Post: #1

Why?

Obviously, because women get it almost exclusively. And as we all know women are perfect special snowflakes...

Therefore, even if you have pancreatic cancer, which is WAY less survivable than breast cancer, you have no right to complain compared to breast cancer sufferers.

“I wish I had breast cancer”: The latest terrible cancer campaign

Written by a woman; 4 occurrences of the word "testicular" in this article, 12 occurrences of the word "breast", plus 2 more in the title and tags. But I'm sure there's no agenda, right?

Post: #2

Post: #3

Why don't they do a commercial explaining your risk of developing breast cancer is halved if you have your first baby before 20, compared to after 30?

Post: #4

I think there is alot of confusion around cancer and statistics.

And this is a good example of it.

You see - breast cancer kills more people than pancreatic cancer each year.

In 2011 - in the UK - breast cancer killed 11,700 women (and a very small number of men).

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-i...#mortality

And in 2011 - in the UK - pancreatic cancer killed 8,300 people.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-i...#mortality

So why are the people in the video wishing they had breast cancer instead of pancreatic cancer. Since breast cancer kills more people than pancreatic cancer?

Two words.

False positives.

Alot of people have pancreatic cancer - but never realise it. Since it is so hard to detect. As such - they go through life not realising they have a slow growing tumour in the pancreas. And eventually - they die of something else.

But the people - who are diagnoses with pancreatic cancer. Are the people who have the fast growing tumours. And these are the ones that will kill you.

As such - being told you have pancreatic cancer - means you have the 'worse' kind of cancer.

Whereas with breast cancer. Alot of women are diagnosed with breast cancer - and then successfully 'treated'. When in fact - they had lumps and tumours removed which were either benign or would never have grown fast enough to become deadly.

So - they go through life thinking their life was saved and they survived 'breast cancer'. When in reality there life was no more in danger than alot of people's lives are who are reading this now. Completely unaware they have a harmless tumour growing in their pancreas.

And when you throw all of this together - you get the strange situation that people wish they had a more deadly cancer than one which actually kills fewer people. Since - the pancreatic cancers which never cause any problems and are never found - give the illusion that pancreatic cancer is more deadly than breast cancer. When in fact it is the other way round.

I have written about this before - and the above campaign is a good example of the confusion that can result when people don't think clearly about the statistics and logic surrounding cancer, symptons, diagnoses and number of deaths.

/thread-22985-...87052.html

I am not trained in this area. So maybe I have made some glaring errors. But the logic seems pretty sound to me.

Post: #5

Cardguy, your logic is misplaced again.

Breast cancer kills more people because its incidence is much higher than pancreatic cancer.

Much, much higher. In 2011, there were 41,000 new registered breast cancer cases in the UK, and a total of only 8,773 new pancreatic cancer cases.

More people die in car accidents every year than in motorcycle accidents, even though motorcycle accidents are statistically more fatal. Why is this? There are more cars than motorcycles.

You don't need to get in to complicated statistics and false-discovery-rate analyses to see the glaring truth. Please give this one a rest.

Post: #6

(02-06-2014 06:09 AM)cardguy Wrote:  And when you throw all of this together - you get the strange situation that people wish they had a more deadly cancer than one which actually kills fewer people. Since - the pancreatic cancers which never cause any problems and are never found - give the illusion that pancreatic cancer is more deadly than breast cancer.

Cardguy, I don't really see how that's relevant to the ad campaign (correct me if I'm wrong).

The ad claims the survival rate for those who are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer is just 3%. So for those people, it doesn't matter that there may exist a much more benign form of pancreatic cancer. They are already in the group with the 3% survival chance, and so they say "I wish I had breast cancer instead", which has an 85% survival rate upon diagnosis.
It's not an 'a-priori' statement. It's after the fact. "GIVEN THAT you have been DIAGNOSED with a cancer..."

Post: #7

Breast Cancer is regularly diagnosed after a routine scan.

Pancreatic Cancer is usually only diagnosed AFTER a patient starts experiencing complaints and discomforts.

At that point they go to the GP - and then get a scan.

You are still dealing with two different groups - even though both groups have being diagnosed with cancer.

Since the people in the pancreatic cancer group will tend to have more aggressive cancers than those in the breast cancer group.

The post above is falling for the same fallacy that I am trying to point out. If people had scans of the pancreas as regularly as women have breast scans - we would get a clearer picture when trying to compare the two cancers.

NOTE: I'm an idiot and not a trained medical professional! :-)

Post: #8

not feeling the logic cardguy
breast cancer has a lot of awareness because its relatively common and rather easy to screen for (we even know which genes are responsible for it now). breast cancer and, to a much lesser degree, cervical cancer are the big ones in the media because they're the easiest to catch early (mammograms and paps) as well as fairly high incidence rates. you cant go CAT scanning your whole body every year, that would be absurdly expensive. instead we get a yearly finger up the ass once you hit 40 and a colonoscopy every 10 years (which is fine because colon cancer is a sow mofo)

Post: #9

Okay - Im going to go quiet on the topic of cancer.

There are so many issues and debates around - that I can no longer tell if I am making an intelligent point or a retarded point. lol

I have nothing more to add on this subject.

"Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent."

Post: #10

Actually, I thought ocular melanoma was the most "important" type of cancer. Then again, I am biased.

Post: #11

There's more to pancreatic cancer's lethality than just "detecting only the aggressive types". For one, it's easier to chop off a breast than remove a pancreas...and for another, pancreatic cancer is what we call a "dry" tumor. Typically, tumors require a significantly increased amount of blood in order to deliver increased nutrient and oxygen supply so that they can outcompete normal cells in the body. However, pancreatic cancer is an unusual case in that it is not strongly angiogenic, meaning it doesn't form a ton of blood vessels to increase its supply. As our normal treatment methodology relies somewhat on the idea that chemo will kill the tumor faster than it will kill the patient, this makes pancreatic cancers particularly difficult to treat.

Another reason it is more lethal is super simple: it's not terribly common. The most common tumors have also undergone the most research because they've had the most funding.

You're arguing fallaciously that breast cancer is only more treatable because we're detecting aggressive and non-aggressive types, whereas we're only detecting aggressive subtypes of pancreatic cancer. You have to realize that you're ignoring confounding factors. As I stated in your thread, metastases are typically the "killing blow" of cancer. The fact that we can detect breast cancer early allows us to stop it before it reaches metastatic status. Furthermore, pancreatic cancer likes to spread to the liver, and also has a straight road to the circulatory system and some surrounding lymph nodes. All of these make the cancer quite fatal, whereas breast cancer metastases can oftentimes be treated through removal of the entire breast or at least surrounding lymph nodes. This is not to say that breast cancer mets aren't dangerous, but just less so than typical pancreatic mets.

Post: #12

Cheers for all your posts, Texas! Great stuff.

Post: #13

After the lame "Breast Cancer Awareness" week(s) in the NFL (American Football) where players wore pink on the field (and the white knighting was at stratospheric levels among US athletes) I'm pretty fed up with the breast cancer lobby. I know it's a good cause but where's all the cancer awareness for men? I don't see it at least in the sporting world. Hell they won't even honestly deal with concussions in the NFL and NHL.

Would be interesting to compare the instances of prostate cancer versus breast cancer and contrast.

Post: #14

I don't like all the "breast cancer awareness" shit either. First of all, noone at this point is fucking unaware of breast cancer. Who are they trying to get this message to?

However, you have to agree that it's partially a marketing thing. It's a lot easier to sell breast cancer exam reminders on TV than to say "go get your asshole fingered, guys". Not that it's not incredibly important for males in relevant risk groups to do so, but it's not the most fun procedure either.