Again, these comments are all based on some not so veiled implication that somehow the attention and resources that breast cancer gets is not as deserving as other forms of cancer...
No, at least in my case, I definitely would not say any are more or less "deserving". Simply because that's such a loaded and subjective word. Maybe others might say that, I don't know, I can't speak for them. I'm simply stating that, from a per-victim (both survivor and fatality) perspective, breast cancer gets far more funding and attention than any other cancer. This goes for both private and public funding.
AND that the attention and resources take away from those other forms of cancer research.
Reread my earlier post--I did point out that many of those involved with fund raising to fight other cancers, while wishing they could get breast cancer's attention and funding, state that they are better off with breast cancer leading the way and keeping cancer (in general) in the public spotlight, allowing the others to ride their coattails. Breast cancer is kind of like the Yankees--Baseball fans and the management of other teams may dislike them for the way they seemingly have endless payrolls and are able to buy everyone else's top players to remain perennial contenders, but the fact is that financially, all the other teams do much better with them than without them, as they're able to ride the Yankees' coattails to a certain extent.
It is not in my makeup to believe that for one thing to do well it means something else must do poorly.
Repeating what I said, I am not at all saying that the others are doing poorly. Continuing the baseball analogy, the other teams, and the other cancers, are doing better with the Yankees in the league than what they would if the Yankees were not in the league. But that in no way means that the Yankees success, or breast cancer's success, is due solely to better management. With the Yankees, a lot of it is simply market size. If the Kansas City metro market was the size of New York's, they'd be having far more financial success too. With breast cancer, a lot of it is due to political correctness.
Granted, that political correctness is an asset which needs to be used wisely to prevent it from becoming a detriment, and the people in that cause have done a great job of it. And I don't fault them for using that asset, any more than I fault the handsome rich guy with all the charisma for using those assets to get all the hot women. But to deny that much of breast cancer's success is due to its politically correct status is to put your head in the sand with blinders on.
Are we assuming or do we actually have evidence that those other, supposedly more "needy" forms of cancer research are in fact getting less resources? Is that a fact?
We actually have evidence, it is a fact. I don't have the book in front of me to point out specific data and references, but the book I mentioned previously, Dr. Warren Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power" does an excellent job of going over the data from a multitude of sources, regarding both funds from private sources (which is obviously what has been getting the most visibility, with all the pink ribbon corporate sponsorships from companies all over the spectrum, as well as private organizations like Susan Komen), as well as public funding for cancer research. (Needless to say, the elected officials in Washington get just as swept up on the breast cancer bandwagon, as supporting breast cancer research with public dollars equals easy votes.) Even if I had the book handy, I wouldn't go into the details of the data here--you can easily get the book from any library and go over it yourself.
![[Ford Explorer & Mazda Navajo (91-01), Mercury Mountaineer (97-01), Explorer Sport (00-03), & Explorer Sport Trac (01-05) Haynes Repair Manual] [By: John H. Haynes] [November, 2005]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51rNKiwBPpL._SL500_.jpg)
in memory.
