<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"Each October the ribbons return, the fund-raisers reboot, and newspaper headlines everywhere become overwhelmingly breast-centric. So you couldn&amp;amp;#8217;t be blamed for thinking you know everything there is to know about breast cancer, end of story, turn the page. Except you don&amp;amp;#8217;t&amp;amp;#8212;and neither do most Americans, say some of the issue&amp;amp;#8217;s most passionate crusaders. &amp;amp;#8220;We&amp;amp;#8217;ve been marching and preaching early detection for decades, but the numbers haven&amp;amp;#8217;t really changed,&amp;amp;#8221; says Susan Love, M.D., a former breast surgeon and president of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation. &amp;amp;#8220;One in eight women is still diagnosed; 108 die every day. To change those stats, we have to move our awareness forward.&amp;amp;#8221; Can we wage a better, smarter war on breast cancer? Absolutely. But first we have to face these startling truths.Photo: Georgia Nerheim We&amp;amp;#8217;renot trying hard enough to end breast cancer. Millions of dollars&amp;amp;#8212;from 30 government agencies; hundreds of universities, drug companies, and non-profits; and thousands of grassroots walks and ribbon sales&amp;amp;#8212;are poured into investigating breast cancer every year. But what most Americans don&amp;amp;#8217;t realize is this: The majority of the funding goes to science aimed at treating the disease once a woman has it rather than finding ways to keep her from getting it in the first place. Of the $631 million the National Cancer Institute (NCI) invested in breast cancer research in 2010, for example, a measly 5 percent went to prevention efforts. When you look at how funds are generally divvied up, research devoted to eradicating the disease is, as one expert put it, &amp;amp;#8220;a tiny, diet-sized slice of the pie.&amp;amp;#8221; This isn&amp;amp;#8217;t how it was supposed to be. Back in 1971, when President Nixon signed the &amp;amp;#8220;war on cancer&amp;amp;#8221; act, the goal was eradicating cancer&amp;amp;#8212;that is, making the disease the polio or smallpox of its time. Over the years, though, that changed. &amp;amp;#8220;Women got sick, so we shifted our efforts to treating breast cancer,&amp;amp;#8221; says Margaret I. Cuomo, M.D., a diagnostic radiologist in New York and author of A World Without Cancer. And no one is happy with our recent progress, even in that area: While mortality rates plummeted in the 1990s, when mammograms first became widely used, they&amp;amp;#8217;ve declined less than 3 percent a year since then. &amp;amp;#8220;Treatment today is not much different from years ago&amp;amp;#8212;surgery, chemo, and radiation,&amp;amp;#8221; says Dr. Cuomo. &amp;amp;#8220;Outcomes haven&amp;amp;#8217;t drastically improved. We should be putting more dollars toward preventing breast cancer.&amp;amp;#8221; All the experts Glamour spoke with emphatically agree. So why on earth doesn&amp;amp;#8217;t research for a vaccine (see "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/2012/09/7-things-no-one-ever-tells-you-about-breast-cancer-glamour-october-2012/1>