Wednesday, 5 February 2014

We've Failed, So It's Your Fault

Something seems to have been studiously overlooked here.
Dr Jean King, Cancer Research UK's director of tobacco control, said: "The most shocking thing about this report's prediction that 14 million cancer cases a year will rise to 22 million globally in the next 20 years is that up to half of all cases could be prevented. 
"People can cut their risk of cancer by making healthy lifestyle choices, but it's important to remember that the government and society are also responsible for creating an environment that supports healthy lifestyles. 
"It's clear that if we don't act now to curb the number of people getting cancer, we will be at the heart of a global crisis in cancer care within the next two decades."
So it's all our fault is it Jean?

Smoking rates are down, alcohol consumption rates are down, we drink fewer sugary drinks and our diets are healthier, yet cancer is still rising according to the article.

You know what we really need? A charity to find a cure for cancer. If only we had one which was over 100 years old and could raise income of over half a billion per year, eh? That would solve the problem, so it would.

And if it didn't, and had to shift attention by blaming victims instead, it could accurately be deemed a monumental failure, no?


Rursus said...

"People can cut their risk of cancer by making healthy lifestyle
choices, but it's important to remember that the government and society
are also responsible for creating an environment that supports healthy

Nice words for "Demonize and extord the people"

smiffy01 said...

What this silly cow refuses to adfmit is that cancer is in all of us, it just needs a trigger to set it off. Now that trigger can be as simple as a kick on the shins playing football (my cousin aged 35 for example). What they want to do is to shift the blame for cancers onto each and ever one of us so that we keep them in luxurious lifestyles (H Kumar £220,000 + per annum) whilst they play at finding cures for much of which is uncurable.
When the medical profession declare that 75% of virus's are becoming immune to anti biotics -who's fault is that? Us for taking them or the researchers for making them that way?
Last month it was estimated that cancer would strike 50% of people by the year 20-20..... now whatr did Zager & Evans ask...."in the year 25/25, if man is still alive....... "

harleyrider1989 said...

A CURE IN YOUR LIFETIME! That was abandoned for its your fault and now we will go with prevention aka prohibition and lock your ass up for causing cancer in anyone we say you did!

Ivan_Denisovich said...

Ms Jean King is a spin doctor and a time served anti-tobacco activist who as far as I know has only ever studied how to manipulate politicians and sweet talk the BBC into publishing her inexpert ignorance at every possible opportunity. I though that the use of title Dr might be a desperate attempt by the BBC to give credibility to their continued abuse of the license fee through the dissemination of lobbyist propaganda disguised as news but I have become aware that Ms King is a doctor of sorts. She was awarded a doctorate in something nameless by the University of Stirling courtesy of one Gerard Hastings, one presumes for promoting his vison of an authoritarian healthist state. Perhaps she has another PhD and I am just being a bit of a cynic but anybody who spouts garbage such as the above shows signs of lacking the intellectual capacity to actually earn one. Most people who haven't earned their doctorate have the grace not to use the title.

On the plus side at least we don't need to worry about donating to CRUK any more. There seems to be absolutely no need for those complicated and expensive genetic studies as Ms King reckons we can pretty much beat cancer with a few minor lifestyle changes. I presume that she would like us to beat it together.

timbone said...

In 1998 I was involved in raising funds for Cancer Research UK. It was a telesales job I did when I was 'resting', (in between 'proper' jobs)!

The REAL cancer research charity was Imperial Cancer Research. ICR was a genuine charity who did genuine research. I think they may have received a small government grant. ICR however were doomed to eventual extinction when CRUK moved in.

I still remember the enormous bonuses fund raising staff earned. I remember the countless businesses, sole trader to plc who donated a bronze, silver or gold sum of money to CRUK. I still rmember the promised plaque, bronze, silver or gold, bearing the company name who had sponsered CRUK, which never appeared at the donors local hospital.

Cancer Research UK? Charlatans

timbone said...

By the way, cancer is not essentially a curable disease, it is one of natures many consequences of age/decay. Yes, it can sometimes strike sooner than expected, and yes, this can be a result of lifestyle choices although this is very unpredictable, and there are many many other permutations and eventualities. If one escapes fatal accident or being murdered, and if one's heart does not beat it's last pump first, then one will die of cancer. Fact

DP said...

Dear Mr Puddlecote

In 1971 an American orthopaedic surgeon I was staying with in California stated that a cure for cancer would never be found because there was too much money to be made looking for one.

Arguably a cure will never be found because if it were it would be immortality.


Michael J. McFadden said...

""The most shocking thing about this report's prediction that 14 million cancer cases a year will rise to 22 million globally in the next 20 years is that up to half of all cases could be prevented. "

These folks truly ARE weird. Yes, they might be able to prevent an individual case of an individual cancer at an individual time, usually in people who are pretty elderly ... and that person would simply die of heart disease or multiple organ failure or another type of individual cancer within a year or two. Meanwhile, whatever it was they were doing in their life to enjoy themselves, whether it was smoking, drinking, or piddling around in their garage, will have been foregone.

Y'know, if you REALLY want to live a long life, having yourself put into a medical coma at around age 30 might be the way to go. As long as you had good medical care thereafter, who knows what the average lifespan might be? 100? 120? Maybe even 140? Heck, with enough organ replacement and future medical advances maybe we *DO* have a reasonable shot at some sort of pseudo-immortality stretching into the hundreds of years!

And if the coma gets boring, you could always entertain yourself by doing sums in your head or simply imagining creative things you could do to whoever'd agreed to put you into the coma to begin with.


nisakiman said...

Odd, isn't it, that as 'one of the major causes of cancer', smoking, is declining, so cancer cases are increasing? Because smoking, as we all know, causes just about every cancer known to man. We know this because the 'experts' tell us so.

Surely it couldn't be that smoking isn't a major cause? Surely they couldn't have been lying to us all this time? After all, they are 'experts'.

Dammerung der Sachsen Volk said...

Luckily for this sad witch she lives in an age where clowns are taken seriously,liars are respected and gangsters honoured.
For the majority of human's progress through history,normal human beings would have hauled this flea bitten sorceress to the village square and given her some smoke to really cause concern
PS little snippet of total BU. . . HIT.
Notice on OUTDOOR/UPPERDECK NON SMOKING AREA on P&O cross channel ferry
yes ,Noddy. "Mama we're all crazee now"
Athelstan's Volunteers. (Now recruiting, must have "STREET EXPERIENCE")

Radical Rodent said...

The fewer smokers there are, the more second-hand smokers (and third-hand) there are. As made-up figures research has invented shown second-hand smoke is considerably more dangerous than direct smoking (third-hand even more so), so there will to be an increase in cancer. Simples!

Which just goes to prove it really IS your fault.

dodderer1 said...

Reminiscent of the Fathead talk

Vision of the Anointed
6.If the Grand Plan fails ... never, ever, ever admit the Grand Plan was wrong

The Grand Plan was good but people didn’t follow it correctly because they’re stupid.

TheGrand Plan would have worked but it was undermined by evil people.

The Grand Plan didn’t go far enough. (We need to do the same thing again ... only BIGGER!)