Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 A M E N ! ! ! > One of those can't sleep nights. > > At any rate, one of the things that I have been thinking about, in > introspection, is how the government spends money to fight disease, > and I've contemplated writing a letter to our senator. My point > specifically addresses AIDS versus Colorectal Cancer and how the > government has prioritized spending to fight these two illnesses. > Here are two basic facts: > > Aids (in US) - 40,000 new cases per year, about 16,000 people die. > Trend is declining. Government Funded research (NOT TREATMENT) > costs - about 4.5 billion dollars. > > Colorectal Cancer (in US) - about 110,000 new cases per year, about > 51,000 people die. Trend is steady (not declining). Government > Funded research - about 288.4 million. > > Maybe I'm saying this because I have cancer (I don't think I am), > but it seems odd to me that (assumption- the US Government spends > money to fight disease in the US - AIDS outside of the US is a > different animal) that the goverment prioritizes about FIFTEEN times > more money to research a cure for a disease that half the death rate > and continues to decline. I'm not saying that past spending was > bad, but it seems to me that it may be time to reprioritize. As a > final note, I am also aware that CRC to a large extent gets grouped > with cancer as a whole. Comparison between these two I think can > still provide a good argument - i.e. reprioritize spending wrt to > all cancers. > > Any thoughts or a willingness to proofread would be appreciated. > > Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Joe, I agree that the priorities are skewed in the wrong direction. CRC does not have an organized lobby willing to either politicize funding or do outrageous things (ACT-UP) to draw media attention. I guess what bothers me the most about the disparity is the fact that most, not all certainly, Aids sufferers knew that their behavior might result in the disease. That is not the case with CRC patients. Funding priorities seem to follow the " squeaky wheel " model, don't they? Sharon > One of those can't sleep nights. > > At any rate, one of the things that I have been thinking about, in > introspection, is how the government spends money to fight disease, > and I've contemplated writing a letter to our senator. My point > specifically addresses AIDS versus Colorectal Cancer and how the > government has prioritized spending to fight these two illnesses. > Here are two basic facts: > > Aids (in US) - 40,000 new cases per year, about 16,000 people die. > Trend is declining. Government Funded research (NOT TREATMENT) > costs - about 4.5 billion dollars. > > Colorectal Cancer (in US) - about 110,000 new cases per year, about > 51,000 people die. Trend is steady (not declining). Government > Funded research - about 288.4 million. > > Maybe I'm saying this because I have cancer (I don't think I am), > but it seems odd to me that (assumption- the US Government spends > money to fight disease in the US - AIDS outside of the US is a > different animal) that the goverment prioritizes about FIFTEEN times > more money to research a cure for a disease that half the death rate > and continues to decline. I'm not saying that past spending was > bad, but it seems to me that it may be time to reprioritize. As a > final note, I am also aware that CRC to a large extent gets grouped > with cancer as a whole. Comparison between these two I think can > still provide a good argument - i.e. reprioritize spending wrt to > all cancers. > > Any thoughts or a willingness to proofread would be appreciated. > > Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Joe, I couldn't agree with you more and no, I don't think it is because you have cancer. Facts are facts. I have always pondered the situation myself on how little monies are actually being spent, as a whole, on cancer research. And while several new drugs have come out without the last few years, nothing that presents such a dramatic breakthrough as what AIDS research, or for that matter, other research has brought about. I am watching my mother pretty much go through the same cancer treatments for lung cancer that her very young brother did several years ago, only major difference being they were able to catch it a little earlier with my mom and though not operable (her brother was) and her overall good response to chemo, she is able to put up a much better fight than her brother ever had a chance to do. As I ponder my husband's stage III colon cancer and the current and HOPEFULLY PERMANENT remission he is in, I have often thought that the only major known colon cancer chemo drug is and has been 5FU for the last 50 years!!!!! Yes, there have been advances in the development of other drugs that enhance 5FU's effectiveness and one or two that work just as well as 5FU by themselves, but nothing that has made as a dramatic impact on survival as the fight against aids. Have you ever noticed how many walks/runs/events there are nationwide to promote a cure for aids....and with the exception of breast cancer, what about colon cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, lymphoma....cancer period!!!! I live in the Southern California area and I have yet to see one, just one, walk/run/event for research on colon cancer. I know there is one in the DC area...I think...but in a major city such as Los Angeles, I have heard nothing and if I have heard nothing, shows me how important it is and I'm sure there are tons of others who haven't heard anything either. Oh well, I've had my say. Didn't mean to run on like that but I just wanted you to know that I most definitely am on your team on this issue. Monika > One of those can't sleep nights. > > At any rate, one of the things that I have been thinking about, in > introspection, is how the government spends money to fight disease, > and I've contemplated writing a letter to our senator. My point > specifically addresses AIDS versus Colorectal Cancer and how the > government has prioritized spending to fight these two illnesses. > Here are two basic facts: > > Aids (in US) - 40,000 new cases per year, about 16,000 people die. > Trend is declining. Government Funded research (NOT TREATMENT) > costs - about 4.5 billion dollars. > > Colorectal Cancer (in US) - about 110,000 new cases per year, about > 51,000 people die. Trend is steady (not declining). Government > Funded research - about 288.4 million. > > Maybe I'm saying this because I have cancer (I don't think I am), > but it seems odd to me that (assumption- the US Government spends > money to fight disease in the US - AIDS outside of the US is a > different animal) that the goverment prioritizes about FIFTEEN times > more money to research a cure for a disease that half the death rate > and continues to decline. I'm not saying that past spending was > bad, but it seems to me that it may be time to reprioritize. As a > final note, I am also aware that CRC to a large extent gets grouped > with cancer as a whole. Comparison between these two I think can > still provide a good argument - i.e. reprioritize spending wrt to > all cancers. > > Any thoughts or a willingness to proofread would be appreciated. > > Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Hi Joe - I'm not saying that I like it, as I'm a cancer survivor too, but I think that as a matter of public policy, the government has more of an interest in abating AIDS because it poses an overall greater threat to public health (i.e., its contagious nature and risk of epidemic). There are a lot fewer people who die from things like Anthrax or Ebola, but I would be willing to bet the government spends more on these things than cancer, because they are more dangerous threats to society at large than is cancer. > One of those can't sleep nights. > > At any rate, one of the things that I have been thinking about, in > introspection, is how the government spends money to fight disease, > and I've contemplated writing a letter to our senator. My point > specifically addresses AIDS versus Colorectal Cancer and how the > government has prioritized spending to fight these two illnesses. > Here are two basic facts: > > Aids (in US) - 40,000 new cases per year, about 16,000 people die. > Trend is declining. Government Funded research (NOT TREATMENT) > costs - about 4.5 billion dollars. > > Colorectal Cancer (in US) - about 110,000 new cases per year, about > 51,000 people die. Trend is steady (not declining). Government > Funded research - about 288.4 million. > > Maybe I'm saying this because I have cancer (I don't think I am), > but it seems odd to me that (assumption- the US Government spends > money to fight disease in the US - AIDS outside of the US is a > different animal) that the goverment prioritizes about FIFTEEN times > more money to research a cure for a disease that half the death rate > and continues to decline. I'm not saying that past spending was > bad, but it seems to me that it may be time to reprioritize. As a > final note, I am also aware that CRC to a large extent gets grouped > with cancer as a whole. Comparison between these two I think can > still provide a good argument - i.e. reprioritize spending wrt to > all cancers. > > Any thoughts or a willingness to proofread would be appreciated. > > Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Hi Joe - I'm not saying that I like it, as I'm a cancer survivor too, but I think that as a matter of public policy, the government has more of an interest in abating AIDS because it poses an overall greater threat to public health (i.e., its contagious nature and risk of epidemic). There are a lot fewer people who die from things like Anthrax or Ebola, but I would be willing to bet the government spends more on these things than cancer, because they are more dangerous threats to society at large than is cancer. > One of those can't sleep nights. > > At any rate, one of the things that I have been thinking about, in > introspection, is how the government spends money to fight disease, > and I've contemplated writing a letter to our senator. My point > specifically addresses AIDS versus Colorectal Cancer and how the > government has prioritized spending to fight these two illnesses. > Here are two basic facts: > > Aids (in US) - 40,000 new cases per year, about 16,000 people die. > Trend is declining. Government Funded research (NOT TREATMENT) > costs - about 4.5 billion dollars. > > Colorectal Cancer (in US) - about 110,000 new cases per year, about > 51,000 people die. Trend is steady (not declining). Government > Funded research - about 288.4 million. > > Maybe I'm saying this because I have cancer (I don't think I am), > but it seems odd to me that (assumption- the US Government spends > money to fight disease in the US - AIDS outside of the US is a > different animal) that the goverment prioritizes about FIFTEEN times > more money to research a cure for a disease that half the death rate > and continues to decline. I'm not saying that past spending was > bad, but it seems to me that it may be time to reprioritize. As a > final note, I am also aware that CRC to a large extent gets grouped > with cancer as a whole. Comparison between these two I think can > still provide a good argument - i.e. reprioritize spending wrt to > all cancers. > > Any thoughts or a willingness to proofread would be appreciated. > > Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 Hi: Another thing to think about. NNo nice way to put it,condoms prevent aids and other sexually transmitted aids. Education is he key. Vaccines come afterthe fact. Abstinence would be best. Cancer can,to a certain extent if found early ,be controlled or even cured. Still if enough funds for research were available,I am almost certain a vaccine could be found thus eliminating the chemotherapy radiation duet. There is a very promisign new live vaccine for Lung Cancer that show excellent results for stage 4.(Out of the University of Miam/Sylvester Comprehensive Medical Center. God's powers make all things possible and all the candles are like the stars in the sky,working their way upward and hoping to shower blessing down from above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 Hello all: Yesterday we heard about a new vaccine for lung cancer. Developed by the University of Miami and the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center it has had some great results after a three year trial. Five patients are alive who had been told there was nothing more that could be done. Dr. Raez( UM Medical Staff) and Yohanna answers phone. www.jco.org for web site and www.med.miami.edu for um web site. Just a thought for those who are keeping teir hopes alive. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.