Re: Breast Cancer and These Danmed Liberals!

emcdo…@sun1.iusb.indiana.edu ("Bob" Ghengis Kahn) writes:

> One thing I keep hearing over and over again is this constant
> bitching about breast cancer!

It is not at all uncommon for people to post when they haven’t a clue
what they are talking about, but this is absolutely the most ignorant
thing I have ever read on Usenet.

> Why in the hell is breast cancer portrayed as worse than any other
> cancer in the world?

It is the most diagnosed cancer, and the second most fatal for women [2].

> I’m sick of hearing women moaning, ‘Dear God! I’d rather die than
> lose a breast!’  Tough shit.

Guess what, asshole, a lot of them don’t have a choice.  In 1991 (the
most recent year I have figures for) over 43,000 women died of breast
cancer in this country [2].

> Although I feel that breast cancer is a truly bad thing to have around

Really going out on a limb there, aren’t you?

> I just want some of these liberals to remember that there are other
> cancers just as bad.

Sure.  There are some that are more deadly per-individual, but there
is only one that kills more people (lung cancer), and that is largely
preventable [1].

> There are cancers that hit only men

Primarily prostate cancer.

Under the age of 65, 22.7 out of 100,000 men get prostate cancer each
year and 2.9 out of 100,000 die from it. [1]

In the same age group, 72.1 out of 100,000 women get breast cancer
each year and 16.7 out of 100,000 die from it. [1]

Looking at the two most common gender-specific cancers, women are 3
times more likely to get theirs and nearly 6 times as likely to die
from it.

Those stats are averaged from 1973 to 1990.  If we look only at 1991,
109 out of 100,000 women got breast cancer and 27 out of 100,000 died
of it. [2]

—————–

[1] NCI SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1973-1990

[2] "Vital statistics mortality data, underlying cause of death,
1980-1991", US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, CDC.)

7 Responses to “Re: Breast Cancer and These Danmed Liberals!”

  1. admin says:

    snyd…@ucsuc.Colorado.EDU (SNYDER ELLEN R) writes:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > Nils Nieuwejaar <n…@cs.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

    > >Under the age of 65, 22.7 out of 100,000 men get prostate cancer each
    > >year and 2.9 out of 100,000 die from it. [1]

    > >In the same age group, 72.1 out of 100,000 women get breast cancer
    > >each year and 16.7 out of 100,000 die from it. [1]

    > >Looking at the two most common gender-specific cancers, women are 3
    > >times more likely to get theirs and nearly 6 times as likely to die
    > >from it.

    > This is a bit misleading though, because prostate cancer tends to hit a
    > decade or so later than breast cancer and you have ever so conviently
    > limited to under age 65.

    That is true.  I wasn’t trying to claim that prostate cancer isn’t a
    serious problem.  I was just pointing out that it is foolish to
    suggest that breast cancer isn’t a serious problem.  If I were really
    trying to be misleading, I could have just neglected to mention the
    age cutoff altogether.

  2. admin says:

    In article <NILS.94Nov11124…@lompico.dartmouth.edu>,

    Nils Nieuwejaar <n…@cs.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

    >Under the age of 65, 22.7 out of 100,000 men get prostate cancer each
    >year and 2.9 out of 100,000 die from it. [1]

    >In the same age group, 72.1 out of 100,000 women get breast cancer
    >each year and 16.7 out of 100,000 die from it. [1]

    >Looking at the two most common gender-specific cancers, women are 3
    >times more likely to get theirs and nearly 6 times as likely to die
    >from it.

    This is a bit misleading though, because prostate cancer tends to hit a
    decade or so later than breast cancer and you have ever so conviently
    limited to under age 65. It is true that it is worse to die younger than
    to die older, so in that sense on average breast cancer is "worse" but
    your last statement here is baldly misleading because of the age cut off
    you used.

                -Steve "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" Dunn

  3. admin says:

    I do think it is silly to argue which cancer is the worst.  The important
    thing is to support additional research on the basic science of cancer so
    that the findings can be applied to all these diseases.  I would also
    like to add that if you are diagnosed with a rare form of cancer, all the
    statistics in the world are not going to be of comfort.  

  4. admin says:

    Not only that; it is counter productive to get into my disease versus your
    disease discussions.  Prostate cancer is the 2nd leading cause of cancer death
    in men. This year 200,000 will be diagnosed and 40,000 will die of it. The
    trend is upward (based on rate, not numbers) and more younger men are being
    found with it. The younger men typically have much more aggressive cases and
    are more likely to die from it. No matter how one analyzes the situation,
    research on the causes, detection, evaluation, and treatment is painfully
    under funded.  At minimum we need a required national registry of prostate
    cancer patients to track the progress of their survival. Men need to learn
    from the women about how to get political attention for this funding. I had
    PCa at the age of 49. My Mother is undergoing chemo for breast cancer even as
    we speak. The two diseases are linked and have many similarities.

    In article <3a33vd$…@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> snyd…@ucsuc.Colorado.EDU

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    (SNYDER ELLEN R) writes:>From: snyd…@ucsuc.Colorado.EDU (SNYDER ELLEN R)
    >Subject: Re: Breast Cancer Mortality Compared to Prostate Cancer Mortality
    >Date: 12 Nov 1994 19:10:37 GMT
    >In article <NILS.94Nov11124…@lompico.dartmouth.edu>,
    >Nils Nieuwejaar <n…@cs.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

    >>Under the age of 65, 22.7 out of 100,000 men get prostate cancer each
    >>year and 2.9 out of 100,000 die from it. [1]

    >>In the same age group, 72.1 out of 100,000 women get breast cancer
    >>each year and 16.7 out of 100,000 die from it. [1]

    >>Looking at the two most common gender-specific cancers, women are 3
    >>times more likely to get theirs and nearly 6 times as likely to die
    >>from it.

    >This is a bit misleading though, because prostate cancer tends to hit a
    >decade or so later than breast cancer and you have ever so conviently
    >limited to under age 65. It is true that it is worse to die younger than
    >to die older, so in that sense on average breast cancer is "worse" but
    >your last statement here is baldly misleading because of the age cut off
    >you used.
    >            -Steve "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" Dunn

  5. admin says:

    In article <3ah6ih$…@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> snyd…@ucsuc.Colorado.EDU (SNYDER ELLEN R) writes:

    >So the big picture is that breast and prostate cancer are similar in
    >mortality and incidence, but that somewhat more years are probably lost
    >to breast cancer due to the earlier age at diagnosis. Overall, they are
    >remarkably similar in ‘badness’ I’d say though not in publicity!

    Yes.  I once saw a presentation which cited the federal research funding per
    case for the two cancers.  In 1994, the NCI funded $1,437 per case for breast
    cancer and $303 per case for prostate cancer.


    Michael Kattan — Baylor College of Medicine — One Baylor Plaza — ST1035
    Houston, TX 77030 — (713) 798-8263 — Fax 798-5553 — MKat…@bcm.tmc.edu
    ==

  6. admin says:

    In article <3a33vd$…@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> snyd…@ucsuc.Colorado.EDU (SNYDER ELLEN R) writes:

    >Nils Nieuwejaar <n…@cs.dartmouth.edu> wrote:
    >>Under the age of 65, 22.7 out of 100,000 men get prostate cancer each
    >>year and 2.9 out of 100,000 die from it. [1]
    >>In the same age group, 72.1 out of 100,000 women get breast cancer
    >>each year and 16.7 out of 100,000 die from it. [1]
    >>Looking at the two most common gender-specific cancers, women are 3
    >>times more likely to get theirs and nearly 6 times as likely to die
    >>from it.
    >This is a bit misleading though, because prostate cancer tends to hit a
    >decade or so later than breast cancer and you have ever so conviently
    >limited to under age 65. It is true that it is worse to die younger than
    >to die older, so in that sense on average breast cancer is "worse" but
    >your last statement here is baldly misleading because of the age cut off
    >you used.

    The latest numbers I have seen are 200,000 new cases/yr for prostate and
    182,000 new cases/yr for breast.  38,000 deaths/yr prostate and 46,000
    deaths/yr breast.  5 yr. relative survival rate for prostate is 77%, 79% for
    breast.  And median age at diagnosis for prostate is 72 yr., 64 yr. for breast.


    Michael Kattan — Baylor College of Medicine — One Baylor Plaza — ST1035
    Houston, TX 77030 — (713) 798-8263 — Fax 798-5553 — MKat…@bcm.tmc.edu
    ==

  7. admin says:

    In article <MKattan.8.013C3…@bcm.tmc.edu>,

    Michael Kattan <MKat…@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:

    >The latest numbers I have seen are 200,000 new cases/yr for prostate and
    >182,000 new cases/yr for breast.  38,000 deaths/yr prostate and 46,000
    >deaths/yr breast.  5 yr. relative survival rate for prostate is 77%, 79% for
    >breast.  And median age at diagnosis for prostate is 72 yr., 64 yr. for breast.

    So the big picture is that breast and prostate cancer are similar in
    mortality and incidence, but that somewhat more years are probably lost
    to breast cancer due to the earlier age at diagnosis. Overall, they are
    remarkably similar in ‘badness’ I’d say though not in publicity!

                             -Steve Dunn

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.