Jump to content

An Activism Letter to Oprah - WARNING - May Upset Some

Guest bean_si (Not Active)

Recommended Posts


Becky is now 35 and her son is 12, not 7. She was 34 on diagnosis and her son was weeks shy of his 11th birthday.

You listed three of us (Lisa, Heather, Becky) and referred to "both"...

I think the website is now simply lchelp.com, no "www."

Other than that, fine.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just sent something to Ophrah through her website.

I told my "story", told some of the facts about LC, mentioned that I was 33 at diagnoses, non-smoker, had a small child.......also mentioned the very little funding/activism......mentioned my benefit walk and the walk in Chicago (Since they tape in Chicago, I thought that might catch their attention).

Every baby step counts....eventually we will make it up the mountain!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Cat,

I did smoke a day in my life - in college... not enough to constitute a "significant smoking history" (ie. nonsmoking room mate nonsmoking classrooms, nonsmoking dormhalls...) but I can't claim that I never smoked "a day in my life".

Although my BAC is not related to my smoking history, I am still uncomfortable with the assumption that tobacco related cancers are somehow less entitled to research money and cure. Therefore, you should probably use Heather and Becky for that story line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK -- the bubble comment made me laugh out loud.

I know that this is a serious issue, but isn't this ridiculous???

It really has gotten to the point that in order to get over the stigma and "blame game" that we truly would have to find someone raised in a bubble, diagnosed w/ LC before the general public would feel sorry and rally for the cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My oncologist told me that my cancer is not smoking related. The only cigarette smoke I've been "privy" to is secondhand...there's yet another issue, non-smokers that go to venues with heavy smoke like concerts and watering holes and (for crying out loud) demolition derbies...

...and there's the "radon" issue...

...and MY question (since I know PERSONALLY that not just smokers get lung cancer) is how many of the smokers/prior smokers on the board have lung cancer that has not a flippin' thing to do with the fact that they smoked? OBVIOUSLY, had I smoked or NOT smoked, I'd be here - so how many of those that smoke and are beating themselves up would be here if they had never lit up? Hmmmm....methinks some of ya'll would still be here, just not kicking yourself so hard...

ANYHOW, for those of you that answer "yes" to the smoking question, you never have heard the SECOND question "Did someone in your house smoke?" See, if I didn't cause myself to have this disease, it is obviously the fault of someone close to me...and that would be the answer that would have people closing their minds to lung cancer since mine was "caused by someone else's smoking" - whether that is the truth or not...

Ya know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Becky's approach. I was a smoker. I also grew up in a house where my parents smoked (No one knew back then), I worked in smoked filled restauants & watering holes until I was 22, I worked on tugboats for 3 years smelling diesel fumes. Soooo, What actually caused my cancer??

It must have been the self-inflicted smoking as most people assume.

Even before I had cancer I thought it odd that you hardly saw adds for lung cancer. Plenty for breast cancer though. I am not putting that fact down but it is time for us to have our chance in the spotlight.

Enough for now, I'll get to wound up. LOL.

Just saw a different post where I said about the same thing. I did warn you all about my short term memory loss. I thought this sounded familiar when I wrote it!!!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't there just a study posted somewhere that talked about LC Genes?

That if you had this particular "gene", you would be more prone to getting lung cancer than others -- and non-smokers with this gene would be more likely to get it from merely being around second hand smoke? And it also explained why some smokers could be 3 pack a dayers for 50 years and be fine while someone else could be a social smoker and get slammed.

Smoking apparently doesn't CAUSE the cancer....it just acts as a catylist to trigger the gene?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cat, just now noticed you changed the original post. I just want you to know one thing: The fact that I disagreed with focusing on non-smoking women does not mean I don't support you: I do! Lots of people do. Activism is tough work, you know that. It usually means support of something controversial.

I guess I want you to know one other thing: I care about you a ton!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.