|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @12:27AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly agree that prostate cancer is still underfunded. Nonetheless, federal monies for prostate cancer have grown from $14 million in 1991 (Myth of Male Power, p. 397) to $438 million this year (www.4npcc.org) -- a 31-fold increase. Breast cancer funding increased 10-fold during that same period, and is now a bit over $900 million. If I recall correctly, the National Prostate Cancer Coalition received, at its founding, advice from founders of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. Before the activism around breast cancer, I don't think that people thought in terms of funding specific cancers with specific political constituencies. Cancer was seen as rather homogeneous, virtually a single disease (except for leukemias, which seemed to have a separate identity, perhaps because they strike the young). The "war on cancer" was left mostly to the experts, who I believe were focusing on basic biology thought to underlie all tumors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @03:39AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I won't argue with you, 'Anonymous'.
For me personaly, It is the media's CONSTANT ignoreing of prostate cancer, while presenting report, after report on breast cancer.
For example, As you may (or may not) know, last month (September) was 'Prostate cancer awareness month". But where was any coverage of it in the media?!? I saw NONE other folks on this site saw little or nothing as well, and no one I know saw anything either.
So then along comes October. 'Breast cancer awareness month'. There's coverage in the media of THAT out the "kazoo"!!
The "TODAY SHOW" has been running a MONTH LONG 'segment' on breast cancer!
I mean, really, would it have killed them to run a similar month long segment on 'Prostate cancer'?!?
The media covers breast cancer all year long. I see at least one segment a week on the local and national news. You can't throw a dead cat without hitting a report on breast cancer in our media.
Don't mis-understand me, I have no problem with the media's reporting on breast cancer or the amount of reporting they do on the subject. It's the fact that they do next to NOTHING on prostate cancer, that pisses me off.
Just as many men die of it as women do from breast cancer.
They're that way on ALL health issues. They STEADILY report WOMEN'S health issues and all but flat out IGNORE men's. Or take any given issue and say: It's "especialy hard on women", wether it is or not. Even things like 'Bullying' and 'suicide' that effect MALES with much greater impact, is reported as "women's problems".
I won't be suprised when the time comes that our media will announce to the world that TESTICULAR CANCER effects women more than men!!
However, with this latest finding of a Breast cancer/Prostate cancer link, I wonder how much longer the media will be able to ignore prostate cancer. In light of this finding, for them to do so would be throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water.
This could get interesting...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @11:58AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The underfunding of screening/treatment of male cancers is blatant anti-male sexism which costs thousands of mens' lives every year.
This month, Irish radio has carried incessant advertising about breast cancer screening (I never heard an ad about prostate cancer screening).
Currently, the Irish Heart Foundation is running radio ads requesting WOMEN (and not men)to phone in for free literature on preventing heart disease ! This is despite heart disease being more prevalent in men. Apparently, this advertising campaign was requested by the (rabidly feminist) Irish Womens' Council. I asked an Irish Heart Foundation spokesman if they would ever run a campaign specifically aimed at MEN but I got no satisfactory answer. Frankly, I think it's time for men to wake up. If men continue to allow themselves to be treated like garbage, then they D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @12:12PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
eserve to be so treated !! ( this comment is obviously an addendum to my previous comment which was inadvertently truncated!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 01, @01:36PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I HATE it when that happens! (^-^)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 03, @03:06AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I completely agree about the media. Their bigotry is so consistent and oppressive I'm surprised they don't stop out of sheer boredom. And I notice that even with the extensive gains in prostate cancer funding over the last 11 years, it still receives only about half the federal monies earmarked for breast cancer. Still, I suspect that funding for breast cancer is not, as the original post suggests "at the expense of other cancers such as prostate cancer." It is a reasonable hypothesis, but I do not think it fits the simultaneous large increase in funding for prostate (c. $430 million per year increase) and breast cancer (c. $800 million per year increase) since 1991.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly the scientific finding that the same gene involved in breast cancer is also involved in prostate cancer was entirely unintended; if it could have been forseen that men might have derived any benefit from what supporters of women's medicine believe to be a strictly woman's disease, research on breast cancer might not have been funded so vigorously; the admission of this finding might conceivably cost the scientists involved their careers.
Clearly mother nature is discriminating against women by not keeping the genetic markers for these cancers separate. Feminists must be fuming that a single penny set aside for research on a woman's disease had this unintended scientific benefit for men; clearly more research dollars must be diverted away from research on prostate cancer and other male diseases to compensate women for this outrage--the money was supposed spent on helping women, after all. Tight controls on the publication of future unintended scientific findings of relevance to men must be enforced, and guidelines must be instituted to prevent investigators from pursuing lines of research that diverge from the feminist agenda, even "innocently" into the "gray area" of scientific relevance to both sexes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 05, @05:45AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Mars.
You're one in a million! I love it!
Great post!
(^_^)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
