breast cancer ...
i refuse to donate money to cancer research as i
feel it is entirely spent on women
I was wondering if you could tell me why the government does nothing
for male cancers?
Every few weeks there is a news headline on some new break through for
fighting breast cancer or ovarian cancer. There is never anything for
child or male cancers, and i find this absoloutly disgusting. So much so,
that i refuse to donate money to cancer research as i feel it is entirely
spent on women.
I was always under the impression that men suffered more
heart attacks, strokes and cancers than women, which is why i do not
understand the endless priority given to breast cancer.
There is now a
vaccine available for female children which will prevent them from
developing ovarian cancer, but there is no similar thing for boys who may
develop prostate or testicular cancer when they grow up.
Every time i see a news report about breast cancer, i feel very
distressed and as though no one cares about me because i am male. I know
this sounds stupid, but i really cant watch anything to do with womens
health issues as it makes me extremely angry.
Men and boys are suffering
and dying needlesly in our own society, and women dont give a sh*t.
The government in the UK spends about eight
times more on women's health
than on men's health - and this has been going on for years.
Indeed, the extent to which women hog the resources was revealed again
yesterday when a senior consultant was talking excitedly about a new
procedure which involves giving a single shot of radiotherapy at the time
of surgery - i.e. on the operating table - to women who have developed
breast cancer. This new procedure seems to be just as effective as giving
conventional radiotherapy after surgery - which typically involves a 5-
"About one-third of all our radiotherapy unit times
will be saved if this procedure is found to be successful," he said
One-third of all our radiotherapy
resources are used solely to combat women's breast cancer.
So, there you have it. One-third of all our radiotherapy
resources are used solely to combat women's breast cancer.
Indeed, there is also a mandate that the health service is obliged to
follow which ensures that women are seen by consultants and surgeons
within days of any hint that they might have breast cancer. (The
equivalent waiting time for other cancers, such as prostate cancer, is
commonly measured in months.)
Indeed, I remember a consultant a few years ago admitting that the
research into prostate cancer was 20 years behind that of breast cancer
because of poor funding.
As a result of his comments, I looked into the government funding of
cancer research. And my memory is this.
In 1997/1998, while some £5 million was being spent annually on research
to do with breast cancer - and about £10 million was also being spent by
government on just one screening programme for breast cancer - the
TOTAL amount of government spending into prostate cancer research
was - and you are not going to believe this - £47,000 (in each of those
two years) - and, of course, there were/are no screening programmes at all
for prostate cancer.
And this is where we were in 2001 in the UK, ...
Britain has 3,000 specialist
breast cancer nurses, but just 200 for lung cancer, 300 for bowel cancer
and only one for prostate cancer. Anthony Browne
I do not know what the figures are nowadays, but I think that the
funding for most research into various cancers has gone up considerably
since those days.
A few years ago some MRAs wrote to Cancer Research UK to ask why they
were running some kind of charity marathon in order to generate more
funding for breast cancer whereas they were not doing anything similar for
prostate cancer. The reply was that 'women', themselves, had organised the
marathon and that it was their 'idea'.
Well, fair enough, I suppose.
But this does go to show how selfish many women are these days.
And I think that if men already had most of the cancer budget allocated
to their needs, they would deem it unthinkable to run a marathon to
generate donations just for their own cancers. They would run to generate
money for all kinds of cancer, not just cancers which affected themselves.
Indeed, I ran across a feminist article recently which annoyed me
Nothing new there!
It claimed that until the feminists came along in the 70s, most of the
research into medical ailments was done on men - and that women were
therefore 'excluded' from the benefits of such research. The implication
of her piece was that women were ignored because they were regarded as
'inferior' and that men, of course, were always cheating them in some way.
in those days it was not possible to know if a woman
had recently become pregnant
The truth, however, was that in those days it was not possible to know
if a woman had recently become pregnant - or whether she had become pregnant during any
research trials. Determining whether or not a woman was pregnant involved
all sorts of medical ins and outs - until, of course, two or three months
had passed since conception.
And in order to avoid damaging any young foetuses
unknowingly growing within their bodies, women were often excluded from
research that involved drug-testing, strenuous exercise, assessing
allergic responses, undergoing various diets etc etc.
This was done to protect women and their offspring - not to ignore
The assumption was that the bodies of men and women
behaved in the same way
Furthermore, medicine was not so well-advanced in those days. And
doctors did not recognise any major differences between men and women when
it came to issues that did not involve the reproductive organs. The
assumption was that the bodies of men and women behaved in the same way in
most circumstances, and so there was no point in risking damage to future
children through research, when researching men would do the job just as
Indeed, before anything medical was given, or done, to women, it was
first researched on rats, then on monkeys and then on men!
And it is only recently that doctors have begun to understand that men and
women might need to be viewed differently.
And so the feminist nonsense about medical scientists willfully
ignoring the bodies of women in order to benefit men is nothing more than
the usual pack of lies that feminists commonly tell about 'the past'.
But it is partly because of lies like this, that many women nowadays
feel that they are entitled to hog the health budget. It is their way of
getting back at men.
Anyway. I seem to have drifted off the subject!
But the answer to your question about "why the government does
nothing for male cancers?" is given in my recent piece Generating Heat.
Thank you for your email.