Death rates, funding, Hollywood etc.

[QC]

This may seem cold considering the Reeve's tragedies, but something has been bugging me for a few years. It seems that whenever anyone in Hollywood gets sick there is a whole bunch of new emphasis placed on that particular disease/affliction. Examples are Christopher Reeves with Quadriplegia and Michael J. Fox with Parkinson's.<br /><br />I did some quick research and have listed the sources. Here are the total death rates for a few key diseases in the US as close as I could get to 2003. All rates are per 100,000:<br /><br />#1 Heart Disease 235<br />#2 All Cancer 191<br />Lung Cancer 55<br />Parkinson's 6.2<br />AIDS 4.7<br /><br />The TOTAL rate (not death rate) of those that are actually paralysed from the neck down (Quadriplegia) is 2<br /><br />Annual federal Funding for Heart Disease - $1.9 Billion<br />Annual federal funding for AIDS - $2.5 Billion<br /><br />It is hard to draw any complete conclusions as the data is sketchy on funding, but the AIDS to Heart disease example points to the problem I believe exists. If it's popular with Hollywood, you get more money, not if there is an opportunity to help more people. Thoughts?<br /><br />BTW, before anybody brands me in any way. I did volunteer work as a 16 year old for a Quadriplegic once a week to give his state funded worker a day off. I learned a lot, and not just cool stuff like making his wheelchair faster AND it didn't even occur to me to have AIDS in this discussion until I looked into the funding rates, so this is not a homophobia thing. Also, I have a very healthy family situation, so again, no hidden agenda.<br /><br />I was intrigued about how much attention stem cell and Christopher Reeve's received and how little his wife's lung cancer did. FWIW, it appears that 20% of lung cancer cases are found in those who have never smoked. That would make it still rank higher than Parkinson's.<br /><br />If any of this hits too close to home, I apologize in advance.<br /><br /> US Spinal Cord Injury stats <br /><br /> US Death Rates <br /><br /> Cancer Statistics <br /><br /> AIDS

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Death rates, funding, Hollywood etc.

The politics of medicine. It is sad.

 

[JB]

Re: Death rates, funding, Hollywood etc.

Celebrities are wheels ("big"). When they squeak. . . .well, you get the picture.

 

[PW2]

Re: Death rates, funding, Hollywood etc.

The world isn't exactly fair, and all people are not created precisely equal!<br /><br />!!!STOP THE PRESSES!!!! We have a scoop!

 

[tylerin]

Re: Death rates, funding, Hollywood etc.

Just look at the money they spend on fake B BS

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Death rates, funding, Hollywood etc.

Well, I for one support all the money spent on fake b bs!<br /><br />I agree with what you're saying, QC. Is there anything you think can be done about it?

 

[QC]

Re: Death rates, funding, Hollywood etc.

Unlike PW, I think talking about it is the first step . . .<br /><br />While I was poking around on this I found a link to a Dentist who was proposing that federal funding should be apportioned based on current mortality rates. Considering how much private money Americans donate to their favorite causes, this might be a good first step. It would not limit what others feel should be getting their individual dollars.<br /><br />A good portion of the California b b money finds its way to Havasu . . .

 

[CJY]

Re: Death rates, funding, Hollywood etc.

It comes down to endorsements by celebrities, as mentioned above. Celebrities endorse consumer products, and they sell. Politicians try to get celebrities to endorse their campaigns as well. <br /><br />Bottom line is not so much the celebrity getting attention from our Gov. when they speak. Mainstream America gives it to them, therefore, everybody wants them on their side.

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: Death rates, funding, Hollywood etc.

Boy, that wild-a$$ed concept would leave many out in the cold. No one ever dies from arthritis, but it is an insidious, excruciatingly painful disease.

 

[brine]

Re: Death rates, funding, Hollywood etc.

Follow the money, endorsemnts work wonders.

 

[QC]

Re: Death rates, funding, Hollywood etc.

Good point BoatBuoy . . . sumpin' doesn't seem quite right though. Sure wish that Hollywood would think a little less selfishly about the power we give them . . .<br /><br />I like ranking and prioritizing this kinda stuff (can't do it for work or my own issues). I know if I hit the lottery and had bazillions I wouldn't send any to PETA. I think I would start with stuff that afflicts children and move down from there. That's how I feel about the spinal cord stuff and Parkinson's for that matter. There is a lot more suffering and pain going on elsewhere (arthritis too), and you could argue that all of the focus Reeve's put on stem cell stuff could've been spent on lung cancer . . .

 

[tommays]

Re: Death rates, funding, Hollywood etc.

IMHP Reeve is hands off and Michael J. Fox sets a pretty darn good example also unlike many famous people like ROCK stars who still have "problems" and get organ transplants<br /><br />After his accident he was a TRUE HERO who i would want my children to look up to!<br /><br />I think you only need to look at how many sports have LARGE wheelchair events to realize how many peoples lives could be made better.<br /><br /><br />tommays

 

[QC]

Re: Death rates, funding, Hollywood etc.

tommays,<br /><br />I agree that the two of them were/are classy guys and do not fit the typical Hollywood mold. That was not my point. The point was only that there are real statistics that should guide where we put our emphasis. I left out paraplegics as I was focusing more on death rates when I was looking at the stats. Goes to show that this is not an easy subject; nor is it an easy task to sort it out . . .

 

[rolmops]

Re: Death rates, funding, Hollywood etc.

I see your point,yet in a way you are guilty of the same thing by not looking beyond our borders.<br />Did you know that millions people die in africa every year because of malaria?<br />But seriously.Your point is taken but it is also a bit mistaken.The rarer the affliction,the more attention it needs in order to get a solution.The more common the illness the more funds it receives, simply because there is a lot of money to made,just because of the sheer numbers of client/patients.

 

[QC]

Re: Death rates, funding, Hollywood etc.

rolmops,<br /><br />Yes, I do know about the Malaria deaths and the biggest reason is a lack of DDT . . .<br /><br />What you are saying is that free enterprise will work out the big stuff and leave the public funds for the smaller, especially worthy diseases. I am not being facetious, that is the way they treat grants in my business. Newer, rarer, cleaner, vehicle fuel; give it tax breaks and development funding to spur investment as the market takes care of the big stuff i.e. petroleum. There is a flaw there though in the time issue. If business sees this as 20+ years out, I am not sure how much if anything that they will put into it. We will invest in natural gas technology, because we see it. We won't touch Hydrogen unless somebody else is paying for it.<br /><br />There is an awful lot of complexity and the most obvious omission is worldwide AIDs deaths vs. US funding, as I have the $ shown. So then, should we be the world's doctor? If so, on moral grounds, help those most in need? Globally, no matter the situation here? All, tough decisions. <br /><br />Interesting, and I wasn't even close to going there, but it sounds a little like the responsibilities of the world's policeman . . .