zlacker

85 year olds die from cancer like 70 year olds but still over twice the rate of a 55 year old.

Hardly a consolation.

The other thing to consider is that once you get to 85, you're likely to die from just about everything else, not just heart disease and cancer.

>>readth+(OP)
science reporting is pretty bad. unsubstantiated, weak, or wrong claims are hyped up .

>>readth+(OP)
Mr Burns: so what you’re saying is, I’m indestructible!

Doctor: Oh no, and in fact even a slight breeze could k…

Mr Burns: Innndestructibllllle.

>>readth+(OP)
Fwiw this is a graph of being diagnosed with cancer, not dying.

>>readth+(OP)
Could this be an artifact of how we measure cancer? My own grandfather probably had cancer when he died, but so much else wasn’t working that I think the docs just didn’t bother testing for cancer or diagnosing it. Treatment would not improve his prognosis at that point.

>>mdavid+N4
I’ve heard from medical student, that at later age cancer is less risky due to slower overall metabolism. Not a fertile environment for cancer to grow.

>>earnes+Wb
Medical students often miss the fine nuances, I would know, I used to be one.

Cancer at a later age, like at 85, is "less risky", because you'll be likely to die of something else than the cancer before you're 90 anyway.

Cancer at a later age, like 60, is "less risky" because your body have had plenty of time to grow indolent and lazy cancers by then, and your immune system is winding down, letting them bloom up a bit.

Cancer at like 30, while many are treatable nowadays, is usually bad news as why are you having cancer at 30 of your genes aren't massively prone to spawn cancer or you had some environmental exposure to serious mutagens.

But even in the older age categories there's plenty of really nasty cancers that lead to ugly deaths, which is why I don't like generalizations like this.