Prostate and testicular cancer each claim more lives than breast cancer, yet no one says anything about it.
Someone should start a neknomination for that. I’m pretty sure it’s called chat roulette, but work with me here.[/quote]
I actually have heard some doctors talking about being kind of fed up with all the extra attention breast cancer specifically gets rather than simply raising money for center research and treatment in general. The numbers don’t necessarily justify it.[/quote]
Oh? where are you two getting your numbers?
Here are mine for cancer deaths in 2013:
Prostate…29,720…5.1% of cancer deaths
I’ll use your numbers. 6.9% of cancer deaths are from breast cancer. That leaves 93.1% of people dying from some other kind of cancer.
I never specified any type (testicular or prostate or whatever), so I don’t know what you think you caught me on. You basically proved my point.[/quote]
Apologies…I unfairly painted you with that brush because of the context of the response; it seemed that you were supporting legendary blaze’s inaccuracy in this matter.
Next, observe relentless’ charts. You will see that second only to lung cancer, breast cancer is the greatest cause of mortality among women. If the question is the allocation of research funds, well, about 3/4 of lung cancer is smoking-associated. Were there no cigarettes, lung cancer would be a minor cause of morbidity and mortality, and research would be appropriately directed to non-smokers’ lung cancer. And breast cancer would remain a major problem.
A comment on this data: I don’t know how SEER data are collated for the cause of death statistic. Breast cancer is a major killer of women of all ages over 40, and women with recurrent or metastatic disease do die of it, as a general rule. Not so for prostate cancer. It may be the case that SEER data include all men who die “with” prostate cancer, and and not just those men who die of it. My experience is that a large number of men with prostate cancer die of other causes.
Last, government funding for cancer research is not strictly a “popularity” context. The investments made in breast cancer, HIV, lung cancer are dwarfed by those made in basic science, with more general applicability. Or money is spent where there is the anticipation of important progress, breast cancer, leukemia, lymphoma. Lung and prostate cancer–not so much.