Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
Thanks Tree32Thanks

Thread: Obama's Deadly Sexism: 90% of Research $ For Gynocological Cancers Is Gone

  1. #21
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    33,203
    Thanks
    30636

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Friday13 View Post
    You know that (the bold) is patently false...why do you retell this lie?
    It's a Republican thing. You wouldn't understand.
    Thanks from Friday13

  2. #22
    Veteran Member PACE's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    21,787
    Thanks
    18539

    From
    None of your business
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/w...h.html?mcubz=1

    Overall, the NIH's funding levels were stable during the Obama Administration.



    This is a strong indicator that other cancer research is funded at the expense of research into gynocological cancers. While Obama did not set the NIH's budget line item by line item, he always had the power to require them to stop researching these cancers in favor of other initiatives. NIH is a part of the US Department of Health and Human Resources. Obama was their ultimate boss, just as he was the boss of any other federal agency.

    I perceive massive sexism and a huge con law/equal protection issue now that the NIH has chosen not to fund clinical trials almost entirely, as long as only women get these diseases.

    Your thoughts?
    Probably because of this:

    https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news...ronic-diseases

  3. #23
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,435
    Thanks
    13567

    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/w...h.html?mcubz=1

    Overall, the NIH's funding levels were stable during the Obama Administration.



    This is a strong indicator that other cancer research is funded at the expense of research into gynocological cancers. While Obama did not set the NIH's budget line item by line item, he always had the power to require them to stop researching these cancers in favor of other initiatives. NIH is a part of the US Department of Health and Human Resources. Obama was their ultimate boss, just as he was the boss of any other federal agency.

    I perceive massive sexism and a huge con law/equal protection issue now that the NIH has chosen not to fund clinical trials almost entirely, as long as only women get these diseases.

    Your thoughts?
    My thoughts are that if we didn't have so many fucking idiots claiming never hillary in the last election we would not have this problem.
    Thanks from PACE

  4. #24
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,435
    Thanks
    13567

    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Because it is sexist to fail to research diseases that only females can get.

    A NINETY PERCENT decline in government funding is alarming.
    Maybe you should have voted for Hillary.
    Thanks from Friday13

  5. #25
    Veteran Member PACE's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    21,787
    Thanks
    18539

    From
    None of your business
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    It's a Republican thing. You wouldn't understand.
    The OP is a lie, a complete lie, I found out why, its in my link below, the highest cause of death was obesity, and the Obama/NIH focused on that in specifically in 2016; which means it's still in effect right now, that is until the new director, starts laying off people, like Tillerson, and Halle did at State.

    This is an overdramatic attempt to pin sexism, where it does not belong.
    Thanks from Friday13

  6. #26
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,435
    Thanks
    13567

    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post

    If you know of any women you care about not dying of these cancers, you might consider asking your president or Congresscritters to renew funding for this research.
    do you think Hillary would have been opposed to such funding?
    Thanks from Isalexi

  7. #27
    Veteran Member PACE's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    21,787
    Thanks
    18539

    From
    None of your business
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Because it is sexist to fail to research diseases that only females can get.

    A NINETY PERCENT decline in government funding is alarming.
    No it's not, it's based on need and urgency. That's ridiculous. Females die for obesity related diseases, and smoking related diseases, and heart/lung related diseases,

    That's a really bad analysis,
    Thanks from Friday13

  8. #28
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,435
    Thanks
    13567

    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    This is true, and he was most likely not this author of the anti-woman initiative.

    Western medicine has a long, deep and dark history of harming women. The entire abortion crapfest is the DIRECT result of male doctors forcing female midwives out of the womb-care business.
    Maybe electing a woman might have been a better idea. Too bad we had so many ignorant jackasses buying into the "never Hillary" bullshit.

  9. #29
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,435
    Thanks
    13567

    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    That is true.

    But he armed Iran with nuclear weapons as well.

    Etc.

    A mixed bag.
    While most experts on the matter say Iran would probably have one now or be very close. Your comment is fucking stupid.

  10. #30
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    46,435
    Thanks
    13567

    Quote Originally Posted by HayJenn View Post
    Indeed, I don't see how this is Obama's fault.

    From the link.

    Why has the number of trials plummeted? The drop, the experts at the conference said, was probably caused by the 2012 restructuring of cooperative groups sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, placing gynecological, surgical and radiation therapy under the same umbrella, and also by significant budget reductions of the National Institutes of Health.

    So I clicked on the link that in that sentence and this is what I found.

    The composition of the membership itself has changed over time for two primary reasons. First, the Society endorses a patient-centered medical home model of comprehensive care for women diagnosed with a gynecologic cancer. The includes the entire health care team—medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pain and palliative care specialists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, oncology nurses, genetic counselors, social workers, etc. Rather than restricting membership in the Society to gynecologic oncologists, as was the case prior to 2010, the membership categories now are inclusive of the entire heath care team.

    From page 4

    https://www.sgo.org/wp-content/uploa...yn-Cancers.pdf

    Obama has two daughters. To think he condones sexism in any way is ridiculous.
    Of course it isn't his fault, you have to take into consideration who is claiming he was.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Colorectal cancers on the rise in younger adults
    By bajisima in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28th February 2017, 07:30 AM
  2. Obama must come clean on deadly Benghazi attack
    By nonsqtr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 24th November 2012, 03:24 AM
  3. Obama's Deadly Doctors
    By Blah in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 12th August 2009, 04:56 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed