Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Heart Attacks, Cancer and strokes. Preventative approaches -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (1778)	10/26/2008 3:18:47 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39297

Research money allocated per PATIENT for 2009 Heart .................29.00 Cancer...........3830.00 AIDS..............2774.00 I wonder what the figures would look like if preventative measures and education on preventable diseases were factored in. As a government employee I was required to attend AIDS awareness meetings, but never Cancer or Heart Disease awareness. Of course, I went to the same number of required meetings for all three: zero. I already know everything I need to know about AIDS prevention. I have things to learn about heart disease and cancer.

To: LindyBill who wrote (1778)	10/26/2008 4:40:35 PM
From: jrhana	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39297

<Never about "curing" heart disease> Not at all meaningful actually. In less you mean a cardiac transplant. Once your heart is damaged, it's damaged. Using techniques like these guys are developing you can make the damaged heart function better. Which of course, why prevention in cardiovascular disease is all the more crucial. Once you've had your heart attack or stroke, there's no going back. Of course you can prevent damage in people with arterial or coronary disease prior to an ischemic event. The interventionalists (cardiologists and radiologists) are working very hard on exactly that. They don't lack for funds Cancer is actually a whole multitude of dozens of very complicated diseases so I don't know that the figures for cancer in the table really have much significance. If you want to investigate a rare but complicated disease you are going to have to spend a lot more money per patient to make any progress. Heart disease is extremely common so most cardiac patients fall into large and rather well defined groups. So a smaller amount of money will go towards a much large group of patients in the case of cardiac disease. Plus who is a heart patient? Anybody who has had a little chest pain? They have probably greatly exaggerated the number of patients with significant cardiac disease to arrive at their figures. The "Fair" Foundation is anything but IMO. The whole subject is extremely complicated so flying off the handle at one stupid table designed to further an agenda based on ignorance is inappropriate. Maybe you could argue we should spend less money on AIDS-but good luck with that one politically. I think there are other more crucial issues to spend ones time on. This is a complete waste of time and excitement. And we are not preventing any cardiovascular disease or cancer by going off on a political tangent or rant. Sometimes it might be good to think things over for a while instead of going off half cocked over a very complicated situation. Or a very little knowledge not only is worse than none but can lead one far astray from what is the major mission here on this thread.

To: LindyBill who wrote (1778)	10/27/2008 2:43:15 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39297

i was watching "House" on a cable channel showing last years reruns.. One subject was full body scan.. house calls it a waste of money, garbage. they goes into details about how it shows all the crap. i recall your growth on your kidney discovered by a body scan.. yours was cancer.. a friend of mine had one discovered by a body scan and had it removed and no cancer.. His doctors recommended against surgery and told him lots of growths form in our bodies but they are not cancerous and do not require removal. I assume most doctors recommend watch vs take action. In my friends situation , it was better to remove the stress of the unknown identified by the body scan. Fox cable on sunday mornings has a doctor who does q & A. a few weeks ago he also put down full body scans. Said they send a lot of misinformation on growths etc that usually come and go. these are normal to our systems and not cancerous. Usually do not develop into a problem. Just another few specifics of maintenance vs preventive maintenance.