Celebrity deaths and cancer

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[sc0tt]

Cancer = money maker?

Not sure I get that.

Maybe because they are just normal people at the end of the day and their families don't want to say.

[drivin_me_nuts]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I don;t think it's about shame. I think it's more to do with privacy and a deeper sense of intimacy.

[Jasandjules]

I believe they are quite entitled to keep such things private.

[devnull]

sc0tt said:

Cancer = money maker?

Not sure I get that.

I would say it could be. Charities might be called charities, but are very much businesses out to make profits, they just don't call them that. They have to afford 6 or 7 figure salaries for their executives somehow and that fancy branding, tv ads and googie bags they give you don't come form thin air. Charities can be some of the most corrupt organisations and lots deem themselves as untouchable. Having worked with them over a number of years, ive seen a few instaces where they effectively blackmail organisations into doing something for them or at a cheaper rate.

[briangriffin]

I have seen people question why no member of the royal family seems to have had it, suspicious or just good genetics?

[thatsprettyshady]

briangriffin said:

I have seen people question why no member of the royal family seems to have had it, suspicious or just good genetics?

Not that we know of.

[Ste1987]

thatsprettyshady said:

briangriffin said:

I have seen people question why no member of the royal family seems to have had it, suspicious or just good genetics?

Not that we know of.

Why does that even matter? I'd say good genetics.

[drivin_me_nuts]

Ste1987 said:

thatsprettyshady said:

briangriffin said:

I have seen people question why no member of the royal family seems to have had it, suspicious or just good genetics?

Not that we know of.

Why does that even matter? I'd say good genetics.

And luck. cancer is life's lottery. 30% win rate, or lose rate... Depending on your perspective.

[ralphrj]

briangriffin said:

I have seen people question why no member of the royal family seems to have had it, suspicious or just good genetics?

King George VI had lung cancer and had his left lung removed.

Princess Margaret also had part of her left lung removed but it was never confirmed that she had cancer.

[zeb]

Jasandjules said:

I believe they are quite entitled to keep such things private.

such a balanced and correct point of view is indeed a rare thing on pistonheads these days.

I concur, why someone else's trauma should be public property is beyond me.....

[bayleaf]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Awful post.
Why do you feel entitled to know?

[Alex@POD]

They invent/discover a new type of cancer every week now, or so it seems. And more and more stuff "gives you cancer". I really feel that cancer is a generic disease that kills a lot of people, usually towards the end of their life. We're making progress towards curing it and making life better for those who have it, and that's great, but as long as someone is old enough, it's just a cause of death.

To me it's enough to know someone passed away.

[Jasandjules]

briangriffin said:

I have seen people question why no member of the royal family seems to have had it, suspicious or just good genetics?

I would suspect that a lot of the things which potentially cause cancer are avoided by them..

[FredClogs]

Pancreatic cancer is very strongly associated with booze, that may be one reason why that particular cancer is often treated with taboo. Likewise if you had arse cancer (I'm no doctor excuse my anatomical ignorance) or cancer in your dick or something perhaps you'd wish to save the world the associated mental imaginary and though process?

[ClaphamGT3]

briangriffin said:

I have seen people question why no member of the royal family seems to have had it, suspicious or just good genetics?

Apart from King George VI, the Duke of Windsor, Princess Margaret and Sir Angus Ogilvie....

[EagleMoto4-2]

FredClogs said:

Likewise if you had arse cancer (I'm no doctor excuse my anatomical ignorance)

The anatomical term would be rectal.

[J4CKO]

Who says the royal family have "good genetics", maybe it is having chefs, no money worries, personal doctors and a bit of luck, Prince William has gone bald, I havent, do I have better than royal genetics ?

Might be that the upper classes are alien in origin of course.....

[davek_964]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You would have to have been living the last <big number> of years living on the moon to be unaware that cancer kills plenty of people. If that is an incentive for someone to donate to a cancer charity then all well and good, but I really don't think the news telling us that <celebrity X> died of this specific cancer, which ate it's way through some random part of his body causing these horrible symptoms - would make any difference whatsoever.

The entire suggestion is barely one step beyond stopping at a RTA to see exactly how crashing a car kills you.

[drivin_me_nuts]

anonymous said:

[redacted]