Why is it 'timely'? I've never understood the use of 'timely'.

Does it mean you read it just in time for your daily breast check, or that you were just looking for an article you agreed with about breast cancer, and it came along just in time? Or that you think you're smart and it's about time everyone heard how smart you are through a proxy article from someone people are more likely to listen to than you?

It is good to spread fear bearing no relation to the reality though...

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/the-fear-factor-20091126-js20.html

'You'd better watch out, Runner. Prostgate's sure to be just around the corner.'

Never! Men's health just really isn't very important. We men are strong anyway, and we don't need the nanny state telling us they want to stick their fingers in our arse. Besides, women are the special ones, I don't think it's appropriate to take away their attention or compromise the special importance of women's health, specially for women, by mentioning men's health. They're is only a certain amount of empathy and awareness to go around, and any cause that concentrates on women's beautiful breasts will beat the competition hands down.

Houellebecq

<< Why is it 'timely'? I've never understood the use of 'timely'.

Does it mean you read it just in time for your daily breast check, or that you were just looking for an article you agreed with about breast cancer, and it came along just in time? Or that you think you're smart and it's about time everyone heard how smart you are through a proxy article from someone people are more likely to listen to than you? >>

You understand perfectly well what 'timely' means, but of course any little opportunity to take a swipe is one not to be missed with you, we all accept that. :)

'Timely' for me is none of the above. In this instance, it refers to a current gap in public knowledge and a need to question the prevailing orthodoxy, both of which Helen is particularly good at addressing. You're perfectly free to accept the dominant imposed wisdom without question, but fortunately for the rest of us there are many well informed and free thinking individuals out there who prefer not to.

'You're perfectly free to accept the dominant imposed wisdom without question'

Where did I say that? Did you even get past my laughing at your timely response? Didn't you read my links! I'm going to go all Fractelle now and complain that nobody reads my links. Where is she by the way...

It's all very self-perpetuating. Special cause group raises awareness, get funds, more people get screened, statistics even more sensational to raise more awareness, more funds, and on and on it goes. To ever question any of these warm fuzzy causes brings on the full weight of the 'you don't care, how could you be so heartless' brigade. Quite often from people doing quite nicely out of it all thank you very much. If we can just save one woman...

If you cant raise enough awareness because your stats cant be fudged into being sensational enough, you can talk about the 'hidden' epidemic. 'under-reported'. The same tactics work for any number of special interests. Usually to do with women too (antiseptic made me put that bit in). But once you get the ball rolling, well, it's free sailing all the way.

'current gap in public knowledge'
I often find when people don't subscribe to my view of the world, there's a 'gap in public knowledge' too. We should raise more awareness I think.

Houellebecq

<< Didn't you read my links! I'm going to go all Fractelle now and complain that nobody reads my links. Where is she by the way... >>

Yes, I did read your link and agreed with a lot of the points it raised. I agree with its emphasis on the need for breast self awareness, but not on its unquestioning championing of the need for mammogram screening.

I too miss Fractelle, and fear from comments she made in some of her last posts that she may not be well at the moment, but hopefully she'll be back soon. This place is much the poorer without her.

<< It's all very self-perpetuating. Special cause group raises awareness, get funds, more people get screened, statistics even more sensational to raise more awareness, more funds, and on and on it goes. To ever question any of these warm fuzzy causes brings on the full weight of the 'you don't care, how could you be so heartless' brigade. Quite often from people doing quite nicely out of it all thank you very much. If we can just save one woman... >>

I'm wondering if you've missed the point in this discussion. The merry-go-round you've described here is exactly what people like Helen are critical of. Her argument and mine too is to forget all the fear mongering and the expensive technological 'fixes', apart from those with established family histories of course, and instead to focus on encouraging natural diets and reduced chemical exposure. Simple, cost effective and with wide ranging benefits for both community health and the environment.

Runner,

You just tell your mother, grandmother or wife that you don't think that their cancer is worth screening for. I'm sure your own is not. Let alone your pastor, whom I encourage to smoke two packets a day, or his wife, who I am absolutely certain gets every posible medical intervention money can buy, regardless of the odds. But then, of course, she is much more important than you, or your wife.

Do review the financial records of your "church" if mere armed force can get to them.

Rusty.