fellowtraveller Posted February 6, 2012 Report Posted February 6, 2012 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 Quote The government should do something.
eyeball Posted February 6, 2012 Report Posted February 6, 2012 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. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Michael Hardner Posted February 6, 2012 Report Posted February 6, 2012 American Cancer Society 65% to program services. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
fellowtraveller Posted February 6, 2012 Author Report Posted February 6, 2012 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. Quote The government should do something.
GostHacked Posted February 6, 2012 Report Posted February 6, 2012 Why do we rarely if ever hear about cancer prevention? Quote
waldo Posted February 6, 2012 Report Posted February 6, 2012 Why do we rarely if ever hear about cancer prevention? is it cause... healthy living doesn't sell? Quote
eyeball Posted February 6, 2012 Report Posted February 6, 2012 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. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
dre Posted February 7, 2012 Report Posted February 7, 2012 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. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Shady Posted February 7, 2012 Report Posted February 7, 2012 Why do we rarely if ever hear about cancer prevention? Other than eating healthy, exercise and not smoking, what else is there? Quote
fellowtraveller Posted February 7, 2012 Author Report Posted February 7, 2012 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. Quote The government should do something.
fellowtraveller Posted February 7, 2012 Author Report Posted February 7, 2012 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. Quote The government should do something.
waldo Posted February 7, 2012 Report Posted February 7, 2012 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. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted February 7, 2012 Author Report Posted February 7, 2012 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. Quote The government should do something.
The_Squid Posted February 7, 2012 Report Posted February 7, 2012 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? Quote
GostHacked Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 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. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted February 21, 2012 Author Report Posted February 21, 2012 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. The point The Squid is making is the same as one point in the movie: the very people who are major sponsors of the breast cancer fundrasing industry are the same companies who use known carcinogens in their products. Quote The government should do something.
GostHacked Posted February 21, 2012 Report Posted February 21, 2012 The point The Squid is making is the same as one point in the movie: the very people who are major sponsors of the breast cancer fundrasing industry are the same companies who use known carcinogens in their products. I am quite aware of that bit of hypocracy. That kind of hypocracy is also in the food industry. Touting the benefits of diet soft drinks with subtances like aspartame, which will help you lose weight, ... in the end it actually makes you more fat than regular soft drinks. It's turned into an industry it seems for cancer. Someone has to pay for these high priced fancy gala fundraising meetings. If most of the fundrasing money goes to pay for the process of fundraising, then there is a problem. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted February 21, 2012 Author Report Posted February 21, 2012 It's turned into an industry it seems for cancerIf only that were true, that all money went toward finsing causes and cures. Quote The government should do something.
GostHacked Posted February 22, 2012 Report Posted February 22, 2012 If only that were true, that all money went toward finsing causes and cures. No one makes money when you are healthy. If a hospital is privatized, is profit a goal, or is helping people a goal? A doctor's salary can range in the 6 figures, an operation can also cost 6 figures. How does one expect to ever pay that off? Well at least you got your health........ Quote
fellowtraveller Posted February 22, 2012 Author Report Posted February 22, 2012 No one makes money when you are healthy. If a hospital is privatized, is profit a goal, or is helping people a goal? A doctor's salary can range in the 6 figures, an operation can also cost 6 figures. How does one expect to ever pay that off? Well at least you got your health........ I don't get your point. There are no multibillion fundraising industries for healhty people, who would donate? Quote The government should do something.
GostHacked Posted February 22, 2012 Report Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) I don't get your point. There are no multibillion fundraising industries for healhty people, who would donate? There would be no need if people were healthy and we lived in an environment that promotes heathly living. What exactly is your confusion? If people are always sick, the medical industry (hospitals, pharmaceuticles, doctors ect) are very profitable. There is not much money after the cure is found, there is a lot of money in mitigation of cancers. This story came just in time it seems. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/02/22/nl-breast-removal-lawsuit-222.html?cmp=rss She learned six years ago that the double mastectomy she had undergone in 1999 after she was told she had cancer in both breasts had been unnecessary.She said her doctor told her testing mistakes had missed that she had had just pre-cancerous cells. "The good news, he said, is you're not going to die of breast cancer because you didn't have it," Lewis, who also underwent six months of chemotherapy, told CBC News. Edited February 22, 2012 by GostHacked Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.