Skip to main content

View Diary: All but six candidates to SKIP Lance Armstrong cancer forums (94 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is somewhat misleading. (0+ / 0-)

    A few cancers have vastly improved survival rates now, specifically: testicular, acute lymphocytic leukemia (more in kids than adults), some lymphomas (especially Hodgkins' disease).
    A few other cancers have significant but still incremental and modest survival improvements, specifically breast and colon cancer, AML, some of the other lymphomas. A large component of increased survival here has to do with screening and earlier detection.
    There are a bunch of cancers for which survival statistics have remained virtually unchanged over the last 30 years: lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, melanoma. And unfortunately the rates of most of these lethal cancers are rising, not falling.

    And I think a very strong argument can be made that if we invested anything like the billions spent on cancer therapy research instead on aggressive research into causation and prevention (and issues like clean water supplies, environmental estrogen mimics, pesticide and dioxin levels in our food chain etc.), the return might be a lot better.

    •  I am all in favor of increased research (0+ / 0-)

      into the environmental roots of cancer (and I believe this area of study has been tragically under-researched), however, I don't feel comfortable pulling funds from 'traditional' avenues of cancer reserch, since I feel like that might neglect the inherently genetic (as opposed to the environmentally-influenced genetic) causes of cancer.  Instead, I would hope our politicians and scientists would embark on a more evenly two-pronged approach between ameliorating the ultimate environmental causes of cancerus mutations and continuing to explore pharmacological treatments.  I would envision the extra funding for environmental cancer research coming from other areas of government spending, where it is more grossly misplaced, such as unnecessary tax cuts and wars, rather than from the funding already allocated to combat this disease.  How does that compromise sound to you, Ralphdog?

      •  This part's a no-brainer. (0+ / 0-)

        Tax the oil, pesticide and chemical industries to pay for such research and amelioration. They're the ones making the profits from activities poisoning our air, food and water. By rights they should pay to deal with the consequences. After a few of the CEO's do jail time, of course. There are a few corporate whistle-blower documents floating around demonstrating that some industry titans knew damn well what their poisons were doing, but concealed the reality behind mountains of corporate greenwash and lobbyists.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site