Oregon to Wear Pink Football Helmets

[Marshal Dillon]

Why on earth would anyone attack the breast-cancer campaign?

It's like so many afflictions, people kept quiet about it.  The result: women failed to be checked for it, and women with it weren't getting adequate treatment.  So now this campaign brings it into the light, and there's real progress in detection and treatment.  If it saves one life, and certainly it has, then the campaign is worth it.

Find something inconsequential or trivial to attack.  Breast cancer isn't a joke and shouldn't be a target of complaint.

Once again you have MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE. Is breast cancer the ONLY disease   
in the world? There are MANY more victims of other more deadly/debilitating diseases than breast cancer. MS puts young people in a wheelchair for life then slowly kills them. Brain cancer is a horrible, horrible way to die as it eats your brain up, pancreatic cancer has a 1% survival rate and kills you in 3 months are less.  I am attacking POLITICAL CORRECTNESS not breast cancer awareness. Maybe you live in a politically correct world, but I don't.

This isn't the place (and I understood very well).

You're obviously a good poster and highly intelligent person with a good sense of humor, but I sincerely do not think you understand my point. Not trying to be mean but political correctness is killing our country. It's okay to attack Christians but you're "intolerant" if you do not accept the gay agenda. It's okay to mock Christians but try saying something negative about Islam. It's free speech to rip George W. Bush but you're a racist if you rip Obama, and so on.

I like the heck out of you so don't let me upset you and think I am attacking you.

[Chechem]

...

I like the heck out of you so don't let me upset you and think I am attacking you.

Thanks. 
No offense intended, and I understand that political correctness can be irritating.
But please understand that numerous people on this forum are dealing with cancer now, so I am sensitive to comments about it.  But please be sensitive to the feelings of others here, and understand that giving an opinion that one cancer is getting all of the attention (and has become politically correct) is upsetting to those who work to bring attention to all cancer.  I wish all of the campaigns were equal, all were successful, and (most of all) that the campaigns weren't necessary.  But funding depends on public awareness and political pressure.

Sorry, I don't like discussing this.  Let's just agree to disagree, and stay friends!
No ill will intended.

[Marshal Dillon]

...

I like the heck out of you so don't let me upset you and think I am attacking you.

Thanks. 
No offense intended, and I understand that political correctness can be irritating.
But please understand that numerous people on this forum are dealing with cancer now, so I am sensitive to comments about it.  But please be sensitive to the feelings of others here, and understand that giving an opinion that one cancer is getting all of the attention (and has become politically correct) is upsetting to those who work to bring attention to all cancer.  I wish all of the campaigns were equal, all were successful, and (most of all) that the campaigns weren't necessary.  But funding depends on public awareness and political pressure.

Sorry, I don't like discussing this.  Let's just agree to disagree, and stay friends!
No ill will intended.

My idea has been to cut back on a lot of the spending we do on welfare, food stamps, Obama phones, etc and set up a special program like the Manhattan project from World War II. We would identify 10 or 12 major diseases/debilitating conditions and throw huge sums of money at it with the best researchers in the world. The list might look like this:

Parkinson's
MS
MD
Spinal Cord Injury (paralysis)
Brain cancer
Pancreatic cancer
Lou Gehrig's Disease
Alzheimers
Blindness
and so on


As one condition is cured, another would be added to the list. We might have to set up research facilities around the country or just expand research at places like Vanderbilt, UAB, Harvard, Duke, Mayo Clinic, John Hopkins, etc. We can do this but we must cut through all the politics and the waste spend on so many social programs. I know this sounds like a pipe dream but it is doable.

[Catch Prothro]

WV hasn't left us.  His spirit lives on at CRS.

[ALTideUp]

I am always impressed when people with differing views debate and struggle, irritate and get irritated, but stay in the discussion and show genuine respect for one another. Washington should function so well.

On the matter of the privileged place of breast cancer, this is actually a point of agreement among scholars in the fields of epidemiology and medical sociology. Although it is the #1 best funded cancer cause, it is the 11th most lethal form of cancer (accounts for 11th ranked cancer mortality cause). It is also the most survivable cancer, which, ironically, means it has the most living advocates to promote this particular cancer cause. The draw back of all this advocacy is that emotion, rather than science, shapes political/medical responses to breast cancer. For example, there are compelling data that mammography for women under 50 isn't much help in preventing cancer deaths. Yet this finding and the accompanying recommendation was met with a torrent of public criticism. For all cancers, early detection can create the illusion of effectiveness without actually changing rates of cancer death. This is because we measure cancer outcomes in terms of 5 yr survivorship. The chances of surviving 5 yrs post diagnosis increase when the cancer is discovered earlier than it might otherwise have been. But this is not necessarily because the detection has add years to the patient's life, but rather because it was merely detected three years sooner.

There is little doubt that a general 1980s-90s finding that clinical trials often excluded women had a sling-shot effect that rocketed breast cancer into the status that it currently enjoys. While the result might be unfortunate/disproprtionate in some ways, the "political correctness" of paying attention to women's health shouldn't be trivialized. It was politically correct to end slavery, but that doesn't mean it was a bad idea.

[Guest]

Username:
Password:
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

There aren't any users online.

Loading Tweet...