Britain slumps to bottom of cancer survival tables (telegraph.co.uk) 22 points by RickJWagner 6y ago ↗ HN
[–] ptah 6y ago ↗ bottom of table for countries with universal healthcare is not that bad [–] jamasb 6y ago ↗ It absolutely is when you consider the strength of the research communities surrounding cancers and their treatments in the UK. [–] ptah 6y ago ↗ yes it should be better, but i would like to see a full comparison [–] Junk_Collector 6y ago ↗ Here is the actual study for your perusalhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147020451...Unfortunately, it only covers the 7 countries that funded the study, but it is much more in depth than the news article. [–] jbrooksuk 6y ago ↗ I’ve heard that “charities” such as Cancer Research UK are actually business who invest very little of their income to actual research, instead paying relatively a lot more for media and payroll? [–] tonyedgecombe 6y ago ↗ £545 million spent on research and £42 million on public information out of £672 million raised. So approx 13% spent on administration.
[–] jamasb 6y ago ↗ It absolutely is when you consider the strength of the research communities surrounding cancers and their treatments in the UK. [–] ptah 6y ago ↗ yes it should be better, but i would like to see a full comparison [–] Junk_Collector 6y ago ↗ Here is the actual study for your perusalhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147020451...Unfortunately, it only covers the 7 countries that funded the study, but it is much more in depth than the news article. [–] jbrooksuk 6y ago ↗ I’ve heard that “charities” such as Cancer Research UK are actually business who invest very little of their income to actual research, instead paying relatively a lot more for media and payroll? [–] tonyedgecombe 6y ago ↗ £545 million spent on research and £42 million on public information out of £672 million raised. So approx 13% spent on administration.
[–] ptah 6y ago ↗ yes it should be better, but i would like to see a full comparison [–] Junk_Collector 6y ago ↗ Here is the actual study for your perusalhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147020451...Unfortunately, it only covers the 7 countries that funded the study, but it is much more in depth than the news article.
[–] Junk_Collector 6y ago ↗ Here is the actual study for your perusalhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147020451...Unfortunately, it only covers the 7 countries that funded the study, but it is much more in depth than the news article.
[–] jbrooksuk 6y ago ↗ I’ve heard that “charities” such as Cancer Research UK are actually business who invest very little of their income to actual research, instead paying relatively a lot more for media and payroll? [–] tonyedgecombe 6y ago ↗ £545 million spent on research and £42 million on public information out of £672 million raised. So approx 13% spent on administration.
[–] tonyedgecombe 6y ago ↗ £545 million spent on research and £42 million on public information out of £672 million raised. So approx 13% spent on administration.
6 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 38.9 ms ] threadhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147020451...
Unfortunately, it only covers the 7 countries that funded the study, but it is much more in depth than the news article.