(Ann Fonfa attended this event along with about 45 other advocates and about 25 scientists. The symbol used in the title is supposed to go from one group to the other. For some odd reason our current site system will not show the second '<' sorry). Here is her report: Sponsored by the American Association for Cancer Researchers, it brought people together and gave a forum for open discussion of cancer issues. Most of the meeting was in the form of a training program in basic cancer biology. As I trained with the National Breast Cancer Coalition's Project LEAD (written about on this site), I had a strong knowledge base compared with other advocates. In general those with breast cancer backgrounds are more grounded in the science. I have attended more than 100 scientific meetings in the last twelve years of my advocacy work. One of the best things about this meeting was the opportunity to ask many questions and to follow-up on the answers. It has been exceedingly frustrating asking questions at ordinary meetings since there is no way to respond when the answer is not informative or avoids the issue. At lunchtime we could choose the table we wanted to sit at according to the topic to be discussed over lunch. Signs let us know what was happening at each location. That worked out well as each group of about ten people could concentrate on really deep discussions. Dinner was also an occasion to speak with any advocate or scientist. There were international advocates - a terrific woman from India, Anita Peters and others - as well as people representing many cancer groups in the U.S. One of the themes that emerged was the idea that less attention should be given to 'body parts' and more to cancer as a whole. This is of course, a direct hit against the strong breast cancer advocacy movement. The breast cancer advocacy movement which crystallized nationwide with the advent of the National Breast Cancer Coalition whose mission is to 'eradicate breast cancer', has focused on research dollars and attention on breast cancer issues solely. Over the years I have heard advocates from other disease 'areas' comment on this single-mindeness. The strategy was successful in terms of focusing attention on breast cancer, but had several unintended results such as too much fear of breast cancer compared to other possible health challenges - misinterpreting an individual's risk (among others). But it has certainly NOT resulted in much better results for prevention, treatment or eradication than with other cancers. Networking opportunities abounded as mentioned. For the Annie Appleseed Project this was a great place to meet people from so many different areas. Since our work is devoted to complementary/alternative approaches to all cancer issues, it worked well. I handed out brochures to everyone and tried to chat them up as well. Lots of groups already link to our site and this is beneficial for everyone. The AACR folks, Gwen Darien (former editor of MAMM Magazine) and her staff made sure that the most important movers and shakers from AACR were present for at least part of the meeting. I really appreciated the effort that the various scientists put into trying to respond to all questions. The information in each talk was really useful. It was a lot to take in but there were handouts for most talks. All in all it was very much worth the time to participate. June 11-15, 2005 North Bethesda, MD Remember we are NOT Doctors and have NO medical training. This site is like an Encylopedia - there are many pages, many links on many topics. Support our work with any size DONATION - see left side of any page - for how to donate. You can help raise awareness of CAM.