I’m not sure that a public relations statement from a fundraising organization is the best place to look for accurate information on what’s actually happening with disease research and treatment.
For instance, this scientific conference report from last year recounts a study of innovative radiosurgery techniques that have sharply increased survival rates in elderly lung cancer patients. (This scientific conference, by the way, is the biennial World Conference on Lung Cancer, where research on lung cancer treatment strategies is presented.)
In short, I call bullshit on the insinuation by this foundation director that lung cancer, unlike other cancers, hasn’t comparably “benefitted from modern science and research”. Naturally, it’s in her organization’s interest to beat the drum about the tragically neglected state of lung cancer research and the crucial importance of donating money to support it, but that doesn’t mean her information is accurate.
And to try to suggest that the alleged neglect of lung cancer in funding and research is somehow responsible for the great disparity in survival rates between lung cancer and some other forms of cancer where survival rates exceed 95% is a real :rolleyes:. AFAICT, the only somewhat common form of cancer with that kind of survival rate is testicular cancer, which is a lot more susceptible to treatment than lung cancer.
It wasn’t some spectacular surge in research funding that made testicular cancer treatment so effective in comparison to lung cancer treatment: it’s mostly due to the fact that lung cancer is a real bitch of a disease to treat and generally hard to diagnose early enough to make treatment effective.
Kimstu, if you have counter-statistics that refute the 15.5% survival rate (1970s and now), please share them. Just because a foundation director has a bias doesn’t mean she’s a liar.
Otherwise: from the study you linked to, we have this statement:
Yes, lung cancer is a bitch to treat and early diagnosis is difficult. 100 years ago, *all *cancers were a bitch to treat and any diagnosis was difficult. We’ve made progress with other cancers that we haven’t made with lung cancer. This gap may be closed with sufficient research.
Maybe, maybe not. I’ve seen no convincing evidence that research neglect is to blame for slowness of progress in lung cancer treatment. Lung cancer does get much less funding money per death caused than other common types of cancer do, but that’s primarily because it causes so many more deaths than the other most common types of cancer put together. Moreover, since it’s difficult to diagnose it early, treatment options are more limited and harder to study.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that it’s wrong or pointless to donate money to lung cancer research, and I’m all for improving lung cancer diagnosis and treatment. I’m just not convinced by claims that boosting research funding would close the gap between lung cancers and other cancers that are easier to diagnose and treat.
Some diseases are just intrinsically more intractable than others.
Ah, well there’s the rub. I think I assume that there’s a direct linear correlation between dollars spent on research and deaths reduced, which may or may not be true.
Part of the problem here might be that it’s a lot easier to remove a breast or a testicle than it is to remove a lung, and a lot easier to live with one breast or testicle than it is to live with one lung.
Another issue might be that it’s easier to see early signs of cancer on a breast or testicle than it is to see on a lung. If we find most breast or testicular cancers at an earlier stage than we find most lung cancers, it shouldn’t be too surprising if the survival rate for breast or testicular cancer is higher than that for lung cancer.
To the OP: let’s assume that those commercials are effective in persuading kids not to smoke, and possibly in giving current smokers extra motivation to quit. If that’s the case, then seeing people with holes in their throats on TV means it’s going to be less likely years from now to see people with these conditions in real life, since some of the people who would have developed these conditions if they had smoked will have been convinced not to smoke. Which would you rather have? I’ll take seeing them on TV over seeing them in real life, personally.
I’ve met these types of people before. It’s even more disturbing in person to see it. When I first met a person with a hole in their throat, I was in shock over it for months. Hardly a day went by when I didn’t think back on it. I felt so sorry for him, and knowing that there wasn’t a damn thing I could do to ease his suffering other than to simply treat him as a human being. Something that one shouldn’t have to get a hole in their throat to recieve.
So yes, I know they are people. I wouldn’t be as disturbed by these ads as I am if I didn’t. This is precisely why these ads work on people they are intended for. Precisely why it pisses me off when I watch them, since I am not one of those they are trying to reach.
So I pitted them to vent my frustration. And after about an hour, I felt a lot better. I know that if these ads prevent even one person from enduring this kind of suffering, I suppose I can take wanting to vomit whenever I see them.
So please don’t suggest I don’t see these people as human beings. I do. That’s why this hurts.
The print version of the ad with the guy who lost both legs said he had Buerger’s disease, which is strongly associated with tobacco use. Most people who get Buerger’s disease are tobacco users (smokers or users of smokeless tobacco).
I’d rather the diseases that cause such disabilities didn’t happen, so that I didn’t see them at all. I don’t argue against the idea that these ads work(or that it is good that they do). I just wish I wasn’t exposed to them. Hence why I made a pit thread. Frustrations vented. I feel a lot better. Still wish that they weren’t on TV. But as life has said to me on numerous occasions: “Tough”.
As people have pointed out they’re trying to evoke disgust rather than fear. And they need to work pretty hard at it, because one of the primary selling points has become its cool factor - making it scary has been counter-productive at times, particularly with youth.
Fear of death can make something desirable or attractive - ‘Im a risk taker’ - disgust rarely does. They’re trying to kill off the number one thing that makes them attractive to younger people, and over the years its been pretty effective.
Just a bit rough on those of us who are already pretty clear on the topic.
So do I. And I wish people didn’t die from smoking-related illnesses. Mr. Neville’s great-aunt, who was a Holocaust survivor, died a couple of years ago from lung cancer. Her brother-in-law, Mr. Neville’s grandfather, also died of lung cancer last year. He never smoked, AFAIK, but I’m quite sure he was exposed to passive smoke (and not just from her). He fought in WWII and was at D-Day. Smoking managed to do to at least one of them (and possibly both) what the Nazis tried and failed to do.
Never thought of it that way before. I got mostly the fear, with a side of disgust. And most of the smokers I know are fully addicted, so they smoke not necesarily becasue the want to, but becasue they have to(in their heads, mosly. But there are physiological reasons as well).
But those types of smokers aren’t the only ones the ads are trying to reach. They’re trying to reach the types who, as you say, are attracted to the dangers of smoking. Didn’t think about that type, because I don’t really know anyone like that. Completely missed that perspective.
…I did put this thread in the Pit, right? What are we doing having an honest discussion?
Incomprehensible as it is to some of us, risk makes things more attractive, not less, to some people. Intellectually, I know these people exist. I know I will never really understand them, though.
I suspect it does depend on “risk of what,” though, at least for some of them.
The anti smoking ads don’t bother me as much as the ads about getting a lasting hard on.
In the ads they employ the most wooden actor (ha ha) and some guy dressed as the slow down police- it is really pathetic. At least they aren’t on the radio anymore. I’d try and listen to a race and I’d get an ad about making a boner last.
I don’t discount the physical effects of smoking, but surely 65 years of time also contributed to their deaths. Many WWII vets have died in the intervening years from causes unrelated to smoking, and continue to die.