3 ms·

More money is spent on preventing cancer in women in treatment, research, and preventive medicine. Google the history of the brca gene, research and tests arou

More money is spent on preventing cancer in women in treatment, research, and preventive medicine. Google the history of the brca gene, research and tests around it. Its quite amazing.I hope all cancer research gets the pipeline it got.

wjnc 10y ago
Any facts to back that up? The story I hear more often [1] is the other way around. More men in medical studies, more often male animals in studies etc. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1761670/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1761670/
- Fomite 10y ago
  The lack of inclusion of women and minorities has historically been such a problem that it is now a term and condition of many awards from HHS: "In addition, several OPDIVs have policies concerning the inclusion of women, minorities, and children as subjects in their grant-supported research. These policies, which implement Section 492B of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 289 a-2, require that women and members of minority groups and their subpopulations be included in OPDIV-supported research projects involving human subjects, unless a clear and compelling rationale and justification establishes that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects, the purpose of the research, or other circumstances. When these policies apply (as specified in the funding opportunity announcement), the applicant is required to address inclusion of these groups in the application narrative, and the applicant’s plans will be assessed as part of the objective (peer) review process. Failure to comply with this policy or to adequately address use of human subjects and animals may adversely affect the score for technical merit, which may result in the OPDIV not making an award."
dave_sullivan 10y ago
If you're interested in the history of cancer, I can't recommend The Emperor Of All Maladies highly enough: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003UYUP58/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003UYUP58/
cauterized 10y ago
The breast cancer movement was started because at the time, male-only cancers (such as prostate and testicular cancers) were getting far more funding and research, while breast cancer was essentially being ignored despite being at least an order of magnitude more common. That it's more common has probably made it easier to do research on once it gained sufficient visibility and funding.
- gman83 10y ago
  Breast cancer was not an order of magnitude more common than prostate cancer: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21332/full#caac21332-fig-0003 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21332/full#c...
  - thebspatrol 10y ago
    Prostate cancer isn't as big of an issue fatality-wise. Right now breast cancer has a disproportionate amount of money spent on it, but I don't think comparing it to prostate cancer is fair.
    - daviddavis 10y ago
      Prostate cancer isn't as big of an issue fatality-wise. Are you sure? It looks like they're both about 21 deaths per 100,000 people: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
      - rustynails 10y ago
        Prostate cancer is noticeably higher and has been for a long time. Try https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics And https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/breast-cancer/breast-cancer-statistics https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/... Similar figures in the UK too. The MSM have pushed breast cancer heavily for as long as I can remember. Despite male homelessness being around 80%, the MSM downplays this too, in the same way male cancer is heavily downplayed by MSM. That's been the case for at least 30 years (source: ABS).
JamesBarney 10y ago
If this is talking about a prostate vs breath cancer dichotomy. The reason is prostate cancer kills much older men than breast cancer kills women. Women in their 40s routinely die of breast cancer but that's pretty rare for a man in his 40s to die of prostate cancer. So saving a man's live fron prostate cancer means he dies at 75 instead of 70 and but saving a women's from breast cancer means she dies at 65 instead of 45.
- rustynails 10y ago
  I'm sorry to say, but that's false for a number of reasons, Most doctors don't even recommend breast screening for the under 50. That's not young! See Figure 1 here to confirm that. https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/breast-cancer/breast-cancer-statistics https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/... Compare this with prostate cancer. Note, the rates at 50 look much lower than breast cancer, but that's only because the increase in later years is MUCH higher than breast cancer, https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics While I can't put a finger on it, I've been advised that breast cancer funding is 6x higher than any other cancer funding. That's unjustifiable, but you won't see the MSM comment on that! Breast cancer is the 4th biggest killer, yet, it gets the lions share of publicity and funding. Age has nothing to do with it. Check the top 3 and you will see they don't only affect old people. If it counts for anything, my boss is a health practitioner. She has often ridiculed prostate cancer patients as whiners (but so do many news outlets). You are not alone in your incorrect beliefs toward prostate cancer. It comes from a barrage of false news in the MSM. That shouldn't be a shock to anybody.
- colllectorof 10y ago
  By this reasoning children's diseases should get even more publicity and money, and I'm aware of nothing in that area that comes even remotely close in terms of funding and awareness campaigns.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

wjnc 10y ago

Any facts to back that up? The story I hear more often [1] is the other way around. More men in medical studies, more often male animals in studies etc. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1761670/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1761670/

Fomite 10y ago
The lack of inclusion of women and minorities has historically been such a problem that it is now a term and condition of many awards from HHS: "In addition, several OPDIVs have policies concerning the inclusion of women, minorities, and children as subjects in their grant-supported research. These policies, which implement Section 492B of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 289 a-2, require that women and members of minority groups and their subpopulations be included in OPDIV-supported research projects involving human subjects, unless a clear and compelling rationale and justification establishes that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects, the purpose of the research, or other circumstances. When these policies apply (as specified in the funding opportunity announcement), the applicant is required to address inclusion of these groups in the application narrative, and the applicant’s plans will be assessed as part of the objective (peer) review process. Failure to comply with this policy or to adequately address use of human subjects and animals may adversely affect the score for technical merit, which may result in the OPDIV not making an award."

dave_sullivan 10y ago

If you're interested in the history of cancer, I can't recommend The Emperor Of All Maladies highly enough: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003UYUP58/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003UYUP58/

cauterized 10y ago

The breast cancer movement was started because at the time, male-only cancers (such as prostate and testicular cancers) were getting far more funding and research, while breast cancer was essentially being ignored despite being at least an order of magnitude more common. That it's more common has probably made it easier to do research on once it gained sufficient visibility and funding.

gman83 10y ago
Breast cancer was not an order of magnitude more common than prostate cancer: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21332/full#caac21332-fig-0003 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21332/full#c...
- thebspatrol 10y ago
  Prostate cancer isn't as big of an issue fatality-wise. Right now breast cancer has a disproportionate amount of money spent on it, but I don't think comparing it to prostate cancer is fair.
  - daviddavis 10y ago
    Prostate cancer isn't as big of an issue fatality-wise. Are you sure? It looks like they're both about 21 deaths per 100,000 people: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
    - rustynails 10y ago
      Prostate cancer is noticeably higher and has been for a long time. Try https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics And https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/breast-cancer/breast-cancer-statistics https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/... Similar figures in the UK too. The MSM have pushed breast cancer heavily for as long as I can remember. Despite male homelessness being around 80%, the MSM downplays this too, in the same way male cancer is heavily downplayed by MSM. That's been the case for at least 30 years (source: ABS).

JamesBarney 10y ago

If this is talking about a prostate vs breath cancer dichotomy. The reason is prostate cancer kills much older men than breast cancer kills women. Women in their 40s routinely die of breast cancer but that's pretty rare for a man in his 40s to die of prostate cancer. So saving a man's live fron prostate cancer means he dies at 75 instead of 70 and but saving a women's from breast cancer means she dies at 65 instead of 45.

rustynails 10y ago
I'm sorry to say, but that's false for a number of reasons, Most doctors don't even recommend breast screening for the under 50. That's not young! See Figure 1 here to confirm that. https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/breast-cancer/breast-cancer-statistics https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/... Compare this with prostate cancer. Note, the rates at 50 look much lower than breast cancer, but that's only because the increase in later years is MUCH higher than breast cancer, https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics While I can't put a finger on it, I've been advised that breast cancer funding is 6x higher than any other cancer funding. That's unjustifiable, but you won't see the MSM comment on that! Breast cancer is the 4th biggest killer, yet, it gets the lions share of publicity and funding. Age has nothing to do with it. Check the top 3 and you will see they don't only affect old people. If it counts for anything, my boss is a health practitioner. She has often ridiculed prostate cancer patients as whiners (but so do many news outlets). You are not alone in your incorrect beliefs toward prostate cancer. It comes from a barrage of false news in the MSM. That shouldn't be a shock to anybody.
colllectorof 10y ago
By this reasoning children's diseases should get even more publicity and money, and I'm aware of nothing in that area that comes even remotely close in terms of funding and awareness campaigns.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]