newsobserver.com projects - cancer - Comments

Re: Price's military earmarks: $88m

manamongst — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:36:04 -0400

These days and times are a changin and it damn well better reflect those times...meaning...no big clunky weaponry, not aircraft...unless there is a new nano recon fly that can go anywhere and listen in on any convo. So basically there better be infrastructure, base and support money there and that's about it. Nothing for contractors I'm sorry. This is the place we will cut spending people....do not let them slide this by you. They simply wanna do their favors in the shadows so they can cruise off of industrial complex contributions.

Walter Jones bought crack before crack was illegal

Gosh — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:18:58 -0400

In January, Jones renewed a "No New Earmarks" pledge, so all of his requests are for appropriations that have been funded before, a spokeswoman explained.

Obviously, there's not a thing wrong with Jones' requests on behalf of his taxpaying constituents...except his apology for doing his job.

Re: Watt sought $180m in earmarks

Hillwalker — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:22:30 -0400

"* Widen Interstate 85 in Davidson and Rowan counties, $10 million."

A worthy use of Federal funding given that stretch of interstate has become a major bottleneck. And, after redistricting in 2012, could increase the size of his district in those counties since it is only the width of the Interstate through that part of the state.

Re: Price requested $265m in earmarks

Modeen_Gunch — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:58:34 -0400

Managed Beavers? How much do we pay a good Beaver to be a Manager?

Re: Price requested $265m in earmarks

tangoz — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:51:59 -0400

$3 million for WIKI system? Now I know why people do not wonder how we are in debt soon to be NINE TRILLION dollars!

Re: Price requested $265m in earmarks

RonB — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:47:20 -0400

From a lot of other posts and posters on this site who lack reading comprehension skills, I don't know if $28 million will be enough for Reading is Fundamental.

Re: Price requested $265m in earmarks

ryanteaguebeckwith — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:36:59 -0400

Don't make me regret transparency.

— RTB

Re: Price requested $265m in earmarks

gercohen — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:27:35 -0400

is she getting a free leased car? Does she know what a lease is?

Re: Price requested $265m in earmarks

ryanteaguebeckwith — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:08:58 -0400

Full disclosure: Mrs. Dome is consulting for RIF.

— RTB

Re: Not a partisan issue?

SStahl — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:45:06 -0400

In recent years lung cancer specialists have complained that due to stigma resulting from the association of the disease with smoking, theirs is a neglected field.
-- Bulletin of the History of Medicine (vol. 81, No. 1, Spring 2007, pp. 312-334) As Depressing as It Was Predictable? Lung Cancer, Clinical Trials, and the Medical Research Council in Postwar Britain,

So much for "expertise". If Rep. Pearl Burris-Floyd were truly an "expert", then she would be familiar with the largest, long-term studies ever done on the matter, such as the two studies done by the World Health Organization, the Enstrom/Kabat study, Wu-Williams....and on and on. Not one of these studies showed a statistically significant positive correlation between "smokers' diseases" and exposure to secondhand smoke, but some do show statistically significant NEGATIVE correlations! Is she were truly an "expert", then she would know that even antismokers now refrain from mentioning the old EPA report because it has been so toroughly exposed as junk science. She would also know that the "landmark" 2006 SG report merely resurrected the old EPA junk science--in fact, the SG who published that report resigned shortly after it came out. (The serious problems with that report are too numerous to mention here.) If she were truly an expert, then she would know that the above quote from a medical journal is not unique and relects the TRUE reason that lung cancer has not been eliminated since her graduation. One wonders what exactly is being taught to "experts" at Rep. Pearl Burris-Floyd. Or, is the News&Observer saying that Rep. Pearl Burris-Floyd is an expert in health scare propaganda rather than is actual health science?

I used to enjoy reading my morning paper with a cup of coffee and a cigarette. Reading news on the internet could never compare with that experience. Alas, printing tripe like this, is it any wonder newspapers are going out of circulation these days? It's one good way to lose formerly regular readers.

It would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to [smoke in the air].
-- former British Chief Medical Officer Sir George Godber at a World Health Organization conference in 1975 (This date is NOT a typo)

Re: Not a partisan issue?

vraptor — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 03:29:33 -0400

Second hand smoke is a real danger. Parents who smoke in front of their un willing children infecting their children's lungs should be prosecuted.

At 48, I remember air line flights that had smoking and non smoking sections. Barf. I remember sitting in the last row of non smoking and getting hit by smokers smoke........

Plus the only smoking sections at airport are the bars. So I have to suffer to get a beer before my flight. That has to change........

No more.....

Re: Elizabeth Edwards backs cancer bill

DrActualFactual — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:18:10 -0400

OvaSure is an early-detection test that was being used to help save the lives of women (the collective WE I was referring to). The FDA reviewed it and pulled it out for more review as they deemed it to be a "medical device." How they scrutinize it is obviously up to them. My point was it is a shame that huge discoveries are made and ditched for whatever reasons and in this case women will die because of it. Google OvaSure and you will see the history. I am not involved in any way, shape or form with OvaSure--just think it is a waste/shame it is not available for use anymore. Someday it will probably be available again, when they can get around to finishing their analysis. Meantime, more women will die. The N&O article mentioned early detection--OvaSure falls into that category. The work Ms. Edwards is doing to encourage cancer research is worthy of praise. She is a courageous woman and she will be greatly blessed for her humanity toward mankind.

Re: Elizabeth Edwards backs cancer bill

robdarich — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:27:21 -0400

Dr. Stupid, you're not suggesting the FDA can be influenced, right? "Mr. and Mrs. Edwards: We could sure use your help in getting the OvaSure early detection test/medical device pushed thru the FDA."

"We"? If you are involved with a new drug application, wouldn't your plea for non-scientific assistance be a cause for concern? (read: I'm concerned)

Re: Elizabeth Edwards backs cancer bill

mamalisa1967 — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:35:18 -0400

u are a sicko Debrah

Re: Elizabeth Edwards backs cancer bill

mamalisa1967 — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:32:42 -0400

As the wife of a lung cancer patient... I can tell you 1st hand what hell it is to live with cancer....the radiation ( which burns your body inside & out) the chemo ( which causes SEVERE nausea...& hair loss & loss of appetite.....which leads to weight loss.) NOT to mention the financial burdens cancer causes...... & IF the treatments DON'T work....the ultimate sacrifice is one's life....leaving loved ones to pick up the shattered pieces of their loves & find a way to go on.