RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer?

RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 10:25:51 AM)
awww... you just ruined the whole rape fantasy for someone.

DomKen -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 10:29:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Ahem the only reason my ol man went to get his checked, was cos he didnt want me doing it for him...He was 56 at the time and had never had one...he gets one yearly now The check is just a blood test nowadays. Somebody needs to tell my doctor. He still tells me to turn my head and cough.

Yachtie -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 10:40:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Ahem the only reason my ol man went to get his checked, was cos he didnt want me doing it for him...He was 56 at the time and had never had one...he gets one yearly now The check is just a blood test nowadays. Where's the fun in that?[8D]

tazzygirl -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 10:45:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Ahem the only reason my ol man went to get his checked, was cos he didnt want me doing it for him...He was 56 at the time and had never had one...he gets one yearly now The check is just a blood test nowadays. Somebody needs to tell my doctor. He still tells me to turn my head and cough. The current medical theory is that the test is an unnecessary expense. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/health/07prostate.html?_r=0

LizDeluxe -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 10:45:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Male specific health conditions have always had less investment than female specific health conditions. This is down to women being more vocal and accusing majority male governments of being misogynist and majority male governments trying to prove they aren't. With the exception of erectile dysfunction. Medical science has pursued that one pretty heavily as of late. Although, ED can be classified as both a man's problem and a woman's problem. [;)]

Lucylastic -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 10:47:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Ahem the only reason my ol man went to get his checked, was cos he didnt want me doing it for him...He was 56 at the time and had never had one...he gets one yearly now it was11 years ago:) The check is just a blood test nowadays.

angelikaJ -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 10:47:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: naughtynick81 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20875488 Or in reality since prostate cancer is rarely lethal it is studied less than cancers that can actually kill people. Prostate cancer is the second most numerous cause of male death through cancer in the USA. (roll eyes) And yet, there is still a large divide on how prostate cancer should be treated. There are some experts who suggest that a wait and see approach is the best one, because some cancers of the prostate grow so slowly that a person would be deceased of other natural causes long before the cancer spread anywhere, and since surgery can cause impotence (and sometimes incontinence) and there is a quality of life issue... surgery or other invasive treatments is not always necessary.

naughtynick81 -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 12:11:12 PM)
quote: I get the feeling that the OP really does not understand how medical research and funding works Yeah like prostate cancer UK don't know what they are talking about. Anyway, in regards to all replies in here. Funny how people come up with any excuse under the sun to justify the disparity. If it was the other way around, OMG women are oppressed, no excuses. quote: It's not just about women being vocal, men generally aren't that willing to talk about ass cancer That's just pure bollocks and not to mention, a ridiculous generalisation placed on the male population. Crikeys, excuses excuses excuses.

Aylee -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 1:25:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: naughtynick81 quote: I get the feeling that the OP really does not understand how medical research and funding works Yeah like prostate cancer UK don't know what they are talking about. No, I said that I do not think that you understand how medical research and funding work. quote: Anyway, in regards to all replies in here. Funny how people come up with any excuse under the sun to justify the disparity. If it was the other way around, OMG women are oppressed, no excuses. Justification? Not so much. However, folks have been trying to explain the reasons to you. quote: quote: It's not just about women being vocal, men generally aren't that willing to talk about ass cancer That's just pure bollocks and not to mention, a ridiculous generalisation placed on the male population. Crikeys, excuses excuses excuses. Ya know, I cannot recall anyone bringing up prostate cancer with me. On the other hand, I do not really bring up cervical cancer with people either. (Baring discussing the vaccine for Butterhead with our doctors.) Contrary to Nick's belief, us wimminz do have husbands, fathers, sons, lovers, cousins, uncles, et cetera, and we do not want to see them with prostate or any other kind of cancer. There is no secret movement to keep funding from things like this.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 1:30:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Male specific health conditions have always had less investment than female specific health conditions. This is down to women being more vocal and accusing majority male governments of being misogynist and majority male governments trying to prove they aren't. With the exception of erectile dysfunction. Medical science has pursued that one pretty heavily as of late. Although, ED can be classified as both a man's problem and a woman's problem. [;)] The man's problem when he has it, the woman's problem when he's cured. [8D]

Temp1010 -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 2:02:58 PM)
Aren't you coming up with any excuse to justify "women's" cancer (since men can develop breast cancer too) getting more attention than men? Nearly almost all of the men I know on a personal basis are terrified of the idea of getting their prostate checked because of the method used. This is just based from the men I know. Not all of them since my brother in law has no problem doing it after his father passed from it by refusing to get checked. So out of the 8 men who I am close to only 1 willingly goes to get checked on a regular basis. Considering 1 out of 6 men will develop prostate cancer this is very scary to me personally. I can only speak for my area in the US but there are plenty of drives to have men checked for prostate. 90% of the hospitals local to me provide free screenings. The other 10% offer considerably cheap screenings. A woman asked what the aversion to testing for prostate cancer: 39 of 40 comments were from men and they gave their opinion on it http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/04/17/why-dont-men-get-prostate-exams/

MariaB -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 3:30:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: naughtynick81 quote: I get the feeling that the OP really does not understand how medical research and funding works Yeah like prostate cancer UK don't know what they are talking about. Anyway, in regards to all replies in here. Funny how people come up with any excuse under the sun to justify the disparity. If it was the other way around, OMG women are oppressed, no excuses. quote: It's not just about women being vocal, men generally aren't that willing to talk about ass cancer That's just pure bollocks and not to mention, a ridiculous generalisation placed on the male population. Crikeys, excuses excuses excuses. Wow what an angry man you are. You just sound like a woman hater.

Focus50 -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 4:00:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: naughtynick81 Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? I think that's a reasonable analogy. Me, I'm "old school" and believe that men look after their women, or should. And men suck it up and get on with life. So yeah, I've tended to make any personal health issues secondary to my girl's wellbeing. That's not to say I ignore warning signs or avoid doctors etc. Absolutely not...! I have an annual flu shot and blood tests for sugar, cholesterol and whatever all those other initials mean. I do know that PSA is for prostate (Prostate Specific Antogen?). But the girl's health comes first. That's better for my mental health, such is the ole macho wiring.... Focus.

DomKen -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 4:04:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Ahem the only reason my ol man went to get his checked, was cos he didnt want me doing it for him...He was 56 at the time and had never had one...he gets one yearly now The check is just a blood test nowadays. Somebody needs to tell my doctor. He still tells me to turn my head and cough. The current medical theory is that the test is an unnecessary expense. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/health/07prostate.html?_r=0 I've been following that for years. Asymptomatic men probably don't need the PSA test and most men with a prostate tumor will die of other causes before the tumor kills them. I go along with the manual exam simply to avoid arguing with my primary care physician.

epiphiny43 -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 4:34:54 PM)
The basic thread question is profoundly misinformed. Male health issues have been more invested in by govt. and private foundations forever. Women simply don't appear in many trials and studies. No base line, no simple studies to get that next degree or direct path to publication. And most legislators have traditionally been men (now changing in Europe?) so funding goes to understood dangers and diseases. The medical profession both applied and research is very top loaded with men. And men tend to be the larger group in numbers and cash in bequeathing to research and treatment. People with balls really Should stay up with prostate and testicular cancer issues. The latest meta study and subsequent recommendation for good practices in the US disses the PSA test as inaccurate, far too prone to false positives and missing too many actual cases. Patients are better served by other symptomatic diagnoses and the newer tests in development that look at specific tumor markers in blood other than what the PSA sees. Treatment is usually contraindicated as the men die of other issues before the prostate cancer becomes a problem. Which is as pointed out earlier, the real reason it's not front and center for cancer research. The current treatments are usually quite damaging to quality of life, research continues on how to reliably retain erections and continence with removal of major prostate mass, the critical nerves are Very difficult to identify in situ. A whole list of other cancers are far more serious of a diagnosis and I believe deservedly get more money and attention. My friends dying of cancer aren't having prostate issues, it's skin, lung and various gland and systematic cancers. And they face far more dramatic 5 year survival rates. Some are Zero? All this ignores the few very aggressive male organ cancers, which so far progress too fast to do much about with current diagnosis tools. These are rare but are being researched. I'm with the women, I want to know why one in nine US women are getting breast cancers. A hundred years ago it was a virtually unknown diagnosis. I'll suspect the modern chemical industry and lassiz faire regulation of consumer products and industrial processes, but the data is not there yet.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 5:44:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: naughtynick81 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20875488 Don't even need to read it...70% of all health care is spent on women.

MariaB -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 6:12:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 I'm with the women, I want to know why one in nine US women are getting breast cancers. A hundred years ago it was a virtually unknown diagnosis. I'll suspect the modern chemical industry and lassiz faire regulation of consumer products and industrial processes, but the data is not there yet. I don't think a lot of women understand that there are different types of breast cancer and that some breast cancers are harmless. All breast cancer is treated as a life threat because we don't yet know which is the harmless cancer and which is the killer. Many women, especially elderly ones, will die from the cancer treatment and not the cancer. http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2011/10/06/breast-cancer%E2%80%99s-false-narrative/ What our doctor doesn't tell us is that mammography is an inefficient method for detecting breast cancer. It’s much better at finding the indolent cancers that would have never caused harm than it is at finding the nasty, aggressive ones most helped by treatment. Statistics show that for 2,000 women screened by mammography over 10 years, one will be prevented from dying of breast cancer and 10 others will receive treatments for a cancer that would have never become life-threatening. That means that screening causes 10 times as many women to become cancer patients unnecessarily as it prevents from dying from breast cancer.

Aylee -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 6:18:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 I'm with the women, I want to know why one in nine US women are getting breast cancers. A hundred years ago it was a virtually unknown diagnosis. I'll suspect the modern chemical industry and lassiz faire regulation of consumer products and industrial processes, but the data is not there yet. I don't think a lot of women understand that there are different types of breast cancer and that some breast cancers are harmless. All breast cancer is treated as a life threat because we don't yet know which is the harmless cancer and which is the killer. Many women, especially elderly ones, will die from the cancer treatment and not the cancer. http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2011/10/06/breast-cancer%E2%80%99s-false-narrative/ What our doctor doesn't tell us is that mammography is an inefficient method for detecting breast cancer. It’s much better at finding the indolent cancers that would have never caused harm than it is at finding the nasty, aggressive ones most helped by treatment. Statistics show that for 2,000 women screened by mammography over 10 years, one will be prevented from dying of breast cancer and 10 others will receive treatments for a cancer that would have never become life-threatening. That means that screening causes 10 times as many women to become cancer patients unnecessarily as it prevents from dying from breast cancer. The number of false positives are also horrible. I will note that researchers in Isreal are working on some new and better dectection methods with infrared.

kalikshama -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 6:29:41 PM)
I'll take it a step farther: Mammography: An Individual's Estimated Risk that the Examination Itself Will Cause Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gofman John William Gofman (September 21, 1918 – August 15, 2007) was an American scientist and advocate. He was Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at University of California at Berkeley. Some of his early work was on the Manhattan Project, and he shares patents on the fissionability of uranium-233 as well as on early processes for separating plutonium from fission products. Dr. Gofman later worked in medicine and led the team that discovered and characterized lipoproteins in the causation of heart disease. In 1963, he established the Biomedical Research Division for the Livermore National Laboratory, where he was on the cutting edge of research into the connection between chromosomal abnormalities and cancer. Later in life, he took on a role as an advocate warning of dangers involved with nuclear power. From 1971 onward, he was the Chairman of the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility. He also described himself a libertarian and spoke at several events sponsored by the Students for a Libertarian Society in 1979 and 1980. He was awarded the Right Livelihood Award for his work on the effects of the Chernobyl disaster's low-level radiation exposure on the population.[1] John Gofman died of heart failure on August 15, 2007 in his home in San Francisco.

kalikshama -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 6:34:48 PM)
quote: The basic thread question is profoundly misinformed. Male health issues have been more invested in by govt. and private foundations forever. Women simply don't appear in many trials and studies. No base line, no simple studies to get that next degree or direct path to publication. And most legislators have traditionally been men (now changing in Europe?) so funding goes to understood dangers and diseases. The medical profession both applied and research is very top loaded with men. And men tend to be the larger group in numbers and cash in bequeathing to research and treatment. The was my understanding as well but I'm off to bed. Perhaps someone will have provided links by the time I revisit this thread.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875