<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How About a Pound of Prevention?</title>
	<link>http://thecheerfuloncologist.blogsome.com/2006/05/17/130/</link>
	<description>This blog has moved on to ScienceBlogs - come and check it out!</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 03:06:34 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Pony</title>
		<link>http://thecheerfuloncologist.blogsome.com/2006/05/17/130/#comment-2314</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 2006 06:24:23 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thecheerfuloncologist.blogsome.com/2006/05/17/130/#comment-2314</guid>
					<description>And why do cancer researchers not focus on why cancer occurs?

&quot;A firm alliance between the established cancer institutions and the chemical, pharmaceutical and nuclear industries has formed the medical-industrial complex … At its best, this complex provides better diagnosis, new treatments and first rate health-care facilities. At its worst, the medical-industrial complex blocks an all-embracing programme for preventing cancer … What is stopping us [from getting serious about prevention] is the almost suffocating hold the medical industrial complex retains over cancer policy, and the hugely powerful chemical industry's interest in protecting its products.
Professor Ross Hume Hall 'The Medical- Industrial Complex' pp62-68 The Ecologist Vol 28 no2 1998&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>And why do cancer researchers not focus on why cancer occurs?</p>
	<p>&#8220;A firm alliance between the established cancer institutions and the chemical, pharmaceutical and nuclear industries has formed the medical-industrial complex … At its best, this complex provides better diagnosis, new treatments and first rate health-care facilities. At its worst, the medical-industrial complex blocks an all-embracing programme for preventing cancer … What is stopping us [from getting serious about prevention] is the almost suffocating hold the medical industrial complex retains over cancer policy, and the hugely powerful chemical industry&#8217;s interest in protecting its products.<br />
Professor Ross Hume Hall &#8216;The Medical- Industrial Complex&#8217; pp62-68 The Ecologist Vol 28 no2 1998&#8243;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Pony</title>
		<link>http://thecheerfuloncologist.blogsome.com/2006/05/17/130/#comment-2313</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 2006 06:19:54 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thecheerfuloncologist.blogsome.com/2006/05/17/130/#comment-2313</guid>
					<description>Cancer is a disease that affects even people who do the right thing, so the &quot;cause&quot; (or fault, as this individual focus implies) is not going to be found by pointing fingers at the individual. Rather, the cancer industry must begin to acknowledge that the 5 per cent of funds raised--primarily by cancer sufferers and their families--which is slated to PREVENTION is ludicrously inadequate. Why does the cancer industry refuse to put it's focus on environmental carcinogens? 

&quot;The main error of the biomedical approach is the confusion between disease processes and disease origins. Instead of asking why an illness occurs, and trying to remove the conditions that lead to it, medical researchers try to understand the biological mechanisms through which the disease operates, so that they can interfere with them … These mechanisms, rather than the true origins, are seen as the causes of disease in current medical thinking and this confusion lies at the very centre of the conceptual problems of contemporary medicine.
Fritjof Capra 'The Turning Point – Science, Society and the Rising Culture' Simon &amp;amp; Schuster USA 1982 pp149-150&quot;{</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Cancer is a disease that affects even people who do the right thing, so the &#8220;cause&#8221; (or fault, as this individual focus implies) is not going to be found by pointing fingers at the individual. Rather, the cancer industry must begin to acknowledge that the 5 per cent of funds raised&#8211;primarily by cancer sufferers and their families&#8211;which is slated to PREVENTION is ludicrously inadequate. Why does the cancer industry refuse to put it&#8217;s focus on environmental carcinogens? </p>
	<p>&#8220;The main error of the biomedical approach is the confusion between disease processes and disease origins. Instead of asking why an illness occurs, and trying to remove the conditions that lead to it, medical researchers try to understand the biological mechanisms through which the disease operates, so that they can interfere with them … These mechanisms, rather than the true origins, are seen as the causes of disease in current medical thinking and this confusion lies at the very centre of the conceptual problems of contemporary medicine.<br />
Fritjof Capra &#8216;The Turning Point – Science, Society and the Rising Culture&#8217; Simon &amp; Schuster USA 1982 pp149-150&#8243;{
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: promenea</title>
		<link>http://thecheerfuloncologist.blogsome.com/2006/05/17/130/#comment-2255</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 May 2006 10:52:08 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thecheerfuloncologist.blogsome.com/2006/05/17/130/#comment-2255</guid>
					<description>And don't get me started on the reworked food pyramid! Bah</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>And don&#8217;t get me started on the reworked food pyramid! Bah
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
