DOn't know if i've posted this before. Don't Care. Watch it.

[AnotherFairportfan]

I may have posted this here before.

I don't care.

Whether i have or haven't, i'm gonna post it.



In the car today, i discovered that after seeing this, i can no longer get through the original, which is a long-time favourite of mine, without breaking down...

It.

Hurts.

Too.

Much.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Speaking as a Cancer survivor, I cannot adequately express the depth of my disgust at the misrepresented statistics.

Claim: Every two minutes, a child is diagnosed with Cancer
Fact: Roughly 10 thousand children were diagnosed with Cancer in America last year. There are approximately 524,520 minutes per year (364.25*24*60). Thus actual numbers are more like one an hour (every 52 minutes). This is still an issue, but grossly exaggerated by a factor of 25.

Now, if you want to get into global, that's another thing. But then you're comparing apples and oranges, because the vast majority of the cases occur outside America, and you are now comparing global numbers against American spending, which is the next point to get into.

Claim: Children's Cancer only gets 4% of federal funding.
Fact. Children's cancer is only 1% of all cancers out there. So it's actually getting four TIMES the amount of funding that other types of cancer are getting.
Fact: 5 year survival rate for children's cancer is up over 80%, which was better odds than I was given when I was originally diagnosed.

Claim: Cancer is the number one cause of death by disease among Children
Fact: More children die from accidents than from Cancer. While this is technically true, it is because the morality rate for disease-based mortality among children is the lowest in recorded history. It's like trying to say that you are more likely to be struck by lightning than bit by a shark. While true, neither has a high rate of incidence.

Having said that, Child Cancer is a thing that needs to die in a fire, and supporting child cancer research is not bad. What is bad, however, is the manipulative emotional BS people are using to try and secure funding.

[AnotherFairportfan]

Having said that, Child Cancer is a thing that needs to die in a fire, and supporting child cancer research is not bad. What is bad, however, is the manipulative emotional BS people are using to try and secure funding.

Moral and logical appeals don't work very well...

[Typeminer]

Indeed, Shneeky.

My father's only sister, my father's mother, my only sister, and my mother all died of cancer. As well as one ex's only brother and favorite brother-in-law, and other ex's mother. Not to mention too many friends and more distant relatives.

I have no sympathy for the manipulative fundraising. I've had the same view of disease telethons and all that crap since about the age of 12: If they're serious about funding research, why aren't they trying to raise public support for NIH appropriations?

I turn off the radio when they run "inspiring" features about dealing with cancer, and I don't read those stories in the media. Apparently they are helpful and comforting for some folks, and that's fine. But myself, I know damn well how I feel about cancer, and I'll discuss it with whom I choose.

[DinkyInky]

Most of these I ignore because of erroneous facts and figures.

I do, however, like Roger Daltrey's Teenage Cancer Trust charity that creates support networks for youth going through Cancer. It gives them others to talk to to help with moral support, which I think is as important as researching for the cure.

[TazManiac]

Well, the singer and piano man did a pretty good job...

[Warrl]

If they're serious about funding research, why aren't they trying to raise public support for NIH appropriations?

Probably because asking for donations is considered morally superior to demanding stuff at gunpoint (or, in your example, asking other people to support demanding stuff at gunpoint).