20 replies to this topic

[fellowtraveller]

Pink Ribbons Inc is a new documentary movie about the marketing of breast cancer awareness and fundraising. The corporate branding of this disease is a multi billion dollar industry involving hundreds of corporations, millions of women findraising and a lot of very sick people.
It is a complex and really disturbing relatuionship between them all, and this movie pulls no punches in examining it. They had some sobering numbers: in the 1940s one in 22 women would have breast cancer in her lifetime, today it is one in eight.
The movie has a lot of very smart, accomplished and articulate women pointing out some disturbing things about the corporatization of a serious health issue, and wonders why so little money is spent on finding a cause and a cure, and so much on corporate involvement in treatment and promotion of the pink ribbons brand. There is a lot of money involved, and a lot of profit made.

Interesting stuff. In theaters now.

The film depicts an alarming disconnect between the overwhelming corporate and social success of the pink ribbon campaign and the fact that the filmmakers determined only 15 per cent of monies raised go to research prevention, and five per cent to research environmental causes of breast cancer.

In North America, over 59,000 women die a year of the disease; over half of the women who get breast cancer don’t have the usual risk factors."You have to look at plain hypocrisy in a society where cosmetics companies are a huge player in cause-marketing and breast cancer but they are not being transparent about their ingredients," says producer Ravida Din.

What shocked her most, though, was the fact that October Breast Cancer Awareness month was started by a chemical company "which still controls all the publications around the month," she said in a phone interview.

(Imperial Chemical Industries — now AstraZeneca — producers of the breast cancer drug tamoxifen and pesticides, initiated the month with the American Cancer Foundation.)

and so on.
one of many links available

[eyeball]

in the 1940s one in 22 women would have breast cancer in her lifetime, today it is one in eight.

One too many around here I'm afraid. It's getting a little creepy the number of people I know who've been embarking on these and similar journeys.

It seems to my wife and I that more like 85% should be going towards researching the causes of cancer and how to avoid them.

It'll be interesting to see what sort of impact this documentary will have.

[Michael Hardner]

American Cancer Society 65% to program services.

[fellowtraveller]

One too many around here I'm afraid. It's getting a little creepy the number of people I know who've been embarking on these and similar journeys.

It seems to my wife and I that more like 85% should be going towards researching the causes of cancer and how to avoid them.

It'll be interesting to see what sort of impact this documentary will have.

The CEO of the big US breast cancer fundraiser- Komen- has had a dustup with Planned Parenthood in the last few days. She is also featured in this movie and does not come off well at all, and her organization even worse. Many scenes of huge corproate presence at breast cancer fundraisers from comapnies like Avon, Revlon , Estee Lauder and many others, all selling hard to captive groups of women. Then the camera switchesd to lists of the carcinogenic compounds found in many womens cosmetics, all produced by the breast cancer sponsors. Shocking stuff.
She may not survive this storm of controversy.
Very little money going into finding a cause, finding a cure, lots of money into drug therapies that really only extend lives for a short term. Guess who profits from that? Hint- it is not women.
The marchers have no idea what is actually happening at the carefully scripted marches.

[GostHacked]

Why do we rarely if ever hear about cancer prevention?

[waldo]

Why do we rarely if ever hear about cancer prevention?

is it cause... healthy living doesn't sell?

[eyeball]

is it cause... healthy living doesn't sell?

Why do we rarely if ever hear about cancer prevention?

I'm not quite ready to conclude the raison d'etre of the cancer society or medical profession is similar to that of the military-industrial complex. Perhaps it's like making the effort to prevent AGW. We'd probably have to shut down half our industrial practise and would kill our economy so all we can do is suck it up and hope you dodge the bullet.

That said, of all the things I'm coming to fear the most in the world it's how the opacity inherent in so many of our most important institutions is eating away at people's capacity to trust like a cancer. I think mistrust and fear will probably finish off our economy even faster.

[dre]

is it cause... healthy living doesn't sell?

More likely its because they dont want to have to stop using all the chemicals, and materials, and practices that cause cancer.

[Shady]

Why do we rarely if ever hear about cancer prevention?

Other than eating healthy, exercise and not smoking, what else is there?

[fellowtraveller]

Why do we rarely if ever hear about cancer prevention?

That is a central question of the movie, ,more or less.
The answer is not pleasant to contemplate, since it effectively involves a big lie to the millions who have given time and money for a 'cure'.
Cancer prevention presumes knowing a cause, and very little of the billions raised has gone to finding a cause or cure. The reason is that focusing on treatment means that billions are spent on drugs that extend life a bit, very little is spent on anything that might upset that gravy train. The makers of Tamoxifen have no interest in anything that curbs use of their drug, which does not cure cancer. And the people who can change that focus with funding are not doing it. Nobody coordinates research either. It is more than a mess, it is a disgrace.

[fellowtraveller]

Other than eating healthy, exercise and not smoking, what else is there?

None of those things prevent breast cancer. The #1 predisposing factor for getting breast cancer is the presence of estrogen, or more simply put: being a woman.

[waldo]

None of those things prevent breast cancer. The #1 predisposing factor for getting breast cancer is the presence of estrogen, or more simply put: being a woman.

the response you replied directly to and the earlier like response were provided in regards to a generic reference to cancer, at large. In regards any cancer, prevention reflects upon increasing protective factors that may reduce the risk of getting a particular cancer... and avoiding risk factors which may increase the risk of getting a particular cancer.

specific to breast cancer, in terms of the earlier broad based reference to "healthy living", exercise has been shown to possibly decrease hormone levels and help lower breast cancer risk..... obesity has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women who have not used hormone replacement therapy..... drinking alcohol has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer, proportional to the amount of alcohol consumed..... diet continues to be studied for risk considerations.

[fellowtraveller]

the response you replied directly to and the earlier like response were provided in regards to a generic reference to cancer, at large. In regards any cancer, prevention reflects upon increasing protective factors that may reduce the risk of getting a particular cancer... and avoiding risk factors which may increase the risk of getting a particular cancer.

specific to breast cancer, in terms of the earlier broad based reference to "healthy living", exercise has been shown to possibly decrease hormone levels and help lower breast cancer risk..... obesity has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women who have not used hormone replacement therapy..... drinking alcohol has been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer, proportional to the amount of alcohol consumed..... diet continues to be studied for risk considerations.

Go to the movie and then tell us if you still think your last paragraph has any meaning in the context of the funds spent, any meaning at all. The research on causes and cures is totally disjointed, undirected and minimal in comparison to the money spent on other things, things that do not really benefit anybody but corporate share value.

The risk factors you mention are vague and ill defined when compared to the one overwhelming risk factor: the presence of estrogen, being a woman. That is really about as far as science has gotten in decades, other than the life extending old strategies of surgery, radioation and chemo.

It is not nearly good enouigh, there is something very rotten at the core of the breast cancer fundraising industry.

One in 8.

[The_Squid]

Other than eating healthy, exercise and not smoking, what else is there?

avoiding other carcinogens like the chemicals used in a lot of make-up products. Even the ones with little pink ribbons contain carinogenic compounds. Ironic, no?

[GostHacked]

avoiding other carcinogens like the chemicals used in a lot of make-up products. Even the ones with little pink ribbons contain carinogenic compounds. Ironic, no?

There are many chemicals in products we use, products we consume, products we smoke. We live in a very toxic environment if the rate of cancers are on the rise, from some studies, it's expected to jump 30% in the next decade.

Once you tally up all the different sources of carcinogenics that we have in many of our products in our modern society, it's a wonder we are still alive at all.