There's already a thread on this one...

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=1149987

Thanks for posting Tom, a nice article.....and interesting that Lance and George W are riding buddies, yet he's "ragging" on the administration pretty hard. It is disappointing that as many people will die from cancer today and tomorrow, than the number of troops killed in Iraq, thus far. If the administration could spend a fraction of the funds spent in Iraq, we may be closer to the cure.

Yes, I support the troops, so please do not read anything but into my comment above, it was simply an illustration/comparison.

Yes, I have had cancer....I did have surgery....and I keep a check on it.....hence any hint of passion in this reply.

---

http://theworldthroumyeyes.tumblr.com/

It is boggling to me that politicians haven't utilized the political capital that seems available with this issue. I mean, you make a point as a cancer survivor yourself (glad to hear you're doing well and you beat it). It would seem that everyone is either a cancer victim, cancer survivor or has been related to or affected by someone who is. It is an inescapable reality.

Why Washington hasn't grabbed onto this is mysterious...

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

It is good to hear that he is attacking the fight against cancer the same way he did the TDF. The cancer epidemic is on the rise and like you said everyone is affected by it somehow. As a cancer survivor myself I wouldn't have been able to beat it without some of the drugs/chemotherapy that I received from companies supported by the LAF. Without funding for research some of these drugs wouldn't exist. You would think governments would put more priority on this issue.

---

---

Member of the Litespeed Factory Team
www.litespeed.com

Well, a good place to start would be to reallocate the way public funds are used for disease research. Politically "popular" causes receive a disproportionate share of NIH funds. For example, fewer than 12,000 people die from AIDS each year in the US, yet 10 cents of every NIH dollar spent on disease research goes to HIV.

This has been the case under both republican and democratic administrations.

Cancer and heart disease are dramatically under-funded when compared to the percentage of deaths each cause in the US every year.

Difficult to find totals on all governmental agencies though....and worldwide, I imagine that AIDS kills at a higher rate than here in the US - so, as usual, nothing is completely black and white.

The investment in the WoT is to ensure the ability for the way of life that is able to support tremendous investment in research for curing Cancer and other diseases.

And unlike cancer research, national defense is a legitemate use of the government's monopoly on coercian (spelling?). Perhaps Lance should focus more on raising money directly from willing donors than trying to get the government to take it from them by force.

You may find that an acceptable practice in this case but not in others - because while a needless bridge in Alaska is of little meaning to you, it means the world to others and, heck, one special interest can use this method to achieve funding for it's pet cause, why shouldn't others follow suit.

Sell the yellow bracelets. Host telethons. Do ride across the country fundraisers. You will find Americans to be generous.

On an unrelated note, you will find another problem with special interests dictating public funding. Apart from the AIDS versus Cancer imbalance, there are also equally rediculous imbalances between prostate cancer and breast cancer. Both have about an equal occurance in the US and are about equally lethal. Yet the government spends $11 bill on breast cancer but only $2 bill on prostate cancer. Cancer treatments themselves can be very profitable.

Reduce the regulations, reduce the tax burden, and make it easier to get approval for new drugs and treatments and harder for trial lawyer scum to sue and the cure fall out of Adam Smith's sleeve.

Errr.... politicians are still smoking in their offices, and just now got restricted by Pilosi near the House floor.

http://www.cnn.com/...moking.ap/index.html

NO wonder they won't fund cancer research.

Anyway, Armstrong's STAR light is dimming, and if he doesn't do something big again, I doubt he will get as much attention and notice.

thanks for posting that-I had no idea they could still smoke.

What is WoT? Don't you mean WaT - War against Terror?

More people will die today, and tomorrow of cancer, than were killing by terrorists on 9.11. And regarding your breat vs prostate comment...absolutely. In fact, if a man lives long enough he is very close to 100% chance he will have prostate cancer.

No, I'm not heartless, just a perspective.

---

http://theworldthroumyeyes.tumblr.com/

If the administration could spend a fraction of the funds spent in Iraq, we may be closer to the cure.

There will not be another disease cured ever if the pharmacutecal companies are the one's reaping the benefits of government tax dollars and research. There is no, or little money in a cure, the money is in treatment.

I have no problem with government funding being used for research, but the results of this research shouldn't be used by private companies to turn a profit. Talk about a lose.lose situation for the taxpayer!

---

_________________________________________________

There will not be another disease cured ever if the pharmacutecal companies are the one's reaping the benefits of government tax dollars and research. There is no, or little money in a cure, the money is in treatment.

That is exactly what is wrong with our "health care" system, it is geared to those who are already sick and without a REAL motivation for cures.

---

__________________________________________________

You sir, are my new hero! - Trifan 11/13/2008

Casey, you are a wise man - blueraider_mike 11/13/2008

Casey, This is an astute observation. - Slowbern 11/17/2008

More people will die of heart disease than of cancer today. Should the government stop funding the WoT and cancer and instead focus on heart disease?

Medical research belongs outside of the domain of the federal goverment. What gets funded, what those priorities are, and accountable the research investment is something most efficiently allocated and determined by those who willingly donate the money - individuals, non-profits, and for-profit corporations.

Unlike medical research, for practical and funding reasons, military operations can only be funded by the government.

And unlike most all military operations, medical research can accumulate across borders.

If you did your homework, I would be happy to wage you $1 that more money is spent on cancer research across academic, corporate, non-profits, and government here in the US on an annual basis than is spent on the WoT (War on Terror).