Cancer Research - dont make me laugh

[Ace]

My mate does feel very uncomfortable with it to be brutally honest. I'm led to believe he has protested that he pays his way at least, but she laughs it off.
Not a good mate, but still a mate at the end of the day.
If she'd been screwing an animal charity, I'd have shopped her

[strictlybroadband]

SpankyMonkey wrote:

> so come on then strictly bumbandit.

!laugh!

> im sure plenty of your
> mates are the sort of liberal ponces that bleed charities dry.

!laugh!

> so tell me exactly what these great advances are in cancer that
> make it more survivable.

No idea - I don't claim to be an expert on this. You on the other hand seem to think that you're one (and you clearly know fuck all).

[strictlybroadband]

SpankyMonkey wrote:

> my point exactly Ace. and im still waiting for all this
> inspired medical progress that assists cancer patients and
> prove that most charities benefit the people who set them up
> over the people theyre supposed to be for.
>
> you get cancer you have two options. its cut out or you die.

Oh fuck, you're a joke. Did you bother to read anything about cancer before you posted this?

A friend of mine has just finished a course of radiation therapy after having a malignant throat cancer removed (he was a smoker). He's just had a CT scan and will be going for a full-body PET scan in a month or so to check whether the treatment has worked. This is new technology. There are so many new treatments coming on stream, and decoding the human genome in recent years has provided cancer researchers with new clues about the various causes. There are many types of cancer with many causes, so we won't wake up to find a cure has been discovered suddenly. One type of cancer after another is becoming survivable. 50 years ago, it was an automatic death sentence, now it isn't.

[strictlybroadband]

Oh, and why not learn just a little bit about cancer before you keep on making yourself look stupid? In these days of the Internet there's no excuse to be completely ignorant.

To help you:

"There are many types of cancer. Severity of symptoms depends on the site and character of the malignancy and whether there is metastasis. A definitive diagnosis usually requires the histologic examination of tissue by a pathologist. This tissue is obtained by biopsy or surgery. Most cancers can be treated and some cured, depending on the specific type, location, and stage. Once diagnosed, cancer is usually treated with a combination of surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. As research develops, treatments are becoming more specific for the type of cancer pathology. Drugs that target specific cancers already exist for several cancers. If untreated, cancers may eventually cause illness and death, though this is not always the case."

[Sam Slater]

Fleecing money is common in every walk of life, and I guess it happens in charities too.

You're kinda correct in that not much has advanced in the technology of curing cancers from what surgeons did 20 years ago. It's still pretty much chemotherapy -or an equivalent- or surgical removal.

There have been advances in cancer diagnosis, and deciding which method is correct to reduce/stop the cancer, dependant on type/location. This means less people dying under the knife, or of too much chemo, so more people are surviving longer after cancer than 20 years ago. Funding has helped, but by how much - I don't know.

You picked the wrong charity to back-up your story on corrupt charity organisers. Plenty of charities have armed nations with guns -indirectly- so picking on cancer research wasn't the best move.

[Emily Cartwright]

SpankyMonkey wrote:

> living longer? how is being diagnosed with cancer nowadays
> mean you will live any longer than being diagnosed with it
> twenty years ago. its not like they give you any pills for it.,
>
> chemotherapy thats it. same as its always been.

Let's be clear on this:

My boyfriend was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia when he was sixteen.

Thanks to cancer research charities, this is a sickness from which the fatality rate has gone from 100% to just 17% in the past thirty years. The remaining 17% is mainly attributable to the fact that it's a disease that affects primarily the very young and the very old, and those people are naturally physically weaker so often cannot cope with the rigours of the treatment.

I won't lie to you, he had chemotherapy. He did not, however, have the same chemotherapy as its always been, when he was treated in 96-97 the chemotherapy he was given was a brand new development. The bone marrow graft he was given was developed with brand new technology. He went into remission in EIGHT MONTHS, all of this thanks to cancer research charity organisations. Had he been diagnosed with it, as you say, twenty years ago instead of only ten, chances are he would have died within one year.

If you want to criticise something, I suggest that a: you do your homework, and b: you maybe attack something that really deserves to be attacked, like for instance the government, who don't invest anywhere near enough money into medical research, thus creating the need for these sorts of charities in the first place.