Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33
Thanks Tree32Thanks

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

  1. #1
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    51,003
    Thanks
    29569

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio

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

    *Snip*

    For decades, the complexity of cervical, ovarian, endometrial and vulvar cancers stymied researchers; however, several advances have begun to extend women’s lives. The addition of new chemotherapy regimens and newly effective targeted drugs, like the PARP inhibitor...are lengthening survival rates. (All resulted from clinical trials.)

    *Snip*

    While medical scientists are discovering the determinants that drive gynecologic tumor growth, clinical trials in gynecological cancer — translating that knowledge into specific strategies — dwindle. According to the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, enrollment in phase 3 National Cancer Institute clinical trials designed for gynecologic cancers declined 90 percent from 2011 to 2016.

    In July, at the Ovarian Cancer National Conference in Chicago, a succession of experts expressed alarm about this: Dr. John Moroney from the University of Chicago, Dr. Carol L. Brown from Memorial Sloan Kettering, Dr. David Gershenson from MD Anderson Cancer Center, Dr. Daniela Matei from Northwestern University, and Dr. Alan D’Andrea from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

    Why has the number of trials plummeted? The drop...was probably caused by significant budget reductions of the National Institutes of Health.

    *Snip*

    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?
    Last edited by Madeline; 14th September 2017 at 06:00 AM.

  2. #2
    Veteran Member Isalexi's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    33,356
    Thanks
    20778

    From
    Maryland
    I may be reading it wrong, but why is Obama sexist here
    Thanks from Friday13

  3. #3
    Veteran Member Dr Sampson Simpson's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21,262
    Thanks
    11626

    Quote Originally Posted by Isalexi View Post
    I may be reading it wrong, but why is Obama sexist here
    The OP is a eap. First off, most clinical trials are performed and funded by companies. They are often expensive

    Secondly, just because there aren't more clinical trials for gynecological issues doesn't meant they are intentionally avoiding it, it could be there just aren't any new drugs for them, or applications for grants to fund those clinical trials. Who knows, maybe those drugs discovered in academia from fed funding was licensed to a company to do the clinical trials.

    And lastly, the president does not micromanage the NIH and where funding goes. The most pressing issues may get increased funding.Also, it has been republicans that have started the decline in NIH funding.
    Thanks from Friday13 and PACE

  4. #4
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    31,605
    Thanks
    29474

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Sampson Simpson View Post
    The OP is a eap. First off, most clinical trials are performed and funded by companies. They are often expensive

    Secondly, just because there aren't more clinical trials for gynecological issues doesn't meant they are intentionally avoiding it, it could be there just aren't any new drugs for them, or applications for grants to fund those clinical trials. Who knows, maybe those drugs discovered in academia from fed funding was licensed to a company to do the clinical trials.

    And lastly, the president does not micromanage the NIH and where funding goes. The most pressing issues may get increased funding.Also, it has been republicans that have started the decline in NIH funding.
    Yes but, President Obama should have restrained the Republicans, who held the majority in Congress, from cutting funding for medical research. The fact that he failed to do so, in Madeline's opinion, proves that he hates all women.

    It's pretty simple, really.

  5. #5
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    51,003
    Thanks
    29569

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Isalexi View Post
    I may be reading it wrong, but why is Obama sexist here
    Because it is sexist to fail to research diseases that only females can get.

    A NINETY PERCENT decline in government funding is alarming.

  6. #6
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    51,003
    Thanks
    29569

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Sampson Simpson View Post
    The OP is a eap.
    What is an "eap"?

    First off, most clinical trials are performed and funded by companies. They are often expensive
    According to the article, NO clinical trials are presently underway for gynocological cancers. The NIH's funding decisions are not irrelevant.

    Secondly, just because there aren't more clinical trials for gynecological issues doesn't meant they are intentionally avoiding it, it could be there just aren't any new drugs for them, or applications for grants to fund those clinical trials. Who knows, maybe those drugs discovered in academia from fed funding was licensed to a company to do the clinical trials.
    Not according to the scientists who are quoted in the article. It is 100% a lack of funding problem.

    And lastly, the president does not micromanage the NIH and where funding goes. The most pressing issues may get increased funding.Also, it has been republicans that have started the decline in NIH funding.
    When? Under Dubya? Reagan? Eisenhower?

    Jesus H. Christ. Take some responsibility for the failures of the Obama administration -- it was not Shan-gra-la. He was a C+ president at best.

    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.

  7. #7
    Member Robert Urbanek's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,982
    Thanks
    1288

    From
    Vacaville, CA
    Obama could have used his "bully pulpit" to argue for more female-focused medical research but he wasn't really a "bully pulpit" kind of leader.
    Thanks from Madeline

  8. #8
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    51,003
    Thanks
    29569

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Urbanek View Post
    Obama could have used his "bully pulpit" to argue for more female-focused medical research but he wasn't really a "bully pulpit" kind of leader.
    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.

  9. #9
    Veteran Member Dr Sampson Simpson's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21,262
    Thanks
    11626

    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    What is an "eap"?



    According to the article, NO clinical trials are presently underway for gynocological cancers. The NIH's funding decisions are not irrelevant.



    Not according to the scientists who are quoted in the article. It is 100% a lack of funding problem.



    When? Under Dubya? Reagan? Eisenhower?

    Jesus H. Christ. Take some responsibility for the failures of the Obama administration -- it was not Shan-gra-la. He was a C+ president at best.

    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.
    eap was supposed to be leap. Blaming Obama for where teh NIH sends dollars, and then claiming he is sexist is completely ridiuclous

    Under Bush is when the decline in funding started, and REpublicans had control of the budget for most of Obama's term. I don't need to take responsibility for Obama because he is not to blame, and I most certainly don't entertain your absurd notion that he is sexist because of it

    Your OP is garbage, expecting Obama to micromanage the NIH on top of all his other job duties. Go complain to who runs the NIH and who is responsible for which areas get funded

    And another thing, could it be that NIH reduced costs because private foundation grants were funding these areas? There are many of these that support issues facing women (we have an entire month of all sports wearing pink to raise awareness for breast cancer)
    Thanks from Friday13 and PACE

  10. #10
    Veteran Member Isalexi's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    33,356
    Thanks
    20778

    From
    Maryland
    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.
    And you're blaming obama for that? Oh come on!
    Thanks from Friday13, PACE and Dragonfly5

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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, 06:30 AM
  2. Obama must come clean on deadly Benghazi attack
    By nonsqtr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 24th November 2012, 02:24 AM
  3. Obama's Deadly Doctors
    By Blah in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 12th August 2009, 03:56 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed