Celebrity deaths and cancer

[TEKNOPUG]

J4CKO said:

Who says the royal family have "good genetics", maybe it is having chefs, no money worries, personal doctors and a bit of luck, Prince William has gone bald, I havent, do I have better than royal genetics ?

Might be that the upper classes are alien in origin of course.....

I'd suggest that they have far worse genetics, given the tiny size of their gene pool.

[anonymous-user]

Alex@POD said:

They invent/discover a new type of cancer every week now, or so it seems. And more and more stuff "gives you cancer". I really feel that cancer is a generic disease that kills a lot of people, usually towards the end of their life. We're making progress towards curing it and making life better for those who have it, and that's great, but as long as someone is old enough, it's just a cause of death.

To me it's enough to know someone passed away.

Apparently every cell in our body is susceptible to cancer and it's present in all of us to a minute degree. It's when it overcomes the natural supression and the affected cells start to grow unchecked that it becomes serious.

My wife has literally - as in 4 days ago - finished radiotherapy for breast cancer and lymphoma aged 39. When first diagnosed she was mentally running through all the things that might have caused it: stress; diary products; alcohol.. there's more but I can't remember. There were so many variables in the end she shrugged it off as simply bad luck. There are a number of positives that have arisen from it though and from now on her life will definitely be better due to changes in attitude and health (not that she was unhealthy before).

As a footnote, we can't praise the NHS enough, they have been amazing from start to finish.

Edited by abitlikefiennes on Tuesday 9th February 18:07

[Dogwatch]

Jasandjules said:

briangriffin said:

I have seen people question why no member of the royal family seems to have had it, suspicious or just good genetics?

I would suspect that a lot of the things which potentially cause cancer are avoided by them..

In the past many were heavy smokers and paid the penalty as posted above. That apart Cancer is a disease of aging and the longer you live the more likely it is to come looking for you - ask my Prostate!

[Catatafish]

When you think about how many cells are created and used in your body, it's remarkable that cancer isn't more common.

But back to topic: I don't feel the need to know what type of cancer anyone else had.

[Moominator]

Everytime I hear of someone dying of cancer on the news I think back to Roy Castle (RIP) and the discussions at the time- he said his career involved playing trumpet and performing in often smoky environments where people smoked whilst watchin gigs (clubs, working man clubs etc etc). Lets not forget that alot of these stars would have been smokers themselves.

So I think its fair(?) to say alot of the current/ongoing deaths of stars is tobacco related (or along with a host of other things from the time and over time). A fair comment?

[Willy Nilly]

Jasandjules said:

I believe they are quite entitled to keep such things private.

They are, but sometimes someone in the public eye contracting a disease brings it to the publics attention and causes them to get checked. Probably the best thing to happen to breast cancer sufferers was Kylie getting it. Same with cervical cancer when Jade Goodie died of it.

[briangriffin]

swerni said:

Jasandjules said:

briangriffin said:

I have seen people question why no member of the royal family seems to have had it, suspicious or just good genetics?

I would suspect that a lot of the things which potentially cause cancer are avoided by them..

Like smoking, drinking and eating red meat?

I have no opinion either way really just seen it linked as a conspiracy theory before that the likes of the royal family and the mega rich etc never seem to get/die of the disease.

but as people have said having a lot of money probably helps prevent/treat it.

I wonder what the stats are for cancer rates in 3rd world countrys, impoverished people in the west, and the mega rich etc. I wonder if there;s a major difference

[TEKNOPUG]

Moominator said:

Everytime I hear of someone dying of cancer on the news I think back to Roy Castle (RIP) and the discussions at the time- he said his career involved playing trumpet and performing in often smoky environments where people smoked whilst watchin gigs (clubs, working man clubs etc etc). Lets not forget that alot of these stars would have been smokers themselves.

So I think its fair(?) to say alot of the current/ongoing deaths of stars is tobacco related (or along with a host of other things from the time and over time). A fair comment?

Unless you have evidence that they consumed tobacco and that their cancer's were directly attributable to tobacco, then I would suggest that it's a grossly unfair comment.


Lets not forget that alot of these stars would have been living in Europe during the Chernobyl disaster themselves.

So I think its fair(?) to say alot of the current/ongoing deaths of stars is Chernobyl related (or along with a host of other things from the time and over time). A fair comment?


Also, Lets not forget that alot of these stars would have been living & working in building containing asbestos during their lives.

So I think its fair(?) to say alot of the current/ongoing deaths of stars is abestos related (or along with a host of other things from the time and over time). A fair comment?

[Moominator]

Yes a combination - usually if a rock star has been ingesting coke, heavy-smoking for many years then it'll catch up eventually- even if you become clean living in your later years.

Personally - I think smoking is a contributing factor though to the cancers.

[TEKNOPUG]

Moominator said:

Yes a combination - usually if a rock star has been ingesting coke, heavy-smoking for many years then it'll catch up eventually- even if you become clean living in your later years.

Personally - I think smoking is a contributing factor though to the cancers.

Quite possibly but as you know nothing of their personal lives, genetics or indeed the cancers they had, I don't see how or why you can possible suggest that drug abuse (fags, booze, other) is the cause of many recent celebrity deaths?!

[Moominator]

TEKNOPUG said:

Quite possibly but as you know nothing of their personal lives, genetics or indeed the cancers they had, I don't see how or why you can possible suggest that drug abuse (fags, booze, other) is the cause of many recent celebrity deaths?!

A quick google brought up the most recent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/davi...

"Given his rock star excesses – he was a long-time smoker and heavy drug user – Bowie put his health under strain for many years."

TBH though- we all die of something eventually- our lifestyle contributes and compounds?

[TEKNOPUG]

Moominator said:

TEKNOPUG said:

Quite possibly but as you know nothing of their personal lives, genetics or indeed the cancers they had, I don't see how or why you can possible suggest that drug abuse (fags, booze, other) is the cause of many recent celebrity deaths?!

A quick google brought up the most recent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/davi...

"Given his rock star excesses – he was a long-time smoker and heavy drug user – Bowie put his health under strain for many years."

TBH though- we all die of something eventually- our lifestyle contributes and compounds?

Doesn't explain how Keith Richards is still alive though

Lots of causes of Liver cancer. Cirrhosis is one of them, although that can be caused by Hep B/C. Also obesity and diet play large factors. Our lifestyles contribute for sure but it's very difficult to establish a primary source, given peoples genetics and longevity. There are people who smoke and drink ever day of their lives and live to see a hundred. Others may abstain from all toxins and live a fit and healthy life, yet still die young.

[wack]

briangriffin said:

I have seen people question why no member of the royal family seems to have had it, suspicious or just good genetics?

Because they don't eat ready meals, square ham and all the other processed crap we eat.

The only animals they eat were running around in a field until they shot them

[otolith]

TEKNOPUG said:

Doesn't explain how Keith Richards is still alive though

[northwest monkey]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You're exactly right. I only pay attention to what my favourite celebrities die of. Unfortunately I wasn't a particularly big fan of David Bowie so I don't really bother about cancer. I did however quite enjoy the work of Paul Walker so I'm making a real effort not to crash any high powered supercars into trees.

[98elise]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Living in the public eye might be a choice, but it doesn't mean their medical details should be public. If the family chose to keep that private then thats fine by me.

[oceanview]

J4CKO said:

Who says the royal family have "good genetics", maybe it is having chefs, no money worries, personal doctors and a bit of luck, Prince William has gone bald, I havent, do I have better than royal genetics ?

Might be that the upper classes are alien in origin of course.....

I think its just that cancer doesn't "run" much in there family, the same as it doesn't in many whether they're rich/poor or whatever. Luck of the draw.

And i don't think anyone died of baldness...!! Having hair follicles that are sensitive to testosterone is a bit different from having an uncontrolled growth of cells that could kill you .

At least, I hope so or I am fked!!

[Mr GrimNasty]

oceanview said:

J4CKO said:

Who says the royal family have "good genetics", maybe it is having chefs, no money worries, personal doctors and a bit of luck, Prince William has gone bald, I havent, do I have better than royal genetics ?

Might be that the upper classes are alien in origin of course.....

I think its just that cancer doesn't "run" much in there family, the same as it doesn't in many whether they're rich/poor or whatever. Luck of the draw.

And i don't think anyone died of baldness...!! Having hair follicles that are sensitive to testosterone is a bit different from having an uncontrolled growth of cells that could kill you .

At least, I hope so or I am fked!!

They obviously have the best regular medical attention possible and most cancers are nipped in the bud at the pre-cancerous stages - polyps etc., in total confidentiality.

[StevieBee]

J4CKO said:

Who says the royal family have "good genetics", maybe it is having chefs, no money worries, personal doctors and a bit of luck, Prince William has gone bald, I havent, do I have better than royal genetics ?

Might be that the upper classes are alien in origin of course.....

Or it could be that they are the products of 100s of years of very carefully managed genetic coupling to ensure appropriate lineage and the avoidance of Zygosity amongst others. Doesn't always work out. See King George III for further info.

Of the list above, I'd also suggest the lack of stress is a prevailing factor too. I don't know if there is any scientific agreement on the link between cancer and stress but I have had the misfortune to see this occur.

[Nimby]

Death certificates are public documents in the UK (ie anyone can buy anybody's) so the basic cause of death is not "private".

However I don't know if a death certificate necessarily specifies what kind of cancer the person died of.