[Villager Joyce]

Originally Posted by pgc4340

I understand your desire to go pink. I did not go pink until my dearest friend died from breast cancer age 53 years old. On her 6 year anniversary date of being declared cancer free, breast cancer was found to have metastasized to her liver. Another friend was recently diagnosed, and after surgery is under treatment. Another childhood friend had prostrate cancer, was doing very well, until it was also found to have metastasized to his liver. He is now on hospice at 68 years old. My neighbor across the street was found to have cancer in his brain, too late for treatment, he died within days at age 65. I also have friends who have lost children/grandchildren to childhood cancer, which relapsed again and again. Now I support all cancers, but now I donate more toward those with little promise of a cure because of the need for more research.

I wish I could have some of what you have in your heart. You have every reason to be negative, but your message is a positive one with hope. Thank you for posting.

[lynnschindel]

It's hard to believe that anyone would campaign for people NOT to support curing cancer of any type! I'm a survivor of breast cancer - one of the lucky ones because I caught it very early. Cancer, in all its forms, is non-partisan in its deadliness. When the doctor says to you, "I'm sorry - it's malignant" nothing can prepare you for the fear that makes your blood run cold. I hope you never hear those words. And by the way, a lot of men get breast cancer, too. So, please don't be a "boob" and be selective in your support of a cure.

[goodtimesintv]

Originally Posted by looneycat

they have but nobody created a campaign for them that appealed to women as well. no pink ribbons or cute clothes and hats and bags to buy in pink for a disease that almost always kills. to say that men didn't campaign because they were too busy with viagra is just obscene.

Oh, really?

Here's a good example:

Prostate Cancer Therapy Too Good to Be True Explodes Health Costs

“Imagine a prostate cancer therapy that has almost no side effects. Hospitals say it exists and they’re vying to be among the first to offer it.

Too bad the treatment may not work as well as advertised and could boost America’s already spiraling health-care costs.

The technology uses narrowly focused proton beams to deliver precisely targeted blasts of radiation. The particle beams are delivered by 500-ton machines in facilities that cost from $100 million to $200 million, and can require a football-field sized building to house.

A typical treatment costs about $50,000, twice as much as traditional radiation therapy though it is usually covered by Medicare or private insurance......

....The easiest group to market to in the country is a group of men worrying about the functioning of their pen**es,” said Paul Levy, former head of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston....

Prostate Cancer Therapy Too Good to Be True Explodes Health Cost - Bloomberg Business