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

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



Message

naughtynick81 -> Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/3/2013 11:22:57 PM)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20875488




meatcleaver -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 2:00:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: naughtynick81

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20875488




There is nothing so sure, this is an old issue. 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.



naughtynick81 -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 2:16:51 AM)

quote:

This is down to women being more vocal


So Prostate Cancer UK must be all silent about it I guess.



naughtynick81 -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 2:18:16 AM)

Imagine if this was the other way around? The blaming of women not doing enough about it would be out of the picture. It would be poor oppressed women.



DomKen -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 2:51:25 AM)

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.



naughtynick81 -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 2:55:20 AM)

Or in reality since prostate cancer is rarely lethal :O




meatcleaver -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 3:00:27 AM)


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)



PeonForHer -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 4:44:01 AM)

FR

We need more guns to defeat prostate cancer. It's the only possible answer. Every right thinking man of sound mind needs an assault rifle in order to shoot his bollocks off should they begin to to infringe his essential freedoms.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 6:16:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: naughtynick81
quote:

This is down to women being more vocal

So Prostate Cancer UK must be all silent about it I guess.


meatcleaver didn't say men weren't vocal. He said women are more vocal. Then there's the mentioned misogyny accusations and attempts to prove otherwise.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it has more to do with male societal norms of not being vulnerable, not admitting weakness, or other machismo related stuff. There are some that have always been like that, but they generally have been cast aside as effeminate, or, somehow, less manly. There is more openness now, and I do believe there is more of an awareness than before. Still, I'd much rather defer cure discoveries to breast cancer (which males can get, btw), or other nefarious cancers that bedevil women.



MariaB -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 6:50:10 AM)

Cancer Research UK's work is almost entirely funded by the public. It raises money through donations, legacies, community fundraising, events, retail and corporate partnerships. Over 40,000 people are regular volunteers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Research_UK
On every high street in every town we have charity shops run for particular cancers and cancer research. Nobody, to my knowledge, has yet set up a charity shop specifically for prostate cancer but that looks like thats up to us.
Donations tend to be very specific. On 18 July 2012 it was announced that Cancer Research UK was to receive its largest ever single donation of £10 million from an anonymous donor. Now that donor will likely of specified which type of cancer that £10 million was going to be used towards.
I believe we need bigger government lump sums because anything charitable will always sway in one direction. My niece has a very rare form of brain tumor. So rare that little to no research has ever been done. She is going to die, there is no question about that. A friend of a friend has a daughter with a very rare form of leukemia and discovered that little to no research was being done on this. Being multi millionaires they have now set up their own charity and paying for researchers from all over the globe to meet at conventions and get to work. Money makes the world go round and it certainly helps when it comes to cancer research.
The government don't want to know and we can't make peoples choices for them. People will continue to give for not only personal reasons but for compassionate reasons and unfortunately prostate cancer is one of the last when it comes to compassion.



GotSteel -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 8:06:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
There is nothing so sure, this is an old issue. 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.


It's not just about women being vocal, men generally aren't that willing to talk about ass cancer



Aylee -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 8:10:46 AM)

Here are two more global prostate cancer research institutes.  The UK may be doing less public funding of research because there are already a bunch of places doing other reseach. 

Prostate Cancer Foundation
http://www.pcf.org/site/c.leJRIROrEpH/b.5699537/k.BEF4/Home.htm 

Prostate Cancer Research Institute
http://prostate-cancer.org/

And some info from the American Cancer Society about what is new and upcoming:
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostatecancer/detailedguide/prostate-cancer-new-research

I get the feeling that the OP really does not understand how medical research and funding works.  I doubt that he has ever read or written a grant proposal.  I also doubt that he really has any idea about the history of medical research (the 70 kilogram man and how that does not translate to women always as well as how many rules were in place for female test subjects.)  He also seems to be missing the history of the place of women and charitable works.  (Hint:  Look up where Mother's Day comes from.) 

There are a lot of things that can be done if he wants to bring more awareness and raise more money for research.  Most of the leg work has been done for him.  He could just steal a page from Susan Kommen.  Braclets, ribbons, magnets, stickers.  Talk to medical OEMs and drug companies.  However, I doubt that he actually has much information or knowledge about the cancer, the research, or the treatments.  That would require study and learning. 



Lucylastic -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 8:15:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel


quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
There is nothing so sure, this is an old issue. 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.


It's not just about women being vocal, men generally aren't that willing to talk about ass cancer

Let alone actually go for a prostate exam....



tazzygirl -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 8:48:03 AM)

~FR

Prostate cancer

According to the most recent data, when including all men with prostate cancer:

The relative 5-year survival rate is nearly 100%
The relative 10-year survival rate is 98%
The 15-year relative survival rate is 91%

Pretty good rates. So, treatment isnt the problem.

Survival rates by stage

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) maintains a large national database on survival statistics for different types of cancer. This database does not group cancers by AJCC stage, but instead groups cancers into local, regional, and distant stages.

Local stage means that there is no sign that the cancer has spread outside of the prostate. This corresponds to AJCC stages I and II. About 4 out of 5 prostate cancers are found in this early stage.

Regional stage means the cancer has spread from the prostate to nearby areas. This includes stage III cancers and the stage IV cancers that haven't spread to distant parts of the body, such as T4 tumors and cancers that have spread to nearby lymph nodes (N1).

Distant stage includes the rest of the stage IV cancers – all cancers that have spread to distant lymph nodes, bones, or other organs (M1).

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostatecancer/detailedguide/prostate-cancer-survival-rates

Breast Cancer...

0 (non-invasive breast cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)) 93%

Stage 1 is 88%
Stage 2 is 81%
ect ect ect

http://ww5.komen.org/Diagnosis/ChancesForSurvivalBasedOnCancerStage.html#Figure4-8

Whats the difference in survival? Early detection, just like with any disease.

Who seeks out yearly medical care more? Women. Self breast exams catch many early cancers for women. How many men put off those pesky annual exams?

Prevention starts with yourself.



Aylee -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 9:48:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Prevention starts with yourself.


Well, FISK!  You mean it is not a ebil feminist plot?  [8|]



tazzygirl -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 9:50:33 AM)

Of course it is! We women prevent men from going to the Doctors all the time.



Lucylastic -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 9:58:32 AM)

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



mnottertail -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 9:59:13 AM)

I would not be opposed to a gal checking mine with her tongue.....




tazzygirl -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 10:18:12 AM)


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



LOL... most men dont go unless a woman pushes them to do so.

And, yep, I got a source for niki for that too.

When it comes to their health, men are the weaker sex: They don't get checkups as often as women, are hospitalized more often with preventable illnesses, and they die younger.

About 57% of men have visited the doctor within the past year, compared with about 74% of women, according to surveys by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Black and Hispanic men are even less likely than white men to have routine checkups. At the same time, men are hospitalized at significantly higher rates than women for preventable conditions such as congestive heart failure and complications of diabetes and pneumonia that can be prevented with a vaccination.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704463504575301130174214118.html



meatcleaver -> RE: Could funding be lacking because this is a male only cancer? (1/4/2013 10:24:52 AM)


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.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.882813E-02