home
RSS
Many treatable cancers diagnosed late
November 24th, 2010
01:34 PM ET

Many treatable cancers diagnosed late

An alarming number of treatable cancers are diagnosed at late stages, despite widely available and effective screenings, says a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The report, released Tuesday, found that over half of all colorectal cancers and cervical cancers and a third of breast cancers were diagnosed in the later stages.

"This report causes concern because so many preventable cancers are not being diagnosed when treatment is most effective," said CDC's Dr. Marcus Plescia in a statement.

The report also found that late diagnoses of colorectal and breast cancers were more common in African Americans, and late diagnoses of cervical cancer were more common among Hispanic women.

"More work is needed to widely implement evidence-based cancer screening tests which may lead to early detection and, ultimately, an increase in the number of lives saved," says Plescia.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends regular screening for colon cancer in men and women over 50, including colonoscopies and fecal occult blood tests.  The American Cancer Society says women should have annual mammograms, starting at age 40,  for as long as a woman is "in good health."   By the time a woman is 21, she should be screened for cervical cancer by getting a regular Pap test every year or a newer liquid-based Pap test every two years, according to the ACS.  If women 30 and older have had three normal Pap tests in a row, those screenings for cervical cancer can be spaced out every two to three years.

Post by:
Filed under: Cancer • CDC • Men's Health • Women's Health

soundoff (60 Responses)
  1. Bob

    I went to schedule a colonoscopy, but the Dr wouldn't set it up unless I had somebody to come pick me up afterwards. A taxi was no good, had to be a friend or family member. I have no family in the area, and my friends work for a living, so i couldn't swing a ride. The Dr didn't care, didn't offer any alternative, so...no colonoscopy!!

    November 24, 2010 at 13:59 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Monica

      Im am sorry to hear that this has happened to you. It is not fair these sort of screenings need to be taken care of!!

      November 24, 2010 at 14:08 | Report abuse |
    • froggyalley

      That is because of the sedation they give you. Do it without the sedation and you can drive yourself home. It's unpleasant, but survivable and you aren't messed up for a day!

      November 24, 2010 at 14:28 | Report abuse |
    • TWA

      ollow up and find a way to get one ASAP. My colon cancer was diagnosed early and treated effectively and I was only 40. Doctors kept dismissing my symptoms. Don't let your crazy doctor disuade you from getting one. Find a way.

      November 24, 2010 at 15:40 | Report abuse |
    • Robert

      I also had to have a colonoscopy, had no one to drive me 200 miles home if I was sedated, so I told the doctor to forget about the sedation and just cauterize the growths. He did and I lived thru it all and was released from hospital in about an hour after the procedure and I was able to drive myself home and have dinner with my wife. Otherwise, if I had been sedated the hospital would make me stay there overnite, and since I'm a care-giver for my sick wife I had no option but to be cauterized.

      November 24, 2010 at 15:54 | Report abuse |
    • beentheredonethat

      I agree on doing it without sedation. I've had 2 that way and wouldn't have it any other way even though my husband was available to drive me back and forth. If you current doc insists on doping you, find another one who will do it your way. That's what I had to do. Actually, I found it interesting to watch.

      November 24, 2010 at 16:16 | Report abuse |
    • Margie

      I've had the same experience for minor surgeries. Don't say anything in advance about not having anyone to pick you up. Instead, tell your medical person that a friend will be picking you up. If anyone asks when that will be, give a time 2-3 hours after the scheduled procedure. Then after the procedure and you are feeling ok, either just leave - no one can stop you - or say you are going to sit out in the waiting room (or wherever away from your bed)and wait for your friend. Again, no one can stop you. The doctor won't give his/her approval, and will try and talk you out of it, but the hospital cannot make you stay.

      November 24, 2010 at 16:20 | Report abuse |
    • A. Nony

      Lie. Just LIE. Say a friend will pick you up. Right after the proocedure, say he/she has been delayed. Wait. When you are feeling OK, just walk out. What are they going to do? Throw you to the floor and handcuff you to a couch? This nonsense about not letting you go without a friend/relative is pure and simple CYA. .

      November 24, 2010 at 17:11 | Report abuse |
    • John

      Bob, You should hire an escort or something, but this thing needs to get done. Do not take it lightly,

      November 25, 2010 at 11:07 | Report abuse |
    • FP Doc

      Bob, there is an alternative called a flexible sigmoidoscopy for which sedation is not required nor recommended. This combined with annual fecal occult blood tests is a recommended alternative to the colonoscopy.

      Margie, lying to your physician about anything is self-defeating. How do you expect us to do our job if patients lie to us? In this case it would be wreckless. If I sedated a patient for a procedure and they drove home, at which time they have a head on collision with you rendering you paralyzed, would you not try to hold ME (not the defiant patient) responsible?

      November 25, 2010 at 11:27 | Report abuse |
    • Bernie

      Bob – the reason the doc wanted you to get a ride was due to the usual sedation and medical liability (as always....). If you can do without (as I did on my last one), you can drive yourself home. Your doctor should have offered the option.
      P.S. it really was not that bad without the medication and yes, I drove myself home!

      November 25, 2010 at 12:03 | Report abuse |
    • FP Doc

      Furthermore Margie (and now A. Nony, too) don't say you would sue the person who hit you. Once you are paired up with an attorney who knows that the physician has a malpractice insurer with deep pockets your target will certainly change.

      November 25, 2010 at 13:05 | Report abuse |
    • ergin

      where do you live?

      November 25, 2010 at 20:56 | Report abuse |
  2. Tookit in the butt...literally!

    Funny, i scheduled a scopy and had one performed. My health insurance specified that this would be covered in full as a "screening". One polup was found and therefor turned the whole "screening" into a dinogistic procedure......just another way for the insurance industry to wiggle out of paying for anything but yet colleting the big monthly premiums. We, as Anericans are losing. I will NEVER schudle another scope again, no matter what they say will be covered... I can't afford it!!!!

    November 24, 2010 at 14:07 | Report abuse | Reply
    • gary

      i checked too and found out exactly what you did....way too late. I got stuck for nearly $4,000.00!!! Doc says to get another screening done in three years, NO MORE SCOPES FOR ME!

      November 24, 2010 at 14:20 | Report abuse |
    • Kirstyloo

      I am sorry that there is this loophole; however, you might have removed a polyp that would eventually become malignant. Wouldn't it be worth it to save your life...the whole point of screening or the procedure?

      November 24, 2010 at 16:42 | Report abuse |
    • Lioness

      $4000 to remove and look at one polyp? RIDICULOUS. If it was 2 polyps, would it have cost $8000? Insurance companies should be required to cover this, and WHY AREN'T THEY? Greedy you-know-whats. I would first formally appeal the decision with the insurance company. If that fails, try to negotiate the cost down with the hospital. If that fails, send them $20/month (or whatever you can comfortably afford) toward the bill and say you can't afford more. Some people have been known to just refuse to pay, but I wouldn't recommend this approach.

      November 25, 2010 at 07:39 | Report abuse |
  3. Lance

    My insurance said they would pay for the screening and naturally, didn't. I'd be better off without insurance.......no joke.

    November 24, 2010 at 14:09 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Laura

      Exact same story here.

      November 24, 2010 at 22:51 | Report abuse |
    • Lioness

      How can they do this? I mean what did they say was the reason they "changed their minds?"

      November 25, 2010 at 07:40 | Report abuse |
    • CANCER IS BIG BUSINESS

      It amazes me how people are so naive when it comes to how corrupt this world is.

      Cancer is big business. Pink ribbons everywhere. Money going towards this cancer research, and that cancer foundation. Have they found a single thing to cure it or even prevent it? NO. We know that foods will do a GREAT DEAL to prevent cancer as well as lessening pollutions. Will the government do that? NO WAY! They WANT people to get cancer. There is NO MONEY in prevention and NO MONEY in cures. If they found a cure for cancer tomorrow, it would be suppressed.

      Yes, I too have been rejected by my health insurance company BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD for preventative testing even though I pay through the ANUS every month for 'health care' from those dirt bags. They are the biggest thieves in the world. They will charge you an arm and a leg, deny coverages and treatments, and then screw your credit rating with no consequences to them. It is absolutely disgusting.

      November 26, 2010 at 17:56 | Report abuse |
  4. Patricia

    One cancer that you missed that is normally not diagnosed until later stages is Ovarian Cancer. You would be doing your readers a service if you took an opportunity to tell educate them on early signs and symptoms and encouraged women to actively pursue their concerns–and not get brushed off by their physicians who don't know better.

    November 24, 2010 at 14:12 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Tamara

      Agreed Patriicia, but the problem with Ovarian cancer is that there are often no symptoms until it is late-stage. And, to my knowledge, there are no standard,reliable tests for it either. My 70-yr-old stepmom is a recent survivor (yey Lyla!), having been diagnosed as Stage 3 after experiencing extreme abdominal pain. She had a radical hysterectomy and luckily the cancer had not spread to her colon. My hope is that a standard test – similar to a Pap for cervical cancer – will be developed in the near future. I think one is being worked on, but it's currently not very reliable.

      November 24, 2010 at 15:02 | Report abuse |
    • Kate

      Since there is no screening test for ovarian cancer, it isn't worth mentioing in this article.

      November 24, 2010 at 20:40 | Report abuse |
    • Donna

      Tamara and Kate-right now the best option is to go every year to your ob/gyn and have a pelvic exam. I have had cysts (benign) and the docs have felt them that way.

      November 25, 2010 at 12:34 | Report abuse |
  5. Josh in Maine

    My family has a history of colon cancer. I checked with my ins. and was told that this procedure is covered. My co-worker politely informed that hers wasn't covered because the Dr. found a small polyp that was burned off. It was noncancerous. Our insurance company declared that the screening was not covered due to the fact that the screening found this small polyp. I cancelled my colonoscopy. I'm finding that most insurance companies will not cover this procedure...typical for insurance.

    November 24, 2010 at 14:16 | Report abuse | Reply
    • jen

      people - first off, if you have a family history of colon cancer, especially under the age of 50 - YOU MUST GET COLOSCOPIES EVERY YEAR after you are 40.... do NOT blow it off as something u can do without - if you have genetic colon cancer, you have NO chance of survival unless it's diagnosed early and you have surgery to remove your colon.

      my husband lost his father and older brother to genetic colon cancer (it's called lynch syndrome or HNPCC) - he was told to get colonoscopies every 3-5 yrs by his dr.... he went in at 3.5 yrs with NO SYPTOMS whatsoever and was diagnosed with TWO separate tumors - one was stage 3b the other stage 1a - he was told by every single doctor if he waited even 6 more months to be checked he'd be dead - he just finished his chemo in May and we have come 1 full year since his diagnosis and surgery (he had a total colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis) he has no colon but no bag....

      i repeat, if you have a family history of colon cancer, DO NOT TAKE IT LIGHTLY, it will cost you your life!

      November 25, 2010 at 11:20 | Report abuse |
  6. Bill

    Having a simple PSA blood test saved my life. My PSA was 15, a biopsy found 6 tumours. I had my prostate removed and that was almost 8 years ago. I am doing well, no chemo, no radiation. To all men over 50 years old please have a PSA blood test done yearly.

    November 24, 2010 at 14:42 | Report abuse | Reply
  7. JEM

    Medical insurance is a benefit that, like many other benefits, is only intended for the current generation of old people. The younger you are, the fewer benefits you will receive and the more you will have to pay. This is true of Social Security, Medicare and the benefit plans offered by companies.

    My parents both had full coverage throughout their careers and are living off social security, Medicare and retirement plans.
    I have no insurance, no means of ever again having insurance, have no hope of ever being offered a retirement plan and by the time I reach 60, Social Security and Medicare will both be history.

    The current generation of OLD PEOPLE have robbed their children to early death.
    They voted to push the country off a cliff so that they could enjoy the benefits at our expense
    Shame on all of them

    November 24, 2010 at 14:46 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Char

      Jem,

      What you have said is very true, I see it in my own family. There are young relatives who never go to the Doctor no matter how sick they are, because they have no insurance or their insurance charges huge deductibles and refuse to cover many procedures. They scrimp and save to be able to take their children if they are ill. Then on the other hand we have senior citizens in our family who run to the Doctor for every little pain, cough etc. They get expensive surgeries, medicines, the best of care and pay little or nothing. Medicare and their reasonable cost supplements cover everything. No politician is going to say no to the powerful senior voters, children don't vote, so our leaders don't care about them. A country who spoils its elders and neglects its children, is a country without a future.

      November 24, 2010 at 16:57 | Report abuse |
    • charles s

      Sounds like you believe all of the Republican propaganda. Social Security and Medicare will be available if you do not let the Republicans destroy it. All of the propaganda about Social Security merely states that based upon current "projections" it will only pay about 70% of what it is projected to be paying. 70% is not zero!!! Currently the payments from Social Security is based upon a growth of 3% per year to cover inflation. For the last two years, Social Security has not had any growth in benefits. Fixes to keep Social Security solvent forever and paying 100% of benefits are available but the Republicans will try to block any fix for it.

      The Republicans have blocked fixing the medical care problem in the US because they do not want to allow a single payer for medical expenses. Do not let the Republicans destroy Social Security and Medicare. I am disappointed in President Obama and his attempt at cooperation with the Republicans. He was under the impression that the Republicans cared about the middle class. He is totally wrong about it. The Republicans have fought against Social Security and Medicare since both were started. The Republican philosophy is "drown the baby" by withholding money from the programs until the "die". Go here and read about it:
      http://firedoglake.com/2008/07/10/a-billion-dollars-to-stop-democrats-from-running-deficits-like-republicans-did/

      November 24, 2010 at 18:42 | Report abuse |
    • Laura

      I've always felt the Baby Boomers are the most selfish generation this country has ever seen.

      November 24, 2010 at 23:06 | Report abuse |
    • larkwoodgirl

      You don't know what you are talking about. I have a friend who is suffering from severe diabetes. Even though he has Medicaid, he cannot find a single doctor who accepts Medicaid. Since he is severely disabled by the disease, he can't work. He finallly found a doctor's office in a town over a hundred miles away said they accepted Medicaid. I loaned him forty dollars to pay for the gas to get there. When he arrived, they refused to treat him.

      Older people who have Medicade do not fare that much better than anyone else.

      November 25, 2010 at 11:28 | Report abuse |
    • Brenda Murphy

      I said thesame thing when I was your age. Wah wah wah! S.s. is not a give away program. I paid into it for 40 years and will not feel guilty for the $1100 a month I draw. Politicians will not allow these programs to go under because the seniors have to live. It would be disgraceful to have 1000 000s of old people homeless. Don't think we could rely on the younger generation to take care of us. Sounds like you'd be happy tp just euthanize after our work life is done!

      October 9, 2016 at 08:41 | Report abuse |
  8. applysomelogic

    Cancers are not being diagnosed when treatment's most
    effective because it's not as profitable. Capitalism has its pitfalls, but it *is* predictable.

    November 24, 2010 at 15:23 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Kate

      Time to up the medication if you believe this crap you are writing...

      November 24, 2010 at 20:42 | Report abuse |
    • larkwoodgirl

      You make a very good point. When my husband was dying from cancer, I asked his oncologist the very question you posed. His onlly answer was that it was "bad medicine". How could comprehensive screenings for the most deadly types of cancer be bad. What could be worse than dying? Like everything else, it comes down to the money. Insurance companies just don't want to pay.

      November 25, 2010 at 11:33 | Report abuse |
    • Kate is a naive moron

      Are you really this stupid Kate? Why do you think we have some of the most cutting edge technology in health care yet we are incredibly ill from PREVENTABLE illnesses? Keep drinking the Kool-Aid stupid. Your day will come. Anyone with a brain and the power of reason can see that corruption is HUGE in the health care BUSINESS.

      November 26, 2010 at 18:28 | Report abuse |
  9. Cindy

    I totally agree Patricia!!! It's sad to see that the media tends to focus only on certain cancers. Ovarian cancer is one of the most deadly diseases and often diagnosed at a late stage when is not longer curable.

    November 24, 2010 at 15:27 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Kate

      It's diagnosed late because THERE IS NOT SCREENING TOOL. Most women don't realize the very "minor" symptoms until it is too late. That's why it kills so many women. Until a screening tool is developed and proves to work, it is better to focus on those cancers that we can catch early because we have the tools to detect it.

      November 24, 2010 at 20:45 | Report abuse |
  10. Olivia

    This article provides the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for colon cancer screening and then switches to the American Cancer Society's recommendation for women 40 and over to have an annual mammogram instead of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations of starting less frequent mammograms at age 50. Yet, even the chief medical officer of the ACS, Otis Brawley, has said "American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated.” According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in Oct. 2009, mammography screening has lead to a 40% increase in breast cancer diagnoses, a near doubling of early stage breast cancers, but just a 10% decline in more advanced cancers. If mammography were as effective at saving lives as the industry has led us to believe, there would be a corresponding decline in the discovery of late-stage breast cancers to go with the increase in early-stage diagnoses. Aggressive breast cancers can easily crop up between screening intervals, and not all breast cancers are the same. Some might never have caused any problems if they had not been detected through mammography; nor would they have needed treatment. Mammography is most effective at catching tumors that are so slow growing that catching these tumors later by palpation would not have made any difference in terms of survival rate. Of course, questionable mammograms lead to huge numbers of breast biopsies, and 8 out of 10 of them are benign. Screening is big money. Deciding to undergo breast cancer screening through mammography should be a personal choice based on all the information available, not just what those who profit off it say. Screening is a valid decision, but so is deciding not to screen.

    November 24, 2010 at 15:44 | Report abuse | Reply
    • GracieL

      Olivia, you are so correct that mammograms are highly overrated, but no one wants to hear it. Study after study shows that mammograms often do more harm than good. Yet doctors and nurses present only the "pros," never the "cons" of overscreening. Those with open minds should take a look at the scientific studies summarized at http://www.cochrane.dk/screening/index-en.htm . Bottom line: screening has serious harms as well as benefits. It's an individual decision, but it should be an informed one.

      November 24, 2010 at 17:19 | Report abuse |
    • Kate

      Do you not remember the uproar that resulted when it was mentioned that the recommendation of every other year screening?

      November 24, 2010 at 20:46 | Report abuse |
    • Screening for cancer CAUSES Cancer

      I heard on the radio that they actually wanted women now to get mammograms every YEAR! I could not believe my ears!!!! This does suprise me. If you get tested every year and expose yourself to radiation that CAUSES CANCER, of course it is going to show up!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is disgusting!

      November 26, 2010 at 18:33 | Report abuse |
  11. shipdog7

    I was to have had a Partial Colonoscopy done five years ago. My first at 60 years of age. When they got half way she asked if they could go a little further. Trying to man up.... I said okay. She asked again how I was feeling. I said I was okay. She wanted to go further. I felt like it was coming out my belly button. Bloated. I said go ahead. I was really more than uncomfortable, but again the male ego said to tough it up. She announced she was almost to the end. I breathed a sigh of relief. She stated she was going to come back out slowly. I almost wanted to scream out .....pull the damn thing out fast please. Barely retracting she saw a polyp. She said that was what she was looking for, if there was one there. She zapped it. No medication. I jumped up off the table and was ready to go. Nurse said sit still a few minutes. I said I felt fine and left with my designated driver. Fast forward 5 years later. Medication this time. One polyp. Zapped.

    November 24, 2010 at 17:05 | Report abuse | Reply
  12. The Sunlight Caller

    Vitamin D supplementation to a circulating level of 50-80 ng/ml, year round and for life, will do more to reduce cancer cases than all of the various preventative measures...combined!

    It is not even close, whether your doctor thinks so or not.

    End of story.

    November 24, 2010 at 17:29 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Ruby

      Absolutely. I totally agree. Screening procedures are huge moneymakers, not the least of which are the invasive medical treatments given for whatever they find. If you have cancer, the best thing you can do is treat it with diet, including Vit. D3. Chemo, radiation, etc. are temporary fixes at best. Treat your body as if you have an illness, and this way if you do have one, you're already doing what you can–plus you avoid the toxins and other surgical risks AND false positives/negatives AND in cases where they use radiation for screening procedures, the risks of future cancers.

      November 24, 2010 at 23:02 | Report abuse |
  13. lineman

    It is always a good idea to take advantage of all the precautions that modern medical science has to offer. If you are having insurance problems in paying for it you will probably have to wait a few years until the reforms kick in or they are replace with single payer. Be careful how you vote though, if you go wrong the insurance companies will take all these procedures away. They will be able to do this because if you are sick they can just drop you.

    November 24, 2010 at 19:55 | Report abuse | Reply
  14. Deborah Stone

    Mammograms "overrated" and "do more harm than good"? Speak only for yourself. Thanks to a mammogram I am alive and well today. Dont scare other women away from this life saving test.

    November 24, 2010 at 20:47 | Report abuse | Reply
  15. susanne

    By that same token, Deborah, please don't scare other women into having this test because of your own personal situation. You may have been saved by the test or your disease might never have bothered you had the test not detected it. That is the problem with screening that the other posters are referring to - the tests sometimes pick up things that may never have bothered a person in their lifetime yet, once they are detected, the person is put through surgery and treatment, which may not have been necessary. Hard to say.

    As the previous posters stated, it is an individual choice to screen or not and the choice should only be made after weighing the pros and cons. Unfortunately, the cons are rarely or never discussed with women. Screening is always touted as an absolute "must" and there's never any discussion of the risks or downsides. Funny thing is, prostate cancer affects as many men as breast cancer does women, yet men are given a choice in regard to screening and are given all the facts, including the downsides of testing. From what I've heard and read, most doctors think this a sensible way to things. I wonder why they don't afford women the same courtesy?

    November 25, 2010 at 11:19 | Report abuse | Reply
  16. too late

    Get sreened early – waited until I turned 50 for a colonscopy.The dr found advanced cancer with no symphtoms! Few treatment options and most are not effective anyway.

    November 25, 2010 at 11:20 | Report abuse | Reply
  17. too late

    Get sreened early – I waited until I turned 50 for a colonscopy.They found advanced cancer with no symphtoms! Few treatment options all left with no hope. Time to pay the piper for years of poor life style choices.

    November 25, 2010 at 11:27 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Redsam

      Another fine example of why our current healthcare system is MESSED UP. I have a co-worker who went to her dr with symptoms, she was not yet 50, they told her she was just stressed and over worked. She turned 51 and was still pushing something was not right, they suggested a colonoscopy, guess what... Stage 4 colon cancer, had they listened to her earlier and not dismissed her symptoms because she was young, she might have been at a treatable stage. She will be lucky if she is hear next year for Thanksgiving.
      I have had various "scope" procedures. And yes it would have been covered 100% as long as they did not take samples or remove anything. At that point deductible applies. I know very few people who walk away from these without a sample taken. As for the sedation, go ahead get in a cab without control of all your brain functions. If you think that seems like an ok solution, what happens if you cannot properly tell the cabbie where you live or you forget to get your credit card back, or worse. It is no surprise as young parents or individuals we forgo treatment for ourselves due to extreme costs. THAT IS WHY HEALTCHARE NEEDS TO BE FIXED. Doctors need to listen to the patients, we need to get rid of health insurance companies who are out for their own profit. As long as healthcare is profit based we will loose.

      November 25, 2010 at 11:52 | Report abuse |
  18. victor

    with our present obama care we can expect more death to later diagnosis and no new research in medicine

    November 25, 2010 at 11:37 | Report abuse | Reply
  19. PA-Pilot

    It is impossible to eliminate all risk from life. There are not enough resources to screen every man, woman, and child in the world from every conceivable medical risk or condition. There never will be. There is no amount of money that can be thrown at the "problem" to fix it.

    Just try to enjoy life, so if you do get cancer or some other disease, you can check out of the game having enjoyed it.

    November 25, 2010 at 12:06 | Report abuse | Reply
  20. Fricsaid

    I can't afford what little health care I get now. Now they want me to go to the doctor more often. My mother suffered for 7 years while they "treated" her cancer. Hooked on oxycontin the Dr.'s put her on. It was so sad to watch. Sorry. Not for me.

    November 25, 2010 at 12:10 | Report abuse | Reply
  21. Keith, IA

    Ins. companys are rediculous. They are raping the american public and yet are deemed necessity. How many people have to be droped and refused payment for treatment before america realizes how big of scam the ins. companies are running.

    November 25, 2010 at 12:37 | Report abuse | Reply
  22. WHITES GET CANCER MORE THAN ANYONE

    Notice how when it is a disease that primarily affects white people, they never mention it? Oh but if its 'Tazmanian Swine Disorder, MEXICANS ARE TEN TIMES MORE LIKELY TO GET IT. Or, BLACKS GET IT MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE BECAUSE THEY ARE UNEDUCATED AND POOR. I read numerous articles on CNN every week that mention race and disease. BUT NEVER when its whites who are most affected. Why isn't that a PROBLEM IN THE WHITE COMMUNITY? Oh thats right. White people are intelligent and superior and do not have a community because they all think independently unlike filthy dirty minorities.

    November 26, 2010 at 17:59 | Report abuse | Reply
  23. Naturopaths are better

    See a naturopathic doctor. They treat the whole body and not just symptoms.

    November 26, 2010 at 18:37 | Report abuse | Reply
  24. Luz

    With havin so much content and articles do you somehow run into any problems of copyright infringement? My site has lots of exclusive content I've either written myself or outsourced but it seems a lot of it is popping it up all over the web without my agreement. Do you know any methods to help reduce content from being stolen? I'd genuinely appreciate it.

    http://webmasterchef.net/event/17319/trying-to-understand-everything-about-bed-bug-pest-control/

    May 5, 2017 at 03:24 | Report abuse | Reply

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.

Advertisement
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.