| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"weltanscha" |
| Date: |
24 Feb 2006 05:07:23 PM |
| Object: |
Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
I couldn't get anyone to argue with me over this in
alt.talk.radio.dr-laura, so I thought I'd do a little crossposting and
see what happens.
Anyway, can anyone guess why I think there are too many breast cancer
charity events and such? ("Misogyny" isn't the right answer.)
- Dr. Tom
.
|
|
| User: "Rita Refugee" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
24 Feb 2006 05:39:54 PM |
|
|
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140822442.949995.174630@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I couldn't get anyone to argue with me over this in
alt.talk.radio.dr-laura, so I thought I'd do a little crossposting and
see what happens.
Anyway, can anyone guess why I think there are too many breast cancer
charity events and such? ("Misogyny" isn't the right answer.)
Why should anybody bother to guess what you think? Nobody knows or
cares who you are and nobody cares what you think.
According to Flip Wilson, "Most women with breast cancer, get it from
men who smoke."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde Soli Deo Gloria" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
24 Feb 2006 06:12:35 PM |
|
|
Rita Refugee wrote:
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140822442.949995.174630@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I couldn't get anyone to argue with me over this in
alt.talk.radio.dr-laura, so I thought I'd do a little crossposting and
see what happens.
Anyway, can anyone guess why I think there are too many breast cancer
charity events and such? ("Misogyny" isn't the right answer.)
Why should anybody bother to guess what you think? Nobody knows or
cares who you are and nobody cares what you think.
According to Flip Wilson, "Most women with breast cancer, get it from
men who smoke."
I was trying to get the government to put a sign on ciggy packs, "Camels
spit". Then I realized this wouldn't make any sense on Marl Burros.
--
"And he did bring them. It took a number of years, but one by one he
brought them here. Except for his father, that old man died where he was
born." -+ "Elia Kazan, "America, America"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
24 Feb 2006 09:07:21 PM |
|
|
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140822442.949995.174630@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I couldn't get anyone to argue with me over this in
alt.talk.radio.dr-laura, so I thought I'd do a little crossposting and
see what happens.
Anyway, can anyone guess why I think there are too many breast cancer
charity events and such? ("Misogyny" isn't the right answer.)
I don't really give a *****. Both of my aunts had it and one of them died
from it.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
24 Feb 2006 11:40:35 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in news:469vv5Fa4vauU1
@individual.net:
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140822442.949995.174630@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I couldn't get anyone to argue with me over this in
alt.talk.radio.dr-laura, so I thought I'd do a little crossposting and
see what happens.
Anyway, can anyone guess why I think there are too many breast cancer
charity events and such? ("Misogyny" isn't the right answer.)
I don't really give a *****. Both of my aunts had it and one of them died
from it.
It has been said that every man will get prostate cancer if they live long
enough.
pierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
25 Feb 2006 11:27:39 AM |
|
|
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9774F0EF0B48Fmc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in news:469vv5Fa4vauU1
@individual.net:
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140822442.949995.174630@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I couldn't get anyone to argue with me over this in
alt.talk.radio.dr-laura, so I thought I'd do a little crossposting and
see what happens.
Anyway, can anyone guess why I think there are too many breast cancer
charity events and such? ("Misogyny" isn't the right answer.)
I don't really give a *****. Both of my aunts had it and one of them died
from it.
It has been said that every man will get prostate cancer if they live long
enough.
Yikes. A gentleman I work with just found out he has it :(
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
25 Feb 2006 06:28:23 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in
news:46bic7Fa8ifuU1@individual.net:
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9774F0EF0B48Fmc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in news:469vv5Fa4vauU1
@individual.net:
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140822442.949995.174630@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I couldn't get anyone to argue with me over this in
alt.talk.radio.dr-laura, so I thought I'd do a little crossposting
and see what happens.
Anyway, can anyone guess why I think there are too many breast cancer
charity events and such? ("Misogyny" isn't the right answer.)
I don't really give a *****. Both of my aunts had it and one of them
died from it.
It has been said that every man will get prostate cancer if they live
long enough.
Yikes. A gentleman I work with just found out he has it :(
If caught early the survival rate is quite good. Bill Bixby died from it.
pierce
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
25 Feb 2006 03:19:51 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:27:39 -0500, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"R. Pierce Butler" <spamsucks@google.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9774F0EF0B48Fmc2500183316chgoill@10.232.1.1...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in news:469vv5Fa4vauU1
@individual.net:
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140822442.949995.174630@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I couldn't get anyone to argue with me over this in
alt.talk.radio.dr-laura, so I thought I'd do a little crossposting and
see what happens.
Anyway, can anyone guess why I think there are too many breast cancer
charity events and such? ("Misogyny" isn't the right answer.)
I don't really give a *****. Both of my aunts had it and one of them died
from it.
It has been said that every man will get prostate cancer if they live long
enough.
Yikes. A gentleman I work with just found out he has it :(
A natural time bum.
Err, sorry, time bomB.
--
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ugly Anna" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
25 Feb 2006 02:30:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 05:40:35 GMT, "R. Pierce Butler"
<spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
I don't really give a *****. Both of my aunts had it and one of them died
from it.
It has been said that every man will get prostate cancer if they live long
enough.
pierce
....and if you don't live that long, you'll have died from something
else...
Makes sense to me....
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
25 Feb 2006 06:32:50 PM |
|
|
Ugly Anna <55tbill@aol.com> wrote in
news:bef102ht25foj10f0gu6i3omh6o8l5f6lv@4ax.com:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 05:40:35 GMT, "R. Pierce Butler"
<spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
I don't really give a *****. Both of my aunts had it and one of them
died from it.
It has been said that every man will get prostate cancer if they live
long enough.
pierce
...and if you don't live that long, you'll have died from something
else...
Makes sense to me....
I'm glad it makes sense to someone.
pierce
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
25 Feb 2006 01:48:09 AM |
|
|
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote:
I couldn't get anyone to argue with me over this in
alt.talk.radio.dr-laura, so I thought I'd do a little crossposting and
see what happens.
Anyway, can anyone guess why I think there are too many breast cancer
charity events and such? ("Misogyny" isn't the right answer.)
I'm sick of breast cancer crap. What about prostate cancer ?
Where's OUR money ? Aren't men worth saving ????
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
25 Feb 2006 10:29:07 AM |
|
|
B1ackwater <bw@baarrk.net> wrote in news:084002tm35288hvrg2c0ngru0h3f0hbs5n@
4ax.com:
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote:
I couldn't get anyone to argue with me over this in
alt.talk.radio.dr-laura, so I thought I'd do a little crossposting and
see what happens.
Anyway, can anyone guess why I think there are too many breast cancer
charity events and such? ("Misogyny" isn't the right answer.)
I'm sick of breast cancer crap. What about prostate cancer ?
Where's OUR money ? Aren't men worth saving ????
Apparantly not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "weltanscha" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
25 Feb 2006 12:39:43 PM |
|
|
B1ackwater wrote:
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote:
I couldn't get anyone to argue with me over this in
alt.talk.radio.dr-laura, so I thought I'd do a little crossposting and
see what happens.
Anyway, can anyone guess why I think there are too many breast cancer
charity events and such? ("Misogyny" isn't the right answer.)
I'm sick of breast cancer crap. What about prostate cancer ?
Where's OUR money ? Aren't men worth saving ????
Well, that's the closest to my reasoning, but unfortunately the two
cancers are not very directly comparable, because of the lower death
rate from prostate cancer. Still, it would be nice if one heard about
breast *and* prostate cancer events. I'm sure they're out there, but
the only variation I ever hear about is breast and *ovarian* cancer,
which isn't quite the same thing, since I can't seem to find my
ovaries.
I got sick of hearing breast cancer this and breast cancer that, so I
checked it out, to see if my perceptions had validity.
Google 'breast cancer charity', and you get 4,400,000 results.
Google 'lung cancer charity', and you get 1,120,000 results.
Breast cancer death rate: 26.4
Lung cancer death rate: 117.2
(per 100,000, 1998-2002 http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/stt_0.asp)
So, we get: about 167,000 'breast cancer charity' results per breast
cancer death (per 100,000) and about 9,500 'lung cancer charity'
results per lung cancer death (per 100,000)
That's a ratio of 17.6/1 in favor of Google results for concern about
donating to fight breast cancer deaths versus lung cancer deaths.
Now, using Google search results as an indicator isn't by any means
perfect: there are going to be pages having nothing to do with the
topic in the results. But that happens on both sides, and I expect it
would roughly even out. And even if we drop it down to a ratio of
10/1, to be conservative, that's still an order of magnitude, which is
plenty big.
Now, what does this say? I figure it either says that we care a lot
more about women dying than men dying, which is *truly* sexist, or that
we care a *hell* of a lot about boobs, and don't like the thought of
them being disfigured. In support of the second claim, more women die
of lung cancer than breast cancer, yet we *still* apparently care more
about breast cancer. I figure it's probably a little of both, but in
either case, it sucks.
- Tom
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
25 Feb 2006 06:34:25 PM |
|
|
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1140892783.647138.63070
@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
B1ackwater wrote:
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote:
I couldn't get anyone to argue with me over this in
alt.talk.radio.dr-laura, so I thought I'd do a little crossposting and
see what happens.
Anyway, can anyone guess why I think there are too many breast cancer
charity events and such? ("Misogyny" isn't the right answer.)
I'm sick of breast cancer crap. What about prostate cancer ?
Where's OUR money ? Aren't men worth saving ????
Well, that's the closest to my reasoning, but unfortunately the two
cancers are not very directly comparable, because of the lower death
rate from prostate cancer. Still, it would be nice if one heard about
breast *and* prostate cancer events. I'm sure they're out there, but
the only variation I ever hear about is breast and *ovarian* cancer,
which isn't quite the same thing, since I can't seem to find my
ovaries.
I got sick of hearing breast cancer this and breast cancer that, so I
checked it out, to see if my perceptions had validity.
Google 'breast cancer charity', and you get 4,400,000 results.
Google 'lung cancer charity', and you get 1,120,000 results.
Breast cancer death rate: 26.4
Lung cancer death rate: 117.2
(per 100,000, 1998-2002 http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/stt_0.asp)
So, we get: about 167,000 'breast cancer charity' results per breast
cancer death (per 100,000) and about 9,500 'lung cancer charity'
results per lung cancer death (per 100,000)
That's a ratio of 17.6/1 in favor of Google results for concern about
donating to fight breast cancer deaths versus lung cancer deaths.
Now, using Google search results as an indicator isn't by any means
perfect: there are going to be pages having nothing to do with the
topic in the results. But that happens on both sides, and I expect it
would roughly even out. And even if we drop it down to a ratio of
10/1, to be conservative, that's still an order of magnitude, which is
plenty big.
Now, what does this say? I figure it either says that we care a lot
more about women dying than men dying, which is *truly* sexist, or that
we care a *hell* of a lot about boobs, and don't like the thought of
them being disfigured. In support of the second claim, more women die
of lung cancer than breast cancer, yet we *still* apparently care more
about breast cancer. I figure it's probably a little of both, but in
either case, it sucks.
- Tom
Try running it again only with prostate cancer.
It will get more interesting.
pierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "weltanscha" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
26 Feb 2006 01:01:29 PM |
|
|
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1140892783.647138.63070
@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Now, what does this say? I figure it either says that we care a lot
more about women dying than men dying, which is *truly* sexist, or that
we care a *hell* of a lot about boobs, and don't like the thought of
them being disfigured. In support of the second claim, more women die
of lung cancer than breast cancer, yet we *still* apparently care more
about breast cancer. I figure it's probably a little of both, but in
either case, it sucks.
- Tom
Try running it again only with prostate cancer.
It will get more interesting.
I did, in another post. Quoting myself: "So I did the same with
prostate cancer.
Turns out it was more deadly than I thought (kills more than breast
cancer, as it happens): 30.3 deaths per 100,000. 693,000 google
results, yielding about 22 871 deaths per result. Not as high, but
still a ratio of 7.3/1."
- Tom
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
27 Feb 2006 03:13:07 AM |
|
|
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1140980489.886153.108290@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1140892783.647138.63070 @e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Now, what does this say? I figure it either says that we care a lot
more about women dying than men dying, which is *truly* sexist, or
that we care a *hell* of a lot about boobs, and don't like the
thought of them being disfigured. In support of the second claim,
more women die of lung cancer than breast cancer, yet we *still*
apparently care more about breast cancer. I figure it's probably a
little of both, but in either case, it sucks.
- Tom
Try running it again only with prostate cancer.
It will get more interesting.
I did, in another post. Quoting myself: "So I did the same with
prostate cancer.
Turns out it was more deadly than I thought (kills more than breast
cancer, as it happens): 30.3 deaths per 100,000. 693,000 google
results, yielding about 22 871 deaths per result. Not as high, but
still a ratio of 7.3/1."
- Tom
38% of women will develop cancer during their lifetimes. Among men, 43%
will develop cancer during their lifetimes.
It is estimated that 40,410 women and 460 men will die from breast cancer
in the United States this year.
Things are a little lopsided.
pierce
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
26 Feb 2006 04:23:38 PM |
|
|
On 25 Feb 2006 10:39:43 -0800, "weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com>
wrote:
B1ackwater wrote:
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote:
I couldn't get anyone to argue with me over this in
alt.talk.radio.dr-laura, so I thought I'd do a little crossposting and
see what happens.
Anyway, can anyone guess why I think there are too many breast cancer
charity events and such? ("Misogyny" isn't the right answer.)
I'm sick of breast cancer crap. What about prostate cancer ?
Where's OUR money ? Aren't men worth saving ????
Well, that's the closest to my reasoning, but unfortunately the two
cancers are not very directly comparable, because of the lower death
rate from prostate cancer. Still, it would be nice if one heard about
breast *and* prostate cancer events. I'm sure they're out there, but
the only variation I ever hear about is breast and *ovarian* cancer,
which isn't quite the same thing, since I can't seem to find my
ovaries.
I think MOST men will have prostate cancer ... but few will
actually die from it. It tends to appear in later life, when
testosterone levels are declining. Without lots of testosterone
it grows VERY slowly. If it infiltrates bones or organs in some
disabling way it can be easily spot-treated with radiation.
Of course, like many cancers, as OTHER conditions become more
treatable and men start living longer then their prostate
cancer becomes a greater issue. In the bad old days where
the boss would work everyone to death by the time they were
40, cancers of ANY kind were rare.
Breast cancer kills much earlier, often in mid-adulthood. We
NOTICE when a 45-year-old woman dies, not so much when a 95-
year old man dies.
I got sick of hearing breast cancer this and breast cancer that, so I
checked it out, to see if my perceptions had validity.
Google 'breast cancer charity', and you get 4,400,000 results.
Google 'lung cancer charity', and you get 1,120,000 results.
Breast cancer death rate: 26.4
Lung cancer death rate: 117.2
(per 100,000, 1998-2002 http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/stt_0.asp)
So, we get: about 167,000 'breast cancer charity' results per breast
cancer death (per 100,000) and about 9,500 'lung cancer charity'
results per lung cancer death (per 100,000)
That's a ratio of 17.6/1 in favor of Google results for concern about
donating to fight breast cancer deaths versus lung cancer deaths.
Well, lung cancer is seen as one of those "sin" diseases,
the kind Jerry Falwell says gawd WANTS you to die of for
the heresy of enjoying a couple packs of Camels. Such
medieval/puritanistic thinking permeates the American
subconscious.
Now, using Google search results as an indicator isn't by any means
perfect: there are going to be pages having nothing to do with the
topic in the results. But that happens on both sides, and I expect it
would roughly even out. And even if we drop it down to a ratio of
10/1, to be conservative, that's still an order of magnitude, which is
plenty big.
Now, what does this say? I figure it either says that we care a lot
more about women dying than men dying, which is *truly* sexist, or that
we care a *hell* of a lot about boobs, and don't like the thought of
them being disfigured. In support of the second claim, more women die
of lung cancer than breast cancer, yet we *still* apparently care more
about breast cancer. I figure it's probably a little of both, but in
either case, it sucks.
Diseases which destroy ones sex appeal seem more important
than a bad pancreas or whatever. 'Flesh-eating' bacteria made
big news even though it was a very rare infection. These sorts
of biases seem innate ... many would rather die than be ugly.
What irks me is that you don't seem to hear much about
reconstructive surgery for breast-cancer victims. If
they can put a car-crash victim back together then you'd
think they could build some very passable new boobs,
maybe nicer than the originals. It should be a standard
part of the cancer surgery and covered by insurance. This
would spare women a lot of psychological scars.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
27 Feb 2006 03:23:28 AM |
|
|
(B1ackwater) wrote in news:44022550.10357923
@news.west.earthlink.net:
Diseases which destroy ones sex appeal seem more important
than a bad pancreas or whatever.
Do you know what the survival rate is for pancreatic cancer?
A whopping 4% (1992-1999). Before that it was 3.2% (1983-1990).
100 people come down with pancreatic cancer and 4 survive.
I told my wofe that if she ever loses a breast to cancer, I am buying her a
new one. Not for my benefit but for hers.
pierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
27 Feb 2006 12:45:13 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:23:28 GMT, "R. Pierce Butler"
<spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
bw@barrrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote in news:44022550.10357923
@news.west.earthlink.net:
Diseases which destroy ones sex appeal seem more important
than a bad pancreas or whatever.
Do you know what the survival rate is for pancreatic cancer?
A whopping 4% (1992-1999). Before that it was 3.2% (1983-1990).
Really SUCKS, doesn't it ? Hell, wiped-out Jimmy Carters
whole family. Why HE didn't get it is a mystery ... unless
Ms. Lillian lied about who his daddy was.
I'm getting kind of sick hearing about all these 'cancer
genes' they're finding - yet hearing almost NOTHING about
actual treatments & cures evolving from that data. Seems
the knowledge either cannot be translated into treatments
or someones afraid of using retroviri stuffed with the
appropriate new 'message'. Some suggest that the big pharma
companies don't WANT cures - only expensive treatments -
but there haven't been any genetic cures coming from
socialist or communist countries either.
Hmmm ... maybe we should pull the funding from those folks
hunting cancer genes and redirect it towards those actually
seeking cancer CURES.
100 people come down with pancreatic cancer and 4 survive.
I told my wofe that if she ever loses a breast to cancer, I am buying her a
new one. Not for my benefit but for hers.
Fair 'nuf ... though I'm sure it wouldn't hurt YOUR
feelings either.
Reconstructive surgeons can do a spectacular job nowdays.
If the skin surrounding a cancerous breast can be saved,
so can a 100% natural look & feel. Even if it can't, there
are techniques for making extra skin which can then be
fashioned into any shape they want. Reconstruction should
really be considered part of the overall cancer treatment.
No point in curing the one disease if it makes the person
feel suicidally ugly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "weltanscha" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
27 Feb 2006 04:55:27 PM |
|
|
B1ackwater wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:23:28 GMT, "R. Pierce Butler"
<spamsucks@google.com> wrote:
bw@barrrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote in news:44022550.10357923
@news.west.earthlink.net:
Diseases which destroy ones sex appeal seem more important
than a bad pancreas or whatever.
Do you know what the survival rate is for pancreatic cancer?
A whopping 4% (1992-1999). Before that it was 3.2% (1983-1990).
Really SUCKS, doesn't it ?
Sure does for me. Killed my daddy. Didn't seem to hurt much, though.
Hell, wiped-out Jimmy Carters
whole family. Why HE didn't get it is a mystery ... unless
Ms. Lillian lied about who his daddy was.
I'm getting kind of sick hearing about all these 'cancer
genes' they're finding - yet hearing almost NOTHING about
actual treatments & cures evolving from that data. Seems
the knowledge either cannot be translated into treatments
or someones afraid of using retroviri stuffed with the
appropriate new 'message'. Some suggest that the big pharma
companies don't WANT cures - only expensive treatments -
but there haven't been any genetic cures coming from
socialist or communist countries either.
I never put much faith in those "big industry is holding back an easy
solution for problem X because it'd mean less money for them" style
arguments. Yeah, maybe less money for the industry as a whole, but
it'd be a nice chunk of change for the *first* company to do it and
grab all the patents. I can't imagine that company holding back
because management is all teary about its competitors going under.
Different story for a monopoly, however.
Hmmm ... maybe we should pull the funding from those folks
hunting cancer genes and redirect it towards those actually
seeking cancer CURES.
I don't know. I think the big problem with cancer is that it's all
about failure of the genetic machinery, and most current approaches
don't deal with that because we don't know how yet. I have a feeling
that learning about our genetic makeup is a lot like learning anything
new -- there'll come a point where it all comes together, curing cancer
will almost be a corollary, and all these current ad hoc treatments
will be quickly tossed away. That point may be very far in the future
-- after we're all dead, even -- still I think it's important to keep
basic genetics research well-funded.
We've had so many years of working on cures, but with a few exceptions
(did I hear anyone say childhood leukemia?) it doesn't seem to me that
there's been all that much progress. Physically cutting out tumors,
poisoning people with chemo, and burning tumors with radiation don't, I
think, speak to a high state of the art, nor does calling five year
survival a "cure."
- Tom
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "weltanscha" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
27 Feb 2006 04:16:02 PM |
|
|
B1ackwater wrote:
On 25 Feb 2006 10:39:43 -0800, "weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com>
wrote:
B1ackwater wrote:
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote:
I couldn't get anyone to argue with me over this in
alt.talk.radio.dr-laura, so I thought I'd do a little crossposting and
see what happens.
Anyway, can anyone guess why I think there are too many breast cancer
charity events and such? ("Misogyny" isn't the right answer.)
I'm sick of breast cancer crap. What about prostate cancer ?
Where's OUR money ? Aren't men worth saving ????
Well, that's the closest to my reasoning, but unfortunately the two
cancers are not very directly comparable, because of the lower death
rate from prostate cancer. Still, it would be nice if one heard about
breast *and* prostate cancer events. I'm sure they're out there, but
the only variation I ever hear about is breast and *ovarian* cancer,
which isn't quite the same thing, since I can't seem to find my
ovaries.
I think MOST men will have prostate cancer
Yes.
... but few will actually die from it.
No. It's a bigger killer than breast cancer, according to that stats
page.
It tends to appear in later life, when
testosterone levels are declining. Without lots of testosterone
it grows VERY slowly. If it infiltrates bones or organs in some
disabling way it can be easily spot-treated with radiation.
Of course, like many cancers, as OTHER conditions become more
treatable and men start living longer then their prostate
cancer becomes a greater issue. In the bad old days where
the boss would work everyone to death by the time they were
40, cancers of ANY kind were rare.
Breast cancer kills much earlier, often in mid-adulthood. We
NOTICE when a 45-year-old woman dies, not so much when a 95-
year old man dies.
I suppose, although I tend to notice when *anyone* I know dies, and 45
doesn't seem all that young to me to die. (My best friend dying at 25
was another matter.)
So are you suggesting that the 7/1 ratio in favor of breast cancer
concern is because people have been affected more personally by breast
cancer deaths than prostate cancer deaths? (Personally I don't know
anyone who's died from either.) That we don't much care about old
people dying?
It might be interesting to work "average years of life left had the
breast/prostate cancer not killed the person" into the ratio. If
anyone wants to do it.
Diseases which destroy ones sex appeal seem more important
than a bad pancreas or whatever. 'Flesh-eating' bacteria made
big news even though it was a very rare infection. These sorts
of biases seem innate ... many would rather die than be ugly.
Yes. I often wonder whether that might figure into the methamphetamine
furor. Some of the before/after pictures I've seen are really scary.
(Not to say that meth is a great drug otherwise.)
What irks me is that you don't seem to hear much about
reconstructive surgery for breast-cancer victims.
I seem to hear a fair amount about it. Usually on Oprah-style shows,
right before I change the channel to go watch Springer or Geraldo.
If
they can put a car-crash victim back together then you'd
think they could build some very passable new boobs,
maybe nicer than the originals.
Well, I'm told they can go a really good job of making a transsexual,
so I'm sure it's quite possible, with enough operations and money
It should be a standard
part of the cancer surgery and covered by insurance.
Are you sure it's not? I know nothing about it. Is this a big issue?
This
would spare women a lot of psychological scars.
- Tom
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gail Futoran" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
25 Feb 2006 05:22:58 PM |
|
|
[ngs trimmed]
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140892783.647138.63070@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
B1ackwater wrote:
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote:
I couldn't get anyone to argue with me over this in
alt.talk.radio.dr-laura, so I thought I'd do a little crossposting and
see what happens.
Anyway, can anyone guess why I think there are too many breast cancer
charity events and such? ("Misogyny" isn't the right answer.)
I'm sick of breast cancer crap. What about prostate cancer ?
Where's OUR money ? Aren't men worth saving ????
Well, that's the closest to my reasoning, but unfortunately the two
cancers are not very directly comparable, because of the lower death
rate from prostate cancer. Still, it would be nice if one heard about
breast *and* prostate cancer events. I'm sure they're out there, but
the only variation I ever hear about is breast and *ovarian* cancer,
which isn't quite the same thing, since I can't seem to find my
ovaries.
I got sick of hearing breast cancer this and breast cancer that, so I
checked it out, to see if my perceptions had validity.
Google 'breast cancer charity', and you get 4,400,000 results.
Google 'lung cancer charity', and you get 1,120,000 results.
Breast cancer death rate: 26.4
Lung cancer death rate: 117.2
(per 100,000, 1998-2002 http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/stt_0.asp)
Many if not most lung cancers can be avoided
entirely by not smoking or stopping smoking.
Breast cancers do not have such an easy and
convenient method of avoidance. There is still
little knowledge about what causes any particular
breast cancer. Family history? No kids?
Overweight? Most factors (such as gender and
age) are totally uncontrollable by the individual.
See here for a list:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_2_2X_What_causes_breast_cancer_5.asp
Despite that long list, something like 75% of all
breast cancers have NO KNOWN RISK FACTORS.
Hence, the need for early detection and treatment.
Many poor women cannot afford both or even
one of those.
Compared to getting the word out to women and
insurance companies and researchers about breast
cancer, telling people to stop smoking is cheap.
So, we get: about 167,000 'breast cancer charity' results per breast
cancer death (per 100,000) and about 9,500 'lung cancer charity'
results per lung cancer death (per 100,000)
The comparison is irrelevant. See above.
That's a ratio of 17.6/1 in favor of Google results for concern about
donating to fight breast cancer deaths versus lung cancer deaths
Now, using Google search results as an indicator isn't by any means
perfect: there are going to be pages having nothing to do with the
topic in the results. But that happens on both sides, and I expect it
would roughly even out. And even if we drop it down to a ratio of
10/1, to be conservative, that's still an order of magnitude, which is
plenty big.
Now, what does this say? I figure it either says that we care a lot
more about women dying than men dying, which is *truly* sexist, or that
we care a *hell* of a lot about boobs, and don't like the thought of
them being disfigured. In support of the second claim, more women die
of lung cancer than breast cancer, yet we *still* apparently care more
about breast cancer. I figure it's probably a little of both, but in
either case, it sucks.
Most research on heart disease and stroke uses
men as the model. I don't mean "men" equaling
humans, but "men" as the male gender. Heart
disease and stroke in women tend to express
differently than in men, but detection and treatment
tend to be based on the male model. Hence, women
are more likely to die or be disabled compared to
men experiencing the same disease.
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9811/02/gender.health/
http://www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/2005journals/Diabetes/diab05b-genderheart.pdf
The first site (CNN article) reports a number of
other diseases that affect women more than
men. Why don't you compare the amount of
money spent on ALL diseases, and then try to
factor out gender, instead of attacking one effort
to deal with a disease that disproportionately
affects women?
You are looking for reasons to attack research
benefitting women. That's sexist.
Gail
aa#2247 and breast cancer survivor
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde Soli Deo Gloria" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
25 Feb 2006 01:01:18 PM |
|
|
weltanscha wrote:
Now, what does this say? I figure it either says that we care a lot
more about women dying than men dying, which is *truly* sexist, or that
we care a *hell* of a lot about boobs, and don't like the thought of
them being disfigured. In support of the second claim, more women die
of lung cancer than breast cancer, yet we *still* apparently care more
about breast cancer. I figure it's probably a little of both, but in
either case, it sucks.
I think that lung cancer has a connection with smoking in the minds of
many. People figure if you smoked, you didn't exactly do your part in
preventing lung cancer so why should they cough up for you? Breast
cancer, OTOH, is an in your face sort of disease that men feel like they
can more easily get a handle on. With no easy way to blame anyone, they
are much more willing to give a hand out for it.
--
"And he did bring them. It took a number of years, but one by one he
brought them here. Except for his father, that old man died where he was
born." -+ "Elia Kazan, "America, America"
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "weltanscha" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
25 Feb 2006 01:22:54 PM |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria') wrote:
weltanscha wrote:
Now, what does this say? I figure it either says that we care a lot
more about women dying than men dying, which is *truly* sexist, or that
we care a *hell* of a lot about boobs, and don't like the thought of
them being disfigured. In support of the second claim, more women die
of lung cancer than breast cancer, yet we *still* apparently care more
about breast cancer. I figure it's probably a little of both, but in
either case, it sucks.
I think that lung cancer has a connection with smoking in the minds of
many. People figure if you smoked, you didn't exactly do your part in
preventing lung cancer so why should they cough up for you? Breast
cancer, OTOH, is an in your face sort of disease that men feel like they
can more easily get a handle on. With no easy way to blame anyone, they
are much more willing to give a hand out for it.
That sounded reasonable. So I did the same with prostate cancer.
Turns out it was more deadly than I thought (kills more than breast
cancer, as it happens): 30.3 deaths per 100,000. 693,000 google
results, yielding about 22 871 deaths per result. Not as high, but
still a ratio of 7.3/1.
BTW, check out that graph on the PDF file. Man, has lung cancer shot
up since the 30s.
- Emperor Tom
.
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
26 Feb 2006 04:27:42 PM |
|
|
On 25 Feb 2006 11:22:54 -0800, "weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bill Bonde ('Soli Deo Gloria') wrote:
weltanscha wrote:
Now, what does this say? I figure it either says that we care a lot
more about women dying than men dying, which is *truly* sexist, or that
we care a *hell* of a lot about boobs, and don't like the thought of
them being disfigured. In support of the second claim, more women die
of lung cancer than breast cancer, yet we *still* apparently care more
about breast cancer. I figure it's probably a little of both, but in
either case, it sucks.
I think that lung cancer has a connection with smoking in the minds of
many. People figure if you smoked, you didn't exactly do your part in
preventing lung cancer so why should they cough up for you? Breast
cancer, OTOH, is an in your face sort of disease that men feel like they
can more easily get a handle on. With no easy way to blame anyone, they
are much more willing to give a hand out for it.
That sounded reasonable. So I did the same with prostate cancer.
Turns out it was more deadly than I thought (kills more than breast
cancer, as it happens): 30.3 deaths per 100,000. 693,000 google
results, yielding about 22 871 deaths per result. Not as high, but
still a ratio of 7.3/1.
BTW, check out that graph on the PDF file. Man, has lung cancer shot
up since the 30s.
Be careful with old data like that. In the 30s, a lot of
people simply *died* ... and nobody really checked into
the exact cause. Might be that lung cancer WAS pretty
common - but was thought to be TB or one of the other
common 'consumptions' of the time. While fewer people
smoked fewer cigarettes back then, the JOBS they had
in mines and mills and factories probably filled their
lungs with all kinds of horrible stuff.
.
|
|
|
| User: "weltanscha" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
27 Feb 2006 04:25:08 PM |
|
|
B1ackwater wrote:
On 25 Feb 2006 11:22:54 -0800, "weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com>
wrote:
BTW, check out that graph on the PDF file. Man, has lung cancer shot
up since the 30s.
Be careful with old data like that. In the 30s, a lot of
people simply *died* ... and nobody really checked into
the exact cause. Might be that lung cancer WAS pretty
common - but was thought to be TB or one of the other
common 'consumptions' of the time. While fewer people
smoked fewer cigarettes back then, the JOBS they had
in mines and mills and factories probably filled their
lungs with all kinds of horrible stuff.
Good point. Even when I first glanced at that chart it seemed a little
odd, because the increase was far more than would be expected just from
increased smoking.
I suppose in the old days there were a lot of conversations that went
something like:
"Did you hear that John Doe died?"
"What of"
"Oh, he's been real sick. Been coughing up a storm for months.
Now I guess I have to check out how autopsy rates have changed over the
years.
- Tom
.
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
28 Feb 2006 07:27:55 AM |
|
|
On 27 Feb 2006 14:25:08 -0800, "weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com>
wrote:
B1ackwater wrote:
On 25 Feb 2006 11:22:54 -0800, "weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com>
wrote:
BTW, check out that graph on the PDF file. Man, has lung cancer shot
up since the 30s.
Be careful with old data like that. In the 30s, a lot of
people simply *died* ... and nobody really checked into
the exact cause. Might be that lung cancer WAS pretty
common - but was thought to be TB or one of the other
common 'consumptions' of the time. While fewer people
smoked fewer cigarettes back then, the JOBS they had
in mines and mills and factories probably filled their
lungs with all kinds of horrible stuff.
Good point. Even when I first glanced at that chart it seemed a little
odd, because the increase was far more than would be expected just from
increased smoking.
If you watch old movies from the 30s, it looks like
everybody was going through half a carton of Luckys
a day.
I suppose in the old days there were a lot of conversations that went
something like:
"Did you hear that John Doe died?"
"What of"
"Oh, he's been real sick. Been coughing up a storm for months.
Now I guess I have to check out how autopsy rates have changed over the
years.
Hey, people just *died* back then ... they got "sick". IF
they could afford a doctor, the doctor usually had very
limited diagnostic tools and methods. There were SO many
environmental diseases from unregulated industries plus
a LOT of TB and other untreatable chronic infections
(no antibiotics in the 30s you know).
Farmer Brown MAY have died from that half-carton of Luckys,
or a fungal lung infection caught from the hayfield, or TB
caught from his cows or any of a dozen pneumnonia bacteria
or from anthrax spores caught shearing his sheep, or from
black or white lung from his days as a miner or from radium
dust from his stint as a watch-dial painter or from creosote
fumes from the sawmill or cadnium poisoning from that nice
yellow paint a drummer sold him . Old doc Smith wouldn't have
had a clue - just given him a big bottle of codeine to keep
the cough under control. Death labled as "The Consumption".
Anyway, the 'stats' from pre-WW2 simply don't deserve that
title.
.
|
|
|
| User: "weltanscha" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
01 Mar 2006 04:21:13 PM |
|
|
B1ackwater wrote:
On 27 Feb 2006 14:25:08 -0800, "weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com>
wrote:
B1ackwater wrote:
On 25 Feb 2006 11:22:54 -0800, "weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com>
wrote:
BTW, check out that graph on the PDF file. Man, has lung cancer shot
up since the 30s.
Be careful with old data like that. In the 30s, a lot of
people simply *died* ... and nobody really checked into
the exact cause. Might be that lung cancer WAS pretty
common - but was thought to be TB or one of the other
common 'consumptions' of the time. While fewer people
smoked fewer cigarettes back then, the JOBS they had
in mines and mills and factories probably filled their
lungs with all kinds of horrible stuff.
Good point. Even when I first glanced at that chart it seemed a little
odd, because the increase was far more than would be expected just from
increased smoking.
If you watch old movies from the 30s, it looks like
everybody was going through half a carton of Luckys
a day.
I suppose in the old days there were a lot of conversations that went
something like:
"Did you hear that John Doe died?"
"What of"
"Oh, he's been real sick. Been coughing up a storm for months.
Now I guess I have to check out how autopsy rates have changed over the
years.
Looks like that's not likely to help much, even it it can be found. A
*very* brief Google check found this:
"Importantly, the study pointed out that autopsy rates have declined,
nationwide, from an average of 50% in the mid-1960s to about 10% today
in teaching hospitals and 5% in community hospitals. The 'autopsy rate'
means the percentage of people dying in a hospital who are autopsied."
So an autopsy is a rare thing (unless someone dies under mysterious
circumstances). I didn't know that. I wonder if the decline in the
rate is due to their having better diagnostic tools for the
still-living (so they already knew what's gonna kill 'em), budget cuts,
or something else.
Hey, people just *died* back then ... they got "sick". IF
they could afford a doctor, the doctor usually had very
limited diagnostic tools and methods. There were SO many
environmental diseases from unregulated industries plus
a LOT of TB and other untreatable chronic infections
(no antibiotics in the 30s you know).
Farmer Brown MAY have died from that half-carton of Luckys,
or a fungal lung infection caught from the hayfield, or TB
caught from his cows or any of a dozen pneumnonia bacteria
or from anthrax spores caught shearing his sheep, or from
black or white lung from his days as a miner or from radium
dust from his stint as a watch-dial painter or from creosote
fumes from the sawmill or cadnium poisoning from that nice
yellow paint a drummer sold him . Old doc Smith wouldn't have
had a clue - just given him a big bottle of codeine to keep
the cough under control. Death labled as "The Consumption".
Anyway, the 'stats' from pre-WW2 simply don't deserve that
title.
For what it's worth, the stats from that graph don't look for good for
the 40s and 50s, either.
BTW, I did the same thing for colon cancer. To be more inclusive, I
used the Google search term 'colon OR colorectal OR rectum OR rectal)
cancer charity' and got 653,000 results. Death rate is113.8, so that's
5738 results per death (per 100,000), or a breast/colon cancer concern
ratio of 29/1. I guess we're *really* uncomfortable about anything
connected with poop!
- Tom
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "weltanscha" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
25 Feb 2006 01:11:46 PM |
|
|
weltanscha wrote:
B1ackwater wrote:
"weltanscha" <weltanscha@hotmail.com> wrote:
I couldn't get anyone to argue with me over this in
alt.talk.radio.dr-laura, so I thought I'd do a little crossposting and
see what happens.
Anyway, can anyone guess why I think there are too many breast cancer
charity events and such? ("Misogyny" isn't the right answer.)
I'm sick of breast cancer crap. What about prostate cancer ?
Where's OUR money ? Aren't men worth saving ????
Well, that's the closest to my reasoning, but unfortunately the two
cancers are not very directly comparable, because of the lower death
rate from prostate cancer.
Oops, turns out I was wrong about that. Shoulda looked it up. Turns
out prostate cancer has a higher death rate than breast cancer. More
in another post.
- Tom
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde Soli Deo Gloria" |
|
| Title: Re: Enough of all this collecting for breast cancer!! |
24 Feb 2006 06:01:40 PM |
|
|
weltanscha wrote:
I couldn't get anyone to argue with me over this in
alt.talk.radio.dr-laura, so I thought I'd do a little crossposting and
see what happens.
Anyway, can anyone guess why I think there are too many breast cancer
charity events and such? ("Misogyny" isn't the right answer.)
I think it's because breast cancer doesn't kill as many folks as heart
disease.
--
"And he did bring them. It took a number of years, but one by one he
brought them here. Except for his father, that old man died where he was
born." -+ "Elia Kazan, "America, America"
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
