From what I’ve read (an interested bystander, not a medical researcher), part of the problem is the term “cancer”: in reality, bladder cancer is not the same as lung cancer is not the same as liver cancer is not the same as leukemia, etc. They share is the uncontrolled growth aspect, but otherwise they are so different that they should really be considered different diseases, only superficially related.
That’s why “a cure for cancer” may never happen. What’s more likely will be a series of cures for different types of cancer. Individuals have different responses to treatment, so having more than one recommended treatment for each type of cancer give a higher probability of finding one that works.
I read an interesting article several months ago (can’t find it now) that stated some researchers are examining cancer from a genetic perspective instead of by the affected organ(s). The article stated there are (IIRC) seven different types of breast cancer alone. One of those types was closely related to a type of overian or uterine cancer. The point of the article was that there were perhaps 200 different types of cancer using the genetic basis of differentiation. By focusing on the genetic nature of cancer, they believe more effective and targeted cures should be possible. However, they were getting some pushback from various cancer charities that focus on specific organs. They fear a DNA cancer focus will dillute or weaken their fundraising.
Little doubt that one of those organizations who might “fear a DNA cancer focus will dilute or weaken their fundraising” is closely linked to the color pink and its ribbons. “Breast Cancer Awareness” groups and “pink ribbon products” have sullied the name of fundraising organizations for years, diverting billions of dollars that could have gone to actual research into curing the disease, or even back into the economy as actual spending, but these groups and companies prefer self-aggrandizing, “strategic marketing positions” and excessive pay for no-show jobs above an actual cure or other benefit to society…
I’m looking for a charity that works on DNA and cancer to donate to. One I found via Charity Navigator was The Salk Institute. Any others that somebody can suggest?
I’m also looking for a charity that supports research into drug-resistant diseases, especially STDs. Only one I found was in the UK.
Speaking of pink ribbons, if I was going to donate for a gender-specific cancer, it would be prostate cancer.
Hear Hear! Where are all the blue ribbons?
There has to be a reason why two gender-specific cancers with virtually identical likelihood, age of onset, probability of cure, mortality rate, detectability, and probably other attributes are differently funded in the ratio of 3:1 in terms of both research and treatment. I really don’t know what it is. There certainly isn’t a logical reason.
(Actually, breast cancer isn’t entirely gender-specific. Approximately 1% of breast cancer cases are in men, presumably because there is undeveloped breast tissue in men. I remember seeing a sad little story written by a man who was diagnosed with it, and when he went to the clinic and was waiting for treatment he was treated as if he was Martian.)
“With (sic) death rates from cancer have remained largely unchanged over the past 60 years,”
This cannot be true.
Most EPA regulations measure their “benefit” in terms either of “cancer cases avoided” or “cancer deaths avoided”. If it were true that death rates from cancer haven’t changed in 60 years, it would mean that there has been NO measurable benefit to the tens of thousands of pages of EPA regulations, and that the EPA has been either incompetent or lying about the expected benefit of regulation since the Agency’s inception.
Impossible.
From what I’ve read (an interested bystander, not a medical researcher), part of the problem is the term “cancer”: in reality, bladder cancer is not the same as lung cancer is not the same as liver cancer is not the same as leukemia, etc. They share is the uncontrolled growth aspect, but otherwise they are so different that they should really be considered different diseases, only superficially related.
That’s why “a cure for cancer” may never happen. What’s more likely will be a series of cures for different types of cancer. Individuals have different responses to treatment, so having more than one recommended treatment for each type of cancer give a higher probability of finding one that works.
I read an interesting article several months ago (can’t find it now) that stated some researchers are examining cancer from a genetic perspective instead of by the affected organ(s). The article stated there are (IIRC) seven different types of breast cancer alone. One of those types was closely related to a type of overian or uterine cancer. The point of the article was that there were perhaps 200 different types of cancer using the genetic basis of differentiation. By focusing on the genetic nature of cancer, they believe more effective and targeted cures should be possible. However, they were getting some pushback from various cancer charities that focus on specific organs. They fear a DNA cancer focus will dillute or weaken their fundraising.
Little doubt that one of those organizations who might “fear a DNA cancer focus will dilute or weaken their fundraising” is closely linked to the color pink and its ribbons. “Breast Cancer Awareness” groups and “pink ribbon products” have sullied the name of fundraising organizations for years, diverting billions of dollars that could have gone to actual research into curing the disease, or even back into the economy as actual spending, but these groups and companies prefer self-aggrandizing, “strategic marketing positions” and excessive pay for no-show jobs above an actual cure or other benefit to society…
I’m looking for a charity that works on DNA and cancer to donate to. One I found via Charity Navigator was The Salk Institute. Any others that somebody can suggest?
I’m also looking for a charity that supports research into drug-resistant diseases, especially STDs. Only one I found was in the UK.
Speaking of pink ribbons, if I was going to donate for a gender-specific cancer, it would be prostate cancer.
Hear Hear! Where are all the blue ribbons?
There has to be a reason why two gender-specific cancers with virtually identical likelihood, age of onset, probability of cure, mortality rate, detectability, and probably other attributes are differently funded in the ratio of 3:1 in terms of both research and treatment. I really don’t know what it is. There certainly isn’t a logical reason.
(Actually, breast cancer isn’t entirely gender-specific. Approximately 1% of breast cancer cases are in men, presumably because there is undeveloped breast tissue in men. I remember seeing a sad little story written by a man who was diagnosed with it, and when he went to the clinic and was waiting for treatment he was treated as if he was Martian.)
“With (sic) death rates from cancer have remained largely unchanged over the past 60 years,”
This cannot be true.
Most EPA regulations measure their “benefit” in terms either of “cancer cases avoided” or “cancer deaths avoided”. If it were true that death rates from cancer haven’t changed in 60 years, it would mean that there has been NO measurable benefit to the tens of thousands of pages of EPA regulations, and that the EPA has been either incompetent or lying about the expected benefit of regulation since the Agency’s inception.
Impossible.