October 2, 2005

FOX BUTTERFIELD WANNABE:

Does Breast Cancer
Awareness Save Lives? (Lucinda Marshall, 02 October, 2005, Countercurrents.org)

It would seem logical to start by asking why the incidence of breast cancer keeps increasing despite advancements in early detection and the continual development of new treatments. As any school child knows, you can't solve a problem if you don't know the variables. Yet most of the money that is thrown at breast cancer gets spent on finding cures and treatments, with very little of the research focusing on the cause.

This seems particularly odd since approximately half of all breast cancer cases are unexplained by personal characteristics, leading many to suspect that the cause might be environmental.


It's precisely this sort of theology that our local heretics have so effectively challenged.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 2, 2005 8:11 AM
Comments

I volunteered to help a friend with a breast cancer run/walk fundraiser yesterday. There is big money involved in these things, especially given that most any weekend has 2-3 fundraisers for this cause. But it is an emotionally driven campaign and the emotions are fully exploited, so even the most mild questioning of how effective all the money poured into it is greeted with stinging criticism.

And they put the darned pink ribbon on everything!

Posted by: Buttercup at October 2, 2005 10:06 AM

OJ:
Is it just a coincidence that your rabid anti-cancer screening views only came about after your first (and only) colonoscopy?

Posted by: Governor Breck at October 2, 2005 10:21 AM

If only it had been a scope, instead of the guy's whole hand.

Posted by: oj at October 2, 2005 10:23 AM

But never a mention that testicular cancer strikes one in 10,000 males aged 15-35. Basically, one guy on each major campus each year. And no mention that self-examination can detect it early.

Hey, the NAGS don't care about men anyways, right?

Posted by: obc at October 2, 2005 1:33 PM

Self-examination? Sure...

Posted by: oj at October 2, 2005 2:27 PM

OJ:

Would you rather someone else decide how much pressure to exert to find a tumor in its initial state of growth?

Never mind - you need not reply.

Posted by: obc at October 2, 2005 3:12 PM

Why find it then?

Posted by: oj at October 2, 2005 4:06 PM

Why? If found early enough, it can be removed (ususally with only one testicle removed) before it spreads throughout the body, a la Lance Armstrong - the exception for having survived this particular cancer.

Posted by: obc at October 2, 2005 5:11 PM

To be clear, "the exception" is referring to a patient who DIDN'T catch it early in its growth.

And you still can have kids with only one. . .

Posted by: obc at October 2, 2005 5:13 PM

No, the exception is as likely the one in whom it's life threatening and removed early.

Posted by: oj at October 2, 2005 6:02 PM
« THE BLACK KNIGHT WANTS TO RUMBLE: | Main | YOU VOTE, WE GO: »