Cancer Research - dont make me laugh

[strictlybroadband]

SpankyMonkey wrote:

> strictly broadband uses wikipedia as his source of facts. well
> if wikipedia says it then it must be true

At least I have a source of facts. You haven't mentioned a single fact so far on this thread. Go on, give us at least one.

BTW - strictlybumbandit, I'm still laughing. If I'd thought of it, I'd have called our gay site that. Much better than (go on, sneak a peak, nobody will know).

Anyway as we used to say at school, it takes one to know one.

[diplodocus]

pity some facts don't make into your argument
as someone who underwent treatment for lymphoma a couple of years ago I feel a little qualified to comment.
Some facts enclosed on the improvement on survival rates

Cancer Site 1960?-3 1970?-3 1974?-6 1977?-9 1980?-2 1983-?90
All Sites 28 45 55.3 61.8 65.0 69.7
Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia 4 34 53.3 68.5 70.9 75.0
Acute Myeloid Leukemia 3 5 15.8 24.5 22.3 29.4
Bone & Joint 20 30 52.6 50.0 53.0 59.4
Brain & Nervous System 35 45 54.7 56.4 56.0 62.2
Hodgkin's Disease 52 90 80.2 84.6 91.1 89.5
Neuroblastoma 25 40 49.1 51.2 56.9 56.4
Non-Hodgkin' Lymphoma 18 26 43.2 49.2 58.5 72.0

so an improvement from 4% to 75 in 50 years for leukemia - no real breakthrough!!!

[Lizard]

I was in Oxford last year, the place is teeming with beggars, and charity shops, we went into the local Oxfam shop out of curiosity and the whole place was like a palace with monogrammed carpet throughout, I pointed out to a sales assistant that I wouldn,t mind having my carpet printed with my initials throughout my place and was met with a look that would have felled a carthorse. The truth is the administrators or directors of these trusts recieve fantastic salaries, but as you drop down the pecking order your looking at a M,c donalds take home wage packet, then if you work in the shops, your looking at dead peoples clothes and no pay.

[diplodocus]

you did say there was no breakthroughs in treatment, the point i was making is that isn't true, treatment has improved massively, and that was a quote from the consultant treating me - the facts back this up, currently stage one lymphoma has an almost 100% cure rate.

I agree 'charity' on this scale has become a business and although it can stick in the throat a little, you cannot run a multi million pound business with an amateur in charge from his kitchen, unfortunately you do need to pay big bucks to get proper a CEO or it will fall apart

[one eyed jack]

Yo Spanks, Google this and learn whats new. I wont dispute there being corruption in charities because we are living in fucked up times where people are selfish everywhere but dont get blinkered that progress is not being made.

You sound like a very angry individual indeed. Channel that energy and crusade for the right things and you can be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

Its bad enough life is an up hill struggle as it is.

[Emily Cartwright]

SpankyMonkey wrote:

> emily, i think i have a right to criticize cancer research
> considering both my MOTHER and an UNCLEe of mine died from
> cancer. and this was 5 and 3 years ago.
>
> so they saved your boyfriend and you put it down to charity.
> good for you. they didnt save MY relatives and it was a simple
> case of standard surgery, chemotherapy then nothing we can do.
> by the way there used to be a cancer research charity office
> where I lived in Bow. nice office. even nicer Merc parked
> outside.
>
> you and SB are one and the same with your claims that noone
> should post any opinion unless theyve gone through all the
> FACTS on the internet, agreed with them and then posted these
> same FACTS. have you consiudered that facts are nothing more
> than opinions?
>
> sorry if my experience isnt yours but that DOESNT make it less
> valid.


My boyfriend's mother died of cancer six years ago. He doesn't seem to be so bitter about cancer research charities. But then he knows a lot more about the subject than you appear to. He's worked with some of them. He certainly didn't see any of the fat-catting that you're talking about.

The truth is that some people just get sick and die and there is not a lot than can currently be done about it. The charities didn't make them sick - if the technology was not available to save them it's not the charities' fault, if the technology was available but not employed, it was not the charities' fault.

So what if the cancer research offices around where you live are nice and the MD owns a Merc. You'd rather they ran it from someone's council flat and their boss drove around in a 1990 Fiat Panda? You want everyone who works in charity to have their salary capped at ?13k per annum? How would that help, exactly?

I'm not saying that you're not entitled to an opinion. I'm saying that as long as you air your thoughts without bothering to do some real homework on the subject first, don't expect anyone to treat your claims as anything more than inflammatory, knee-jerk reactions to a situation that makes you feel bitter.

Oh, and by the way, a fact is a statement that is both verifiable and logically irrefutable (e.g. "cancer research saves lives"). An opinion is a subjective position that is personal to the individual and may not reflect the reality of the situation (e.g. "most charity workers are liberals who cream off the charity themselves in well paid positions"). So yes, actually, facts are more than opinions.

Your experience is no less valid than mine, however as long as you continue to level vague accusations at random organisations based on nothing more than your apparently very limited experience (and the fact that you saw a Mercedes parked outside a building once) then your position is, I'm sorry to say, completely invalid.