of pediatric cancer are much higher than adults (greater than 70% of pediatric cancers are "cured") and the much longer life-span that pediatric cancer survivors have relative to their adult counterparts (adding an additional 50 years instead of an additional 10 years), I would argue that the disparity between the two populations are not as great as the straight "incidence" numbers would suggest.

      That being said, if you could eliminate cancer in one population, I would chose the adult cancer population. Remains a much bigger social and economic impact. Pediatric cancers outdistance adult cancers at the emotional level.

      June 15, 2012 at 16:39 | Report abuse |
    • A scientist

      Wow, teesoepke, I just don't understand people like you who seem so desperate to get into an argument that they feel the need to spin the comments of others. I never said that "old age now begins at 20," I was simply pointing out that while horseybebe had an experience with childhood cancer, such cancers represent a miniscule fraction of all cancers. (And just to make clear, since apparently people will try to spin my every word looking for something to attack, this certainly does not mean that childhood cancers are unimportant; as I previously indicated, I spent years researching these cancers. It just means that in terms of numbers, they represent a small percentage.)

      Again, the sole point of my posts is that cancer is an age-associated disease. This doesn't mean that young people don't get cancer, it just means that older people have far higher rates than young people. Cancer rates roughly double for every decade of life, so an 80 year old is about 10 times more likely to get cancer in the next year than a 50 year old, and a 50 year old is about ten times more likely than a 20 year old. So, when looking at cancer rates, obviously the age of a population will have a huge effect.

      June 15, 2012 at 17:12 | Report abuse |
    • A scientist

      Ken: Excellent point. It is certainly true that, for example, although pediatric cancers account for only ~0.6% of all cancers, because the average survival time is longer, they will account for far more than 0.6% of survivors. However, even if they survive on average ten-times longer, that means that they will still account for roughly 6% of survivors - still a small fraction.

      More generally, I was simply trying to address JJ's question about why we are seeing more cancers. For those who haven't looked at the data, the common assumption (and I think what JJ was implying) is that the increase in cancers reflects environmental changes. However, while cancer rates among some age groups have modestly increased, this is not the predominant cause of the increase in total cancer cases. It is largely a demographic issue - older people are more likely to get cancer, so as the population ages, cancer rates will rise. This is couple with the fact that the better we get at treating cancer, the more survivors there will be.

      June 15, 2012 at 17:25 | Report abuse |
  3. c s

    The five year survival rate is misleading since so many cancers are being discovered so early now. I have known two women who both reached this "milestone" and were supposedly had no detectable cancer. Both of them died within a year of their "5 year anniversary". Many years ago, if a person survived for five years, it was very significant because cancer was not detected until it was much more advanced. I would suggest that a ten year survival rate would be much more meaningful. Does anyone have statistics on a ten year survival rate?

    June 14, 2012 at 14:45 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Brian

      So what you are suggesting is people are not actually surviving longer that they would if the cancer wasn't detected until a couple of years later.

      June 14, 2012 at 22:04 | Report abuse |
    • lynn

      I had breast cancer at the age of 37 in 2004. Hopefully I make it a few more years.

      June 14, 2012 at 22:32 | Report abuse |
    • teesoepke

      yes, it depends on the type of cancer. when i was researching my treatment options, the 10-year survival rate for men undergoing radical prostatectomy versus radiation/seed therapy was an identical 93%. i hope to be around in another 5 years to help boost that percentage upwards.

      June 15, 2012 at 16:25 | Report abuse |
    • c s

      Brian "So what you are suggesting is people are not actually surviving longer that they would if the cancer wasn't detected until a couple of years later."

      Yes, that is kind of what I am saying. The only meaningful statistic about any cancer is how many survive versus how many die from it. If you go to cancer.gov, you can see the statistics for any cancer. It will give you the number of deaths and the number of new cases. For instance here is the statistic for breast cancer:
      Estimated new cases and deaths from breast cancer in the United States in 2012:
      New cases: 226,870 (female); 2,190 (male)
      Deaths: 39,510 (female); 410 (male)
      So the death rate for women is 17.4% for women and 18.7% for men. What does this reveal about current cancer treatment for breast cancer? Women get mammograms and extensive medical attention about breast cancer. Men do not get mammograms or any medical attention about breast cancer. Yet the difference in percentage of death rate between men and women is 1.3%. I would have thought that breast cancer for men would be almost 100% fatal, after all the medical system spends almost nothing on detecting it in men. So early detection of breast cancer has a relatively small affect upon the outcome of the disease. I am not says that women should not be concerned about breast cancer, but that early detection seems to have little affect upon the course of the disease.

      June 16, 2012 at 12:04 | Report abuse |
  4. Andrew

    Oh wow, surviving cancer is truly an awful thing! Better to let'em die!

    June 14, 2012 at 16:08 | Report abuse | Reply
    • woohoo

      My thoughts exactly...

      June 14, 2012 at 21:09 | Report abuse |
    • Survivor

      What an awful thing to say. I was diagnosed with stage IV cancer a few months before my 33rd Birthday. My child was just a one year old. Typically only OLD MEN get what I had, and I was neither. It has been over 7 years and I am still free of any measurable disease becuase I fought with every fiber of my being, relied on prayer, and did all the traditional treatments as well as the many holistic options my fast tracked internet education into nutritional strategies could give me. I'm thrilled to be a survivor. It means I get to be here to see some of life's milestones that my children make. I may not make it til they are grown and married. But at least I've been able to make it this far. I'm fully aware that some day I may end up with something else from having fought it to be here now. That is scary. But my point is that no one can count on tomorrow. All we have is today and we should make the most of the blessings we have. But for you to say to just let people die is pretty heartless. Especially if that person ends up being your wife or brother/ sister/ child/ friend. I know many people who have fought valiantly and did not survive their battles, and many others who have survived. Those of us that have beaten it once learn to embrace today and hope for the best. But to spit out venomous words and suggest to just let people die becuase they got cancer is horrible. People don't ask for cancer. Many people that get it are not elderly. And they didn't smoke/ drink/ live sedentary livestyles or use drugs. Cancer happens. We learn to deal with it and move on, hopefully with a little more compassion towards others.

      June 14, 2012 at 22:57 | Report abuse |
    • matty ice

      if you understood sarcasm you wouldnt have had to waste 10 minutes of your life

      June 14, 2012 at 23:47 | Report abuse |
    • anna

      This from an idiot!

      June 15, 2012 at 14:35 | Report abuse |
  5. ront

    Smart meter causes cancer...chemo treats it and makes profit...funeral homes reap the rewards. It's all working as planned. Any yes, don't look at alternative treatments, they might work, thereby upsetting the economy. Have a nice day.

    June 14, 2012 at 17:03 | Report abuse | Reply
    • lynne

      Unfortunately, I believe you are correct – it is about money.

      If it was about health we'd be more focused on prevention rather that treatment.

      Most doctors don't tell their patients that they are obese, that they have to quit smoking or drinking, etc.

      My father is obese, yet no doctor has told him straight on – you have to loose weight.

      I know of "scads" of individuals who need to be confront their responsibility in their own well-being, but I would close down this posting site (overload) if I named them all.

      In the end it is an individual's responsibility.

      However, I do not believe that others should pay for those who do not take responsibility for their own well being.

      EX: If you are 5 ft, 200 lbs and you're complaining that your back or knees brother you – do a reality check!

      If you smoke and have trouble breathing or circulation issues – honestly get a grip.

      Some people have unfortunate situations that is not by their own doing, but too many others are responsible for their health issues. Yet they refuse/ignore/deny/etc. their personal responsibly for their won well being.

      I believe in self accountability.

      June 14, 2012 at 22:04 | Report abuse |
    • Kate

      Hate to break it to you, but funeral homes would still be around even if cancer were eradicated. The mortality rate for being human is 100% - we all eventually die.

      June 14, 2012 at 22:16 | Report abuse |
    • DrD

      In response to Lynne and as a physician...Amen Sister. Most of my patients unfortunately are clueless, eat crap on a regular basis, are overweight and out of shape and wonder why they're sick. Once and awhile I'll ask my patients if they would feed their dog the food they eat daily and their usual response is sheepishly "of course not, they'll get sick". Well what makes you think you're response would be any different.
      And to the universal health care crowd, if it doesn't work in Europe, it really won't work here. With the status of our population's health and fitness, we'll BK the system in no time.

      June 14, 2012 at 22:33 | Report abuse |
    • Glorifundel

      Re: DrD

      I would like to start out, that I do not believe you are a physician. I find it unlikely that an educated person in the medical industry (although I am not a physician, I am in the medical industry) would claim for a moment that Europe's healthcare (I assume your talking about France and the UK) system "Doesn't work" when they have longer lifespans than we do, have more access to preventative care across the board, and on average do not get as sick as often as we do. I am in no way claiming it is perfect, or couldn't be improved, but our system is pretty pathetic considering we rank no. 37 in the world for healthcare (just above Slovenia and Cuba!) in the 2010 world health report released by the World Health Organization.

      I will concede that if you are rich, the U.S. is probably the best place to receive healthcare in the world, however the distribution of that care is what completely decimates our ability to claim a leading role. If you are not rich, you have to hope you do not come down with a serious debilitating disease as it is likely to bankrupt you and your family, or you could always hope if you do get something of that caliber that you die quickly so as not to leave your family with a mountain of debt. That is the state of our current system, which I would consider, broken.

      June 15, 2012 at 16:07 | Report abuse |
  6. Guitar

    Seeing how now 1 in 3 are developing some type of cancer in their lifetime, (men now inching closer to 1 in 2), that 18 Million figures is actually not so impressive. '5 year survivor rate' – what a croc. Most will live that long with cancer, (prostate cancer even longer) without hardly any treatments at all. They also don't include all the people whose hearts give out when trying to handle massive doses of chemotherapy, (those aren't considered cancer related deaths only 'heart attacks' – spoken by our area's leading Oncologist). I"ve was detected with prostate cancer 5 years ago and my PSA's (again not very accurate) are consistently lowering every 6 months with my health/nutrition program – no alapathic intervention measures taken. Even more so, my wife was told 12 years ago, she probably only had two years to live with her breast cancer, and only that long only if she underwent massive chemo/radiation treatments. Never had a one, and we continue to enjoy our lives together this day.. We aren't cancer free, but we took drastic measures changing our diet, nutrition intake, supplements, and lifestyle. May not work for everyone, but most not willing to forgo looking for the magic pill that will cure them in a day, and take more personal responsibility for their own bodies.

    June 14, 2012 at 19:09 | Report abuse | Reply
  7. obamamamamasuckkkkkitt

    we just need to tell the chinese they are good to eat...problem solved...

    June 14, 2012 at 21:14 | Report abuse | Reply
  8. John

    What no one (including this author) has mentioned is the exploding population problems associated with people surviving when nature was telling them that it was time to die. Come on, people, we all die. We all have to die. It's as natural a thing as life itself. Is it natural (and should it be the goal) for absolutely everyone on the planet to become so old that they eventually only die from, for lack of a better word, decay?

    June 14, 2012 at 21:17 | Report abuse | Reply
    • No one

      That's an easy thing to say until you're faced with your own mortality. The elderly aside, cancer and genetic infirmity is possible at any age, albeit less likely. "Nature" may tell people with poor vision or type 1 diabetes to simply give up and die; should eyeglasses and insulin be blamed for an explosion of population and "prolonging the inevitable"?

      June 14, 2012 at 21:42 | Report abuse |
    • OpenYourEyes

      John – What an ill-informed comment! Have you never heard of the Demographic Winter? It's been going on for years now. Look it up and stop making an eejit of yourself.

      Because of contraception, abortion, womens' careers and high ageing populations the world population is not only NOT replacing itself; it is shrinking alarmingly. In 30+ years the USA, Canadian, Australian, Russian, Chinese, European and eastern European nations will have shrunk by 50%.
      Russia are losing 700,000 people per year. It is so serious that the Kremlin offered women $900 [equivalent] + $140 per week + one third of their salary monthly [PER BABY] to stay at home and have chldren. Virtually no-one took the offer.

      The problem is that the lower the population – the less workers – less production – less taxes – less spending = economic disaster = breakdown of society.

      In America 62% of households have NO children – that is the pattern in the western world. The only people who are replacing themselves are the emerging nations.

      So quit with the "population explosion rubbish. The very opposite is happening.And please don't rubbish this with your own unimportant opinion unless you are a professional and experienced demographer! tHANK YOU.

      June 14, 2012 at 22:47 | Report abuse |
    • Ken

      Hmmm, by that logic we shouldn't use antibiotics, we shouldn't cook our meat, we shouldn't use clean water. Human beings have always been about forcing change upon their environment. I'm not saying that it's had universally benevolent results, but to expect people to reject one of the basic tenets of human nature is an extreme longshot.

      June 15, 2012 at 16:44 | Report abuse |
    • Anne

      @John – I was diagnosed at age 45, and after living and surviving breast cancer for 9 years (with good treatment) I am terminal now. I feel pretty young at 54 to be dying this year (or very soon). Yeah, we all will die, but I'd rather be dying at 65 or 75 than now. My loved ones agree.

      June 15, 2012 at 17:04 | Report abuse |
    • Ken

      @Anne, may God embrace you in his kingdom forever when your time comes. I pray for the Lord to give you peace and comfort each day. Have faith that your soul will be reunited with all of your loved ones who have gone before you.

      June 16, 2012 at 11:34 | Report abuse |
  9. disgustedvet

    If you live long enough,something is gonna get you.

    June 14, 2012 at 21:23 | Report abuse | Reply
    • horseybebe

      Yea try telling that to a parent of a 5year old or a newborn and I dare anyone to tell me no that doesn't happen I've seen it first hand. They lived long enough these children haven't even begun to live their lifes.

      June 14, 2012 at 22:39 | Report abuse |
  10. The Karl

    I thought this was going to be about how social security was not going to be fiscally ready for greater longevity. The Netherlands did a study that showed healthy people cost more than obese and smokers because the unhealthy died sooner, thus the great expense of dealing with their health issues was still less costly than supporting a healthy person to advanced age.

    It begs the question; Is it really in the government's best interest to keep us healthy; and if not how can we trust them to take over health care?

    June 14, 2012 at 21:28 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Ken

      Will you be watching Logan's Run this weekend?

      June 15, 2012 at 16:46 | Report abuse |
  11. CSX

    Better off than the 50 plus millions babies butchered in their mommy"s womb.

    June 14, 2012 at 21:31 | Report abuse | Reply
    • ha

      () <- see that? that's an embryo after one month. not a baby. if you dont like abortions dont get one. qq

      June 15, 2012 at 15:59 | Report abuse |
  12. Scott

    the problem with "curing" disease is that we end up with a burgoning population that consumes the planet's limited resources. Disease is one of natres ways to maintain balance. The medical industry and society feel it is ther job to preerve and maintain human life for as long as they can. Very few consider the long term ramifications of lefe-extension and the imapct on society and the environemnt. Thankfully nature has away to balance things eventually if we don;t do it to ourselves first (war).

    June 14, 2012 at 21:45 | Report abuse | Reply
    • horseybebe

      God help you or anyone close to you ever get sick cause your saying because there are too many survivors our planet can't deal with it. That's a really messed up way of thinking I would it if you would say that to one of the thousands of parents that have to sit in hospital rooms day and night watching their child fight a life threatening disease and them along with their child wondering why?

      June 14, 2012 at 22:36 | Report abuse |
    • Scott

      illness happens. modern medecine has allowed the wek an infirm to live when nature has chosen ti eliminate them. I am statig this from Darvinian perpsective. Nature and evloution (Darvinism) are about natural selction. Aside from straining the planets resorces we've slowed the evolution of or species if not reversed it.

      June 15, 2012 at 01:49 | Report abuse |
    • Rachelle

      You're using the naturalistic fallacy: "If something is 'natural' or 'biological' that is the way it ought to be." Just because nature works a certain way, that doesn't make it moral to ignore suffering.

      June 15, 2012 at 10:41 | Report abuse |
    • A scientist

      I am assuming from your comment that you don't take antibiotics when you get an infection, don't cook your food (to kill pathogens), drink only unfiltered water from your local creek, etc? After all, you would want to interfere with all of these wonderful "natural" ways to die. The reality is that their is nothing more natural than the instinct for self-preservation. Every animal does what it can to survive - we are just better at it than we used to be.

      June 15, 2012 at 12:55 | Report abuse |
  13. wa2go

    "...improving survival rates, have led to an ever-increasing number of cancer survivors".
    WOW, that is profound! I had to read that a few times to make sure I was understanding it correctly.
    I hope that the authors of the study got paid royally for discovering such an amazing fact!

    June 14, 2012 at 22:15 | Report abuse | Reply
  14. Quoting

    Do you think if they had a cure for cancer they would hold on to it? I mean the treatment for cancer is big business. Companies would lose billions of dollars if their was one cure for cancer, all the treatment patients go through, all the medicine they take, would all disappear if their was one cure.

    June 14, 2012 at 22:32 | Report abuse | Reply
    • LDboje

      I totally agree, that's why I never give money to research. There is way to much money in keeping people sick than finding cures for diseases. Notice how things are never cured. There is just more medications to keep conditions under control. Big, big money in pharmaceuticals.

      June 14, 2012 at 23:32 | Report abuse |
    • Mitch

      @Quoting and @LDboje... your tin foil hats are in need of an adjustment soon.

      June 15, 2012 at 00:04 | Report abuse |
    • A scientist

      I think that you totally misunderstand how research in this country is done. Very little cancer research is done by big pharma. The vast majority of research is done by academic labs. There are thousands of these labs in our country, each run independently, generally by one professor with a team of researchers.

      To assume that there is a cure for cancer that is being hidden would require that these thousands of labs (and tens of thousands of scientists) are all conspiring. This requires a depressingly low view of your fellow man - particularly since the vast majority of these researchers eschewed much higher paying jobs in industry because of their passion for research. Additionally, this argument is completely irrational - the fame and fortune that would be afforded to someone who cured cancer would be incredible, so even if you believe that all of these scientists are evil and selfish, it would still be in their best interests to cure cancer.

      June 15, 2012 at 13:01 | Report abuse |
    • anna

      I often wonder the same thing myself, you never know they might have the answers but dont want to advertise them.

      Makes you feel sick to think they might be holding back.

      June 15, 2012 at 14:40 | Report abuse |
  15. horseybebe

    I am a childhood cancer survivor of 10years diagnosed at 13 I am now 23. I fought strong for 2.5years of intense chemo and radiation plus many complications and I have and will continue to fight.Cause I didn't give up than and I'll be damned to give up now because of some side effects.

    June 14, 2012 at 22:33 | Report abuse | Reply
    • someoneclosehadleukemia

      Good for you. Keep fighting.

      June 14, 2012 at 23:36 | Report abuse |
    • Kat

      Awesome! Glad for you and people will never understand what you have been through or how that has IMPROVED your outlook on life....something a lot of people will never understand. Hope you are well!

      June 15, 2012 at 00:02 | Report abuse |
    • HodgkinsSurvivor

      Horseybebe – we are on the same page here. I was injured in a Military training accident when I was 20yrs old. Six months later I developed HD in the same area where I was injured. The Army Dr.s removed my perfectly good spleen just to make sure there was no cancer in it. I received high doses of radiation from my chest to the top of my ears. Sure they "cured" the active cancer – and I am thankful for that.

      But now over 20 years later at the age of 42, I live in constant pain, my immune system is shot, my heart and lungs are messed up, my metabolism is also shot... among many other things.

      I say "No America is NOT ready to handle 18M Cancer Survivors" – not everyone is a Lance Armstrong who can just bounce back and go on to win the Tour de France. Surviving cancer has so many variables – what kind of cancer was it? how was it treated? at what age did you have your treatment? what are your genetic vulnerabilities to the treatment?

      I tried to "ignore" having had cancer for many years. Unfortunately for me, the long term side effects from the cancer and the treatment just kept coming, like the gift that just keeps on giving – until about five years ago when the complications began to be debilitating – now I can no longer ignore my history as a cancer survivor. I have had to make many lifestyle changes just to be able to get by on a daily basis.

      The really sad part is most Doctors and most of the general public have no idea what many Long Term Cancer Survivors face in our "New Reality". I hope to continue to see articles such as this one and others to help educate people on what it really means to be a cancer survivor.

      June 15, 2012 at 10:01 | Report abuse |
  16. AnotherThought

    Human beings are a cancer to the planet earth if we keep this up, and eventually the earth may want to survive us by all means.

    June 14, 2012 at 22:35 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Scott

      here here......

      June 15, 2012 at 01:50 | Report abuse |
    • Mary Anne

      To "AnotherThough"t and Scott (if you are not the same person): Your comments are defeatist.We humans are as much a part of planet earth as any other creature or the old rock itself – we are also the only creatures capable of preserving or appreciating it. Since my own diagnosis with cancer at 49 (Stage II) i have fought the good fight, have been in remission for 12 years, worked on a number of scientific or technological projects and helped found an event that has so far raised over $400,000 for cancer research. In whatever time I have remaining, I hope to contribute to conservation -related issues and other, non-cancer related charities. As well as perhaps, enjoy some grandchildren. Instead of seeing other humans ( yourselves included) as a disease on planet earth, see them as unlimited potential – love them, love yourselves and love life!

      June 16, 2012 at 23:59 | Report abuse |
  17. BlackDynamite

    Saying 50% of men will get cancer sounds pretty far off......

    June 14, 2012 at 22:53 | Report abuse | Reply
  18. Dr. Bill

    Have you guys read the most recent discovery on origins of cancer?!?!?!

    It turns out that cancer is a leading cause of cancer?

    June 14, 2012 at 23:01 | Report abuse | Reply
  19. Jim

    I happen to be a Cancer survivor... guess what? ... After surviving numerous surgeries and being home bound, not being able to lift anything over 12 pounds for 2 years and nothing in my life being normal except for being a healthcare rat on insurance till you die bill pay and not any where near what a husband in the true sense can be, allow me to remove myself from your tax scrolls and concerns and give me back my dignity.. PLEASE.. GIVE ME BACK MY SELF RESPECT..

    June 14, 2012 at 23:19 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Sandra

      Jim, your heartfelt comment broke my heart. Men such as yourself are the reason healthcare needs reform, and the Affordable Health Care Act sounds like help for men and women survivors such as you are. I can only imagine the horror of losing so much to such a devastating disease, both the illness itself, and the aftermath.

      I do not know you personally, but I know survivors, and I pray you have loving family and friends to support you. I am the wife of a quadriplegic, survivor of an accident in which he was a helpless victim. He survived, and is the finest man I know, in every respect. I hope you find peace, and assistance with the pressing financial and emotional pressures of survival to provide you some relief, and that you can derive some hope from knowing that there are so many fighting to make stories such as yours better.

      June 15, 2012 at 06:54 | Report abuse |
  20. Top_News

    With the billions of dollars that the American Cancer Society (ACS) has received over the years, one would think they would have found a cure by now. I heard a long time ago that written in the bylaws of the ACS that when a cure for cancer is found, the ACS would dissolve. If that's true, I doubt a cure will ever be found.

    June 14, 2012 at 23:29 | Report abuse | Reply
    • someoneclosehadleukemia

      Its awful that we live in a world where money being made from a disease is priority over a cure or prevention of said disease.

      June 14, 2012 at 23:38 | Report abuse |
    • LDboje

      You are correct. A cure will never be found. It would devastate our economic society if there was a cure for cancer. Millions of people's paychecks are dependant on people being sick.

      June 14, 2012 at 23:41 | Report abuse |
    • Kat

      I disagree LDboje, unless you were joking. Cancer is sooooo expensive, and people cannot get help a lot of the time. People like me that owe $130,000+ in medical bills, are going to have to file bankruptcy....NO PAYCHECKS and I pay what I can. Universal health care is important in the future, and now. People like me throw everything off balance, because the amount is nuts! Now I am being denied a needed bone marrow transplant because I do not have coverage, and its been a frustrating depressing mess trying to get it. I want to pay, but how is it possible for a disabled 31 year old who's life has been turned upsidedown? Its too expensive, and if more people get it that means more bankruptcy.

      June 15, 2012 at 00:09 | Report abuse |
    • Kat

      But I do agree that they dont want to reveal a cure due to money.

      June 15, 2012 at 00:10 | Report abuse |
    • Rachelle

      Due to the very nature of cancer, there will never be a "one size fits all" cure for every person. There isn't for many diseases. However, treatments keep getting better and better and help prolong the lives of those who have it, in some cases even ridding people of cancer entirely. I don't believe for a second that someone has found a cure and is hiding it. Can you imagine how much people would pay for an actual cure? Also, so many people die due to cardiovascular problems (heart attack, stroke, etc) and no one is saying that drug companies are "hiding" a cure to those problems.

      June 15, 2012 at 10:58 | Report abuse |
  21. Dave

    "Unfortunately, doctors may not be prepared to deal with the problems cancer survivors face." As a medical student, I can say that we receive extensive training on all aspects of cancer; including diagnosing, treating, therapy side effects, long term care, and psycho-social issues. This, of course, is not to mention a whole branch of medicine known as Oncology. For the writer to assume otherwise is insulting. I'm elated to hear that there will be 22 million survivors. This is a much better outcome than the alternative...

    June 14, 2012 at 23:48 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Rod C. Venger

      I'm not an aspect. I'm a 12 year cancer survivor, a person, with more physical problems than you are trained to deal with, not to mention all of the other baggage that goes with it. You may actually believe what you said...if so, someone might want to give you some 'sensitivity training' because what ails me isn't in a book. It's in me and I'm different from the other survivors here and they are all different from each other. Your one-size-fits-all training is a failure. The last 12 years proves that.

      June 15, 2012 at 00:52 | Report abuse |
  22. yogamom

    I need to make a few comments. First I am a cancer survivor. Like many of the people who have made comments here, I too believed healthy habits would prevent cancer. I exercised regularly and completed triathlons, ate organic food and avoided red meat, never smoked and had good sleep habits. Still I did get cancer at a relatively young age and thanks to some very good doctors, I am now cancer free. While I agree we need to have healthier habits this will not completely eliminate all disease including cancer.

    June 14, 2012 at 23:56 | Report abuse | Reply
  23. Ken

    This article brought to you by Obamacare End of Life councilors – Are you really prepared to survive? Think of the cost of the treatment that are so high. Look at all the problems you suffer added if you do survive. Imagine all the pain and problems you will face if you fight this. We recommend the simply accept the end and go gracefully into that good night. Better that you peaceflly move on, and help reduce medical costs and bills for your survivors if you do move on. And that's fair for them, right? Obamacare - it's all about being fair.

    June 14, 2012 at 23:56 | Report abuse | Reply
  24. paz

    saw some fat black guy at the gas station tonight checking out 2 tubs of Blue Bell and 1 huge browny. Nice...

    June 15, 2012 at 00:27 | Report abuse | Reply

    Love how this article only mentions living longer as a rise in cancer: “Increases in the number of individuals diagnosed with cancer each year, due in large part to aging and growth of the population"

    Nowhere did it mention the hormones and pesticides we pump into our food supply.

    Nowhere does it mention all the chemicals we are exposed to daily: oil, gas, cleaning supplies, coal, etc...

    No matter how much of a health nutt you are, the chemicals and lack of true regulation will cause the majority of us to suffer unncecessary cancer.

    June 15, 2012 at 00:27 | Report abuse | Reply
  26. Donna

    I found the CNN headline offensive. As a melanoma and breast cancer survivor, I don't believe anyone needs to be "prepared"? for me.

    June 15, 2012 at 00:44 | Report abuse | Reply
    • vancouverislandpsychosis

      I thought the exact same thing... it is as if they are saying.... "we better not cure too many....or it will cost the health care system and society just too much. When my Mom was diagnosed with cancer in the 80's and we had a health food store there were many coming into the store with conspiracy theories about how some thought there was a total cure for cancer but the government wouldn't let it go through because "cancer was good for government business" While both my Mom and I thought that completely and utterly nonsensical I can see now why conspiracy theories like those start, considering headlines like the one above.

      June 15, 2012 at 01:56 | Report abuse |
  27. Rod C. Venger

    As a 12 year survivor, I can safely state that the author of this article is clueless, and completely so, in every area the article addressed. And I'm too disgusted to even go into it. Things are nowhere near as rosy as is claimed here.

    June 15, 2012 at 00:46 | Report abuse | Reply
  28. Jennifer

    “Increases in the number of individuals diagnosed with cancer each year, due in large part to aging"

    They're blaming ageing? Really? You don't think it might have a bit more to do with all the garbage that gets put in our food supply now which never used to be there?

    June 15, 2012 at 00:52 | Report abuse | Reply
  29. Donna

    so now cancer survivors are a liability. Thats flippin scary.

    June 15, 2012 at 01:04 | Report abuse | Reply
  30. a

    Eliminating 50 million muslims should take care of the problem with a nice cushion for future survivors.

    June 15, 2012 at 01:35 | Report abuse | Reply
    • anna

      And another hundred million from Africa.

      June 15, 2012 at 14:43 | Report abuse |
  31. Pete

    Eh, don't worry. Ten times that ammount will die from obesity.

    June 15, 2012 at 01:51 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Bob A. Wilson

      I just wish the same amount die from stupidity!

      June 15, 2012 at 04:31 | Report abuse |
  32. Tim

    Wow, I just read every post on this subject, and as a current survivor, I am not sure what to think. I was as healthy as a horse, but it still picked me. I fought it, but could not have imagined the aftermath of what the treatment has done to my body. Maybe some of you are right....that we ought to just suck it up and jump in the casket. I don't see myself ever being productive again. It's going to continue to cost insurance lots of money, which I feel indebted to. But, on the flip side, my wife seems to like the idea of me still being here. I've made many people ALOT of money. So, who decides? I'll just say this. Today was a good day. They are few and far between. But, for every 100 days of feeling semi shi!!y, that one good day is worth the fight. It's way better above ground than below. Once you get there, it lasts a loooonnnnggggg time.

    June 15, 2012 at 01:53 | Report abuse | Reply
  33. Randall Bart

    It's not improved survival, it's improved diagnosis. We diagnose healthier and healthier people, and the people with mild cases are surviving. More diagnoses and the same number of deaths equals more survivors.

    June 15, 2012 at 02:16 | Report abuse | Reply
  34. nhparry2288

    As a cancer patient, I am concerned about recurrence. That's the monster that lurks just two steps behind me. And I've come to hate the term "new normal." I keep hearing it at cancer support group meetings. I WANT MY LIFE BACK!

    June 15, 2012 at 03:51 | Report abuse | Reply
  35. NanookoftheNorth

    Well CNN, that has got to be one of the most ludicrous headlines you've ever used ! Of course we would be glad to have 18 million cancer survivors instead of dead ones...just ask their families !

    June 15, 2012 at 03:56 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Sandra

      I really believe the headline was written to grab attention. And it did. It also served as a mental and emotional slap in the face about healthcare in general.

      Survival rates are up, in general, thank God and medicine, but the job is not finished. I moved to Canada 12 years ago, and live there as a permanent resident, unwilling to relinquish my American citizenship. I have seen, first hand, the benefits of the universal coverage system, both for myself and for my quadriplegic husband. I thank God every day (that is not a figure of speech, either) that I live in a country with coverage that has allowed me to live with lifelong injury in my family without worry about crushing medical bills.

      Cancer survivors are also among my friends, and they, too, have been able to fully treat their cancers with surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and physical therapy, without losing their life savings, home, or anything other than their disease, because of universal health coverage. I pray every day that the Supreme Court allows the Affordable Health Care Act to remain to help Americans cope with pre-existing conditions, cancer treatment, and all other accidents and illnesses, without ruining their financial life, as well as treat them with respect as human beings, equally treated by the medical system.

      June 15, 2012 at 07:20 | Report abuse |
  36. Bob A. Wilson

    To A scientist: If you are an example of a scientist. We are all in great trouble. You say old people get cancer. You are sooo misinformed.

    June 15, 2012 at 04:25 | Report abuse | Reply
    • smmarshall

      must not be a scientist huh?! anyone can be a poser on these web site, right?! there are lots of pretenders out there, people hiding behind their laptops, pc, etc, pretending to be someone else, pretending to have a life, an opinion, :)))) lot of phony baloneys on the internet and in real life,

      June 15, 2012 at 06:24 | Report abuse |
  37. Bob A. Wilson

    To a Scientist: You said "Cancer is a disease of old age." Do you realize kids get it. babies are born with it. Young people get it. Middle age get it..I think maybe now YOU GET IT!

    June 15, 2012 at 04:29 | Report abuse | Reply
    • A scientist

      I addressed this above, but I think it bears repeating. I should have been more precise and stated that cancer is *predominantly* a disease of old age. Obviously people can get it at a young age; however, 89% of cancers occur in people over 50, whereas only about 0.6% of cancers occur in people under 20.

      Therefore, while cancers of young people are devastating, when talking about total cancer rates, the age distribution of the population is by far the dominant factor.

      June 15, 2012 at 13:19 | Report abuse |
  38. smmarshall

    Maybe we shouldn't survive? I know this might sound terrible to some of you, but maybe when we get sick , it is just our time to go "home" . We are going to go sometime...... I don't know if I'd do treatment or not , if, I get diagnosed.... I love life!!!! but it might just be my time to go with the process of "leaving" if I was to get something. My sister and bro in law died of cancer, they were diagnosed at age 62 and 63 , husband and wife, and both were past stage 4 when diagnosed, so believe me I love my life, love my family, love my job , but...... I saw the effects of chemo, radiation and they are awful!!! Again, I just don't know for sure what I'd do, it is my choice, I love God and am ready to go to Him whenever He wants me too but I really hope and pray I stay well. My 95 year old mom is physically very well so there is a good chance I'll stay healthy, hope so , but if not, I pass up all the treatment stuff, don't know , hope I don't have to decide, and I work for a cancer medical place...... tough decisions, but they are my decisions if needed.

    June 15, 2012 at 06:20 | Report abuse | Reply
  39. Felicia Mitchell

    Are we ready for 18 million cancer survivors? Here is a better question, which I would ask the students I have taught since my diagnosis and treatment: Are you ready for one cancer survivor? Are you ready to learn?

    For those of you who think I should have died, next time a cancer survivor helps you in some small or large way, imagine how your *healthy* life would be different if that person had just gone ahead and died. In fact, those of you who think we are tempting fate by taking treatment may not even know how many survivors have made your *healthy* life a richer one. If there are so many of us, a cancer survivoralready has influenced your *healthy* life in some exquisitely ordinary way.

    Imagine the void, 18 million dead instead.

    June 15, 2012 at 06:58 | Report abuse | Reply
  40. ckarke

    Ready or not, here they come and I am so happy for all of them. To survive cancer is a wonderful thing, not only for the person but for their families as well. God Bless each and everyone.

    June 15, 2012 at 07:20 | Report abuse | Reply
  41. jason

    1 in 2 men will develop cancer in their lifetime? Too bad I only know 2 people in my life that has had cancer one being a woman so I know those statistics are incorrect.

    June 15, 2012 at 07:53 | Report abuse | Reply
  42. HodgkinsSurvivor

    I was injured in a Military training accident when I was 20yrs old. Six months later I developed HD (a cancer of the immune system) in the same area where I was injured. The Army Dr.s removed my perfectly good spleen just to make sure there was no cancer in it. I received high doses of radiation from my chest to the top of my ears. Sure they "cured" the active cancer – and I am thankful for that.

    But now over 20 years later at the age of 42, I live in constant pain, my immune system is shot, my heart and lungs are messed up, my metabolism is also shot... among many other things.

    I say "No America is NOT ready to handle 18M Cancer Survivors" – not everyone is a Lance Armstrong who can just bounce back and go on to win the Tour de France. Surviving cancer has so many variables – what kind of cancer was it? how was it treated? at what age did you have your treatment? what are your genetic vulnerabilities to the treatment?

    I tried to "ignore" having had cancer for many years. Unfortunately for me, the long term side effects from the cancer and the treatment just kept coming, like the gift that just keeps on giving – until about five years ago when the complications began to be debilitating – now I can no longer ignore my history as a cancer survivor. I have had to make many lifestyle changes just to be able to get by on a daily basis.

    The really sad part is most Doctors and most of the general public have no idea what many Long Term Cancer Survivors face in our "New Reality". I hope to continue to see articles such as this one and others to help educate people on what it really means to be a cancer survivor.

    June 15, 2012 at 10:09 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Kat

      So sorry to hear. I am fighting Hodgkins too, and had it reoccure because 12 chemos did not work. I pray for your well being and for a healthy life. Sorry to hear of your situation ❤ Wish I could do more.

      June 15, 2012 at 17:07 | Report abuse |
    • HodgkinsSurvivor


      Thank you for your kindness. I too am sorry to hear of your situation. The "good news" is that even with recurrence, you still have a great chance of survival. AND the medical community is much better at treating HD today than they were 22 years ago. Hopefully you came come through this and not have to suffer very many Long Term Effects. If you do, or even if you are just not happy with the Dr.s treating you – there are many good experts in the field around the country who may be able to help.

      June 15, 2012 at 19:42 | Report abuse |
  43. Rachelle

    I don't mean to minimize any of the suffering cancer survivors are going through. That said, the fact that more people are surviving cancer is wonderful. I can only imagine how happy I would have been if my mom had survived her fight with cancer. It makes it easy for me to be happy for other people who survived cancer and can spend time with their loved ones or to do whatever makes them happy- even if that is just posting on cnn articles 🙂

    June 15, 2012 at 11:22 | Report abuse | Reply
    • HodgkinsSurvivor

      Rachelle – thank you!

      June 15, 2012 at 11:25 | Report abuse |
  44. recent survivor

    Wow so many smart people, I think in all the comments I've read we,some which are just horrible to say,that some people just don't understand cancer! I was in good health before being diagnosed and as far as treatment options yes I listened to an experienced doctor and doctors that I have known my whole life because I did not want to die! For all my survivors out there keep doing what your doing and don't listen to some of this b.s.,people live your life you only get one shot,and you never know what lurks around the corner,cancer is one of the most horrific things people can face,please stop and think before you post a comment it can be hurtful! Walk in your own shoes

    June 15, 2012 at 12:27 | Report abuse | Reply
  45. Kathy

    A response to majicdanser regarding the lack of citations in the short web article. The paper referenced at the bottome of the paper is 16 pages long and contains 195 references.

    June 15, 2012 at 13:35 | Report abuse | Reply
  46. steven

    1 in 3 men, 2 of 3 women...and if you all continue to be afraid of the sun and use sunscreen everyday the Vitamin D deficiency, which has risen from 55% in 1990 to 77% in 2009 and the cancer rates will continue to increase. Great news for Big Pharma and the sunscreen industry, it is was they have hoped for all along. How much longer are you sheeple going to allow yourselves to be bamboozled about the benefit of SUNSHINE

    June 15, 2012 at 13:44 | Report abuse | Reply
  47. EdL

    If there comes an absolute cure of cancer/s there will be a correspoding increase of heart attacks and other ailments we die from. Also a corresponding increase of nursing home residents. What may come as a surprise, we will all be dying if not from one thing then another, but die we will. And there will be those who will say that if he or she had not done so and so he or she would still live. I have enjoyed smoking for 60 years, one to two cigarette packs a day and am presently in excellent health. When I pass away, even at 100, there will be a few who knew me will say smoking caused my death. Meanwhile all of my non-smoking friends have now passed away.

    June 15, 2012 at 19:39 | Report abuse | Reply
  48. Mike

    Isn't it interesting that most of the old people you meet, drank & smoked for a large portion of their life (if not basically their whole life) Yet many are alive & healthy enough (considering their age).

    Now think, how many old people have you met that never had a cigarette or drop of liquor in their life? Not many!

    Just a thought!

    June 16, 2012 at 01:32 | Report abuse | Reply
  49. mmi16

    I haven't seen such a piece of fear mongering 'journalism' in a long time.

    I am a 16 year Colon Cancer survivor – and the only thing that is slowing me down is my advancing age – I am still doing every activity I was before the diagnosis and successful treatment program.

    June 17, 2012 at 00:31 | Report abuse | Reply
  50. The Realist

    We all need to die of something. Part of the world's over population problem, horrific shortages in supplies, global warming, etc is right here in this article and comments. We were simply not meant to live forever....

    June 17, 2012 at 14:13 | Report abuse | Reply
1 2

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

About this blog

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.