It's our own fault - Blame the victim
Posted on: Fri, 28/11/2008 - 16:59
Offline
It's our own fault - Blame the victim
Read the Government’s response
I added to my request, for better research into breast cancer, which I did not have, some remarks regarding the research into causes of cancer. i.e. the funding of research. I pointed out that there was likely to be a cause in the environment. I didn't refer to Chernobyl, or nuclear waste being trundled round the country, because I didn't want to be treated as a crank. This was their reply:
"The Department of Health recognises that there are many different types of cancer, the causes of which can be wide-ranging rather than there being a single cause for any particular type of cancer. It is known that lifestyle factors such as smoking, consumption of alcoholic beverages, physical activity/obesity, and also occupational exposure to certain chemicals in the past, especially asbestos, have a major influence on cancer incidence. It is very difficult to estimate the burden due to environmental factors but the available data are summarized below.
Exposure to ionizing radiation is known to produce leukaemia and other cancers, although there is little direct data available on the burden of disease from this cause. Exposure to radon, a naturally occurring radioactive gas, is a cause of lung cancer and there is a markedly increased risk in smokers. It has been estimated that about two per cent of cancer deaths in Europe may be due to radon. Exposure to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight increases the risk of skin cancer.
There is little convincing evidence to indicate that environmental exposure to chemicals in the UK causes breast cancer or any other forms of cancer. New chemicals are fully tested for safety before they enter the market, and a number of initiatives, such as REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals), are in progress to update the database on existing chemicals. However, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (passive smoking) is known to be associated with a 10-30 per cent increase in lung cancer.
Additionally, dietary factors are estimated to account for approximately 30 per cent of cancers in industrialised countries, making diet second only to tobacco as a preventable cause of cancer. In particular, obesity is associated with an increase in risk of some cancers such as colorectal and breast cancers, while increasing the intake of fruit and vegetables and physical activity are associated with decreased risk."
Blinkered or not? Certainly insulting, and look at the percentage. 30% to blame. What about the rest? People who eat wholefood and fruit and the ones who are veggies, or vegans? What caused their cancer?
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17608
__________________
Triumph and Disaster are imposters
Seems a perfectly reasonable and rational response to me. There is no evidence that veggies and vegans are at reduced risk of cancer.
http://www.mymalignantmelanoma.com/
Seems a perfectly reasonable and rational response to me. There is no evidence that veggies and vegans are at reduced risk of cancer.
http://www.mymalignantmelanoma.com/
Its a useful and fair summary of evidence concerning environmental factors. Thanks for posting it. It's hard for organisations to provide information which will help people adjust their lifestyle to reduce risk of (further) cancers without risking appearing to blame people who already have cancer. And sometimes there really is no discernable cause - cells mutate without any of the factors that make that mutation extra-likely.
Alison
Obesity in Breast cancer is only a risk factor in Post menopausal women!!
Blinkered or not? Certainly insulting, and look at the percentage. 30% to blame. What about the rest? People who eat wholefood and fruit and the ones who are veggies, or vegans? What caused their cancer?
We all know where smoking will lead us to, yet so many still smoke. We are told about obesity, yet thay often times ignore the message "Because they enjoy their food too much!"
"Couldn't be a vegan, I enjoy my meat too much" Some one said that to me just over a year ago, after a hysterectomy for uterus cancer. They got the cancer out but a year later it matestomised in her lungs, never smoked in her life. This is when she told me she enjoyed her meat too much. She was on chemo and radiation to control the cancer in her lungs, doing quite well, but she then was diagnosed with a brain tumor and died three weeks later. She was 34.
I wonder, just so often wonder whether this story could have been any different if she had decided to just try a vegan diet for a few months like I did. If I loose my remission status, which I don't believe I will on my vegan diet, and if I die, at least my family will know and say that I gave it my best shot !!!
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO HARM IN TRYING A VEGAN DIET FOR THREE MONTHS. BETTER THAN TRYING SMOKING OR EATING MORE MEAT OR ALCOHOL AS A MEANS OF SURVIVAL !!
It is not just me. Go to google , type in cancer+ vegan., then tell me which side of the fence a cancer victim should sit on.
----Walter
I can see you are a true beleiver Walter, but I suggest people ask their medical team this question rather than google.
http://www.mymalignantmelanoma.com/
I would think other peoples smoking may be a factor in vegan, veggies cancer
lindaj
This has been interesting this. I am one of those people who know what caused my breast cancer as I have the BRCA2 gene which covers about 5-7% of all breast cancers.
One of these days hopefully they'll get to the root of what causes cancer.
Sheena
but I am mentioning it now. It looked very strange to me that the fallout from Chernobyl seemed to concentrate around our own nuclear reactors. North Wales was particularly affected.
I don't really hold all that much brief for environmental causes of just cancer. Diseases of the Central nervous system like MS, Motor Neurone disease could equally be a result of pesticide spraying as cancer is.
Cancer Research UK, spends more than 30% of its income on their annual blame the victim reports, and this official reply from the Department of Health is a direct copy.
Rwth
Triumph and Disaster are imposters
According to their annual review they spent 333 million on research, and 11 million on patient informtion and advocacy.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/aboutus/whoweare/ourreportsandaccounts/a...
I would argue that, given that many people are unaware of the ways they can decrease their risk of cancer, more should be allocated to patient information and advocacy, even if one or two cancer victims feel they are being blamed by being informed too late of the risk factors.
A