eric olthwaite wrote:Not wishing to offend anyone who's lost someone they love to cancer (I have too) but I think in some ways the debate gets distorted. The number of people who die from heart disease each year is, I believe, marginally higher than deaths from cancer.
But the thing is that heart disease often kills pretty much instantly. What we all can't stand about cancer is that it slowly destroys people, right in front of our eyes, over an extended period. That seems to make it particularly hard to deal with.
S'pose all I'm saying is that when people look into funding for medical research, they should focus on the likelihood of saving lives, not on how ugly diseases appear to the observer.
Rob wrote:Over the past month my mother was originally diagnosed with ovarian cancer (the silent killer and invariably terminal) to last night, having had significant surgery to be completely re-diagnosed with a non cancerous inflamed lump. Talk about a swing of emotions in March. Thank the Lord etc.
Blackwhite wrote:Eric, will post relatively up to date figures on what we die from later. Have a figure on another box.
Blackwhite wrote:Also worth remembering how much of circulatory disease is lifestyle-affected (think of all the folks you know with non-congenital cardiac problems and their lifestyles); historically this can be a barrier to people funding those charities (e.g. lung cancer charities have a hard time as so many folks think "it's self-inflicted"; and they often have a point, but this leaves a lot of folks high & dry).
AndyPaul wrote:Billy Casper wrote:We have eradicated Colin,
Not quite, I am sure they will be cleaning chairs that are stained with his fake tan for many months to come.
SimonB wrote:Personally I want more research into replacement livers.......
Users browsing this forum: Quiffy and 17 guests