Are Cancer Societies Worth Trusting?

Post Reply New Topic

Cancer is a prevalent problem amongst all of human societies nowadays. And with such a large epidemic comes a lot of companies that try to offer "help". These cancer societies are no exception. isn't strange that these organizations talk about running for the "cure" yet they never mention the dangers of fast food restaurants and processed food, especially meat? You may call vegetarians crazy, but now they seem to making a point after all these years of being written off as radicals.

It's like I heard from a YouTuber called "Freshtastical" in his "The lie we live" video.

Here's the link to the video if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipe6CMvW0Dg

So what are the adjustments that should be made in hopes of perhaps building a society where our lives don't depend on the greed of food corporations?

I'm not really getting the question you are asking.

Red meat is deemed less healthy, due to correlation. However correlation doesn't equals cause.

It could be some other factor among that group that is more relevant, and they happen to be also be likely to be meat eaters. Or it could be a combination of diet an other lifestyle choices.

Often people are looking for a smoking gun, and sometime they find that. What if there is no one smoking gun and it is a combination of factors?

There are carcinogens associated with meat, however it is more to do with preparation of the food. It is not exclusive to meat, it applies to other fried food.

Everybody has a choice. I avoid proceeded meat but eat some red meat. I try to eat fresh foods, and not be sedentary.

Thanks for the clarification! Is is the reason I made this thread in the first place

What I'm asking is how credible and trustworthy are these cancer societies and organizations. Are they really helping people with cancer? Or are they just taking of them just to make a little profit?

I just can't help but see ths sad irony that goes with it whenever I see a commercial for a Cancer marathon. (as summed up by the quotation I mentioned initially)

Also, keep in mind that the meat that was produced nearly 100 years ago is NOT the same meat that we eat today, in or ouside of fastfood restaurants. Meat is a product of what the annimal previously ate; most carnivores in the wild benefit from the various nutritious vegatation their prey ate in tge past. And what do OUR "prey" eat? Antibiotics, artificial hormones most likely designed for the profit of both the meat companies and the pharmaceutic industry.

Ok I kind of get what you are talking about. However in order to discuss this I need a firmer definition of "cancer societies" otherwise the discussion could be about any number of things.

Usually any orginizations and/or companies that focus on cancer research and are ususally the ones who sponser and start marathons and the like.

Is that a more acurate description?

Some of them are, the ones that do actual good and others aren't like Susan G. Komen where the CEO makes a six or seven figure salary while donating basically NOTHING to research (they're the A$ of cancer organizations)

I am highly sceptical of charities and NGOs in general.

These organizations are shaped like pyramids. There is often one or few persons at the top that pay themselves exorbitant amounts of money.

These organizations tend to mostly care about their image, and like you mentioned, are oblivious to the root causes of the problems they are supposedly solving.

Last month's edition of New Scientist (19 March 2016) reported a disturbing statistic:

in 2014, only 12.8% of the US National Cancer Institute's research budget was spent in the area of detection and diagnosis.

Given the known importance of early diagnosis and its relation to outcomes, this is very concerning and you have to wonder whose priorities are dominating and why the overall allocation is so weighted against research in that area.

One of the problems with institutions generally is a shift over time to prioritising their own interests over those of the nominal beneficiaries; whether this has happened is not clear though certainly more scrutiny is needed to evaluate that possibility. Is it about saving lives or building careers? How are research funding decisions made? Who is in charge of allocation? How democratically are institutional decisions made? Is there a code of conduct? Are there patient representatives and are they included in truly meaningful consultation (or are they tokens only)?

I couldn't disagree more. 12.8% is a lot (tens of millions of dollars). Early diagnosis is important in some cancers, less important in others. The NCI budget is responsible for all. If you, or someone you love has cancer, you want them to put money into prevention and cure as well as detection. The NCI budget is extremely transparent:
http://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/budget/plan

It's possible for an ideologically blinkered or ethically challenged journalist to twist statistics like this to try to make a point, but I don't think this criticism of the NCI holds up to close scrutiny.

No need for the roll eye.

That use of the word society is less used today in English. e.g. Building Society. You tend not to get this form of the word much.

So I thought you meant society as a whole.

Charities are like businesses. People who work in them are not less career driven, than anyone else. The equivalent of CEOs go from charity to charity. The bigger the charity the likely this is.

Not all Cancer charities have anything to do with research.

You must do your homework, as to who you give you money to.

I would find out what kind of things they do and how the budget.