Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Breast Cancer Awareness Month
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
name



Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 955
 Reply with quote  

sarah q wrote:
name wrote:
But I am certain we'd be much much worse of in the long run because survival rates would simply plateau.


How so?

*I'm not asking to be argumentative, I genuinely want to understand that point.


We will never be able to eradicate all potentionally carcinogenic substances, as a society. It's just a fact. Even in world where medically neccessary x-rays are outlawed, and no one uses pesticides, and our gas is pumped by robots, people will still get cancer. Cavemen got cancer. Less prevalent, yes. But higher mortality rate? You bet. Try 99.9%.

Now imagine a world where we haven't be searching for a "cure". No Gleevec. No Taxol. No Vinblastine. Even if we reduce the incidence of breast cancer by 75% through enviromental restrictions (which is fantasy land), the mortality rate would be through roof. The net result would be unacceptable. Even worse, with little or no support for drug discovery research, the situation would be guaranteed to worsen.

There's nothing wrong with preventative medicine. I've just never heard someone advocate ONLY preventative medicine.
Post Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
sarah q



Joined: 02 Dec 2009
Posts: 175
 Reply with quote  

I wasn't advocating only preventative medicine. I actually wasn't advocating preventative medicine at all, rather preventative measures. (or were you referring to the blogger?)

I was talking about the imbalance of funding for the cure vs. funding on educating people on different ways to try and prevent cancer. I mean there has been such a surge of things proven to reduce your risk of cancer, but I feel like none of it gets half the attention/funding that finding a cure does. That was the point I was trying to make. Not that we should stop looking for a cure for cancer and defund it altogether.
Post Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:47 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
WrathChild



Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 953
Location: Reno eNVy
 Reply with quote  

I'd be interested to hear Jesse's thoughts on the Breast Cancer Awareness ad campaign targeting men with slogans like "save the boobies" and "don't let breast cancer steal second base".
Post Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:09 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
xGasPricesx



Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 1568
 Reply with quote  

I like it on the airport security conveyor belt.
Post Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:14 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5456
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
How about a thread for colon, stomach and liver* cancers? Each of those kills more people than breast cancer every year and people are way less aware of them.


*I would have included lung but some of those cases are the fault of patient

do you have stats to back this up? not that a don't believe you but i did a quick search but couldn't find anything.
Post Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:19 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Eric B



Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 1327
Location: Omaha, Ne
 Reply with quote  

I'm sending in my yoplait lids
Post Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:24 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
C.R.A.Z.Y



Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 2734
Location: Vote for me and i'll vote for you.
 Reply with quote  

i've got boobs. i've got hella boobs. but what about the fellas and their manboobs? do they get manboob cancer? just curious?!save the manboobs?
Post Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
WrathChild



Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 953
Location: Reno eNVy
 Reply with quote  

Yes. Although rare, men are susceptible to breast cancer.
Post Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:38 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Charlie Foxtrot



Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY
 Reply with quote  

WrathChild wrote:
Yes. Although rare, men are susceptible to breast cancer.


Women are a 100 times more likely to get it. Men, however, are more likely to die from it because it doesn't usually get detected as early.
Post Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:22 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Charlie Foxtrot



Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY
 Reply with quote  

crash wrote:
Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
How about a thread for colon, stomach and liver* cancers? Each of those kills more people than breast cancer every year and people are way less aware of them.


*I would have included lung but some of those cases are the fault of patient

do you have stats to back this up? not that a don't believe you but i did a quick search but couldn't find anything.


According to the World Health Organization:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/index.html
Post Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:24 am
 View user's profile Send private message
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

BOOBIES!

http://www.aurorasentinel.com/opinion/talk_back/article_564b4d16-62d8-11e1-b8c5-0019bb2963f4.html

Quote:


OPINION: The Fall of a Pink Giant?

Posted: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 6:21 am | Updated: 6:26 am, Wed Feb 29, 2012.

By Rachel Kerestes Contributing columnist | 0 comments

The move a few weeks ago by the Susan G. Komen Foundation to stop providing grants to Planned Parenthood, the quick reversal after widespread backlash, recent staff resignations and ongoing controversy exposed a weakness in a brand many once thought unassailable. But women’s health may be better off for it.

As the self-described “global leader of the breast cancer movement,” Komen carries the weight of the breast cancer brand on its shoulders. And women — the brand’s core constituency — took to the social media airwaves to decry what they perceived as hypocrisy by Komen. The breast cancer brand, many women argued, is built on supporting and improving women’s health and defunding Planned Parenthood flies in opposition of that mission.

Komen fell into the classic trap of seeming inauthentic to its audience. Despite pursuing an aggressive strategy to lay claim to the title of sole women’s health brand, thus allocating other causes and conditions to the margins, the foundation seemed surprised to find that it was viewed as representing the voice of women’s health.

Now that the dust is settling the question of damage remains. Will this misstep loosen breast cancer’s grip on its leadership position? And if so, is what’s bad for the breast cancer brand good for women’s health?


Make no mistake — breast cancer is the biggest brand in the history of disease. Everyone from the NFL to Yoplait to American Airlines attempts to get a piece of that brand equity each October by pink-washing themselves in solidarity. As the face of the breast cancer movement, the Komen Foundation is the main benefactor of all that attention raising an estimated $35 million each year from marketing partnerships.


Although not created by Komen, the movement’s iconic symbol, the pink ribbon, was conceived by another pioneer in marketing to women — Evelyn Lauder. The daughter-in-law of Estee and vice president of the cosmetics company, Evelyn used her influence to promote breast cancer with beauty and fashion editors making the brand synonymous with other women-centric products.


As the former chief lobbyist for the Lupus Foundation of America, I learned firsthand how difficult it was for a women’s health issue to get noticed when it fell outside of the pink glow of breast cancer. The couple of million in federal research dollars that sporadically goes to a disease like lupus—which not only disproportionately affects women, but women of color and those in their child-bearing years—in comparison to the $150 million plus dedicated to breast cancer research in the Department of Defense budget alone underscores why only one drug in the last 50 years was approved for lupus while a host of treatments are available for those battling breast cancer.

That disparity — between women’s health issues at large and breast cancer — can be traced partially to the power of the breast cancer brand. Twice as many women die every year of stroke than breast cancer, but a stroke is not sexy. While the Komen Foundation and others have aggressively marketed breast cancer as THE women’s health brand, their efforts are buoyed by the subconscious interest in breasts as a symbol of desire. After all, the golden rule of marketing remains —sex sells.

It may be premature to proclaim the fall of the breast cancer brand. In fact, one test of a brand’s strength is its ability to weather a storm. But a lessening of breast cancer’s dominance may create the opportunity for other women’s health issues to gain attention and much needed support. As a result, by slipping up and eroding some of its strength in the market, Komen might actually do more to promote women’s health in total than the foundation ever could on its own.

Rachel Kerestes is Strategy Director at MiresBall, a West Coast-based brand agency.


I would have bumped the other discussion on this topic but it ended up in the KNOWMORE archive of the forums. Nor is it Breast Cancer Awareness month. Such is life.

Here's more fun:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/komen-foundation-charities-cure_n_793176.html


Quote:

Susan G. Komen Foundation Elbows Out Charities Over Use Of The Word 'Cure'

First Posted: 12/07/10 12:41 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:15 PM ET

In addition to raising millions of dollars a year for breast cancer research, fundraising giant Susan G. Komen for the Cure has a lesser-known mission that eats up donor funds: patrolling the waters for other charities and events around the country that use any variation of "for the cure" in their names.

So far, Komen has identified and filed legal trademark oppositions against more than a hundred of these Mom and Pop charities, including Kites for a Cure, Par for The Cure, Surfing for a Cure and Cupcakes for a Cure--and many of the organizations are too small and underfunded to hold their ground.

"It happened to my family," said Roxanne Donovan, whose sister runs Kites for a Cure, a family kite-flying event that raises money for lung cancer research. "They came after us ferociously with a big law firm. They said they own 'cure' in a name and we had to stop using it, even though we were raising money for an entirely different cause."

Donovan's sister, Mary Ann Tighe, said the Komen foundation sent her a letter asking her to stop using the phrase "for a cure" in their title and to never use the color pink in conjunction with their fundraising. What bothered her most about the whole ordeal, she said, was that Komen forced her to spend money and time on legal fees and proceedings instead of raising funds for cancer.

"We were certainly taken aback by it," she told HuffPost. "We have partners running these kite events around the country. What if one of them uses, say, magenta? Is that pink? I mean, where are we going with this? We just want to raise money for cancer. What we don't want is to have our energy misplaced by having our charity partners trying to police the good work that we're doing."

Sue Prom, who started a small dog sledding fundraiser for breast cancer called "Mush for the Cure" in Grand Marais, Minn., said she was shocked to hear from Komen's lawyers this summer asking that she change the name of her event or face legal proceedings.

"I had to call the trademark helpline, because I had no idea what I was doing," said Prom, who runs the annual sled race with her husband and friend. "We pay for the expenses out of our pockets, and we've never personally made a dime from it. We have t-shirts, sweatshirts, domain names, posters, stationery, all with 'Mush for the Cure' on it. What do we do with all the materials now? How are we gonna defend ourselves? We're not like Komen."

Prom said she's been running the event for six years, and the most she has raised for the National Breast Cancer Foundation is $25,000. Before the NBCF could accept the money, they warned her to file for a trademark to protect her event legally against the Komen Foundation. But now that Komen has opposed Mush's trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Prom is looking for a pro bono lawyer to help her figure out what to do next.

"I think it's a shame," she said. "It's not okay. People don't give their money to the Komen Foundation and they don't do their races and events so that Komen can squash any other fundraising efforts by individuals. That's not what it's about."

Komen's general counsel, Jonathan Blum, told HuffPost that the fundraising powerhouse tries to be reasonable when dealing with small charities and nonprofits, but that it has a legal duty to protect its more than 200 registered trademarks.

"It's never our goal to shut down a nonprofit," he said, "and we try very hard to be reasonable, but it's still our obligation to make sure that our trademarks are used appropriately so there's no confusion in the marketplace over where people's money is going."

Blum told HuffPost that legal fees comprise a "very small part" of Komen's budget, but according to Komen's financial statements, such costs add up to almost a million dollars a year in donor funds.

"I think it's important that charities protect their brand, but on the other hand, I don't think the donors' intent in giving their money was to fund a turf war," said Sandra Minuitti, a spokesperson for Charity Navigator. "It's very important that Komen treads carefully and is very transparent about how they're spending money on these legal battles."

Michael Mercanti, an intellectual property lawyer, said he is surprised by the large number of oppositions Komen has filed against other charities--a number he would expect from a company like Toys"R"Us or McDonalds, but not a charitable fundraising organization.

"They seem to be very aggressive in policing their mark, or what they're claiming to be their mark," he told HuffPost. "I guess there are a lot of ways to captain a ship, but it seems like there are ways they could protect and police their trademarks and also allow other charities to coexist."

Mercanti said filing hundreds of oppositions is not only damaging to other charities, but could also be counterproductive for Komen's brand.

"They could actually be seen as being a bully," he said. "They're going to alienate some donors who don't appreciate them stepping on smaller, worthwhile charities."

With the help of a team of pro bono lawyers, Kites for a Cure was able to reach a settlement with Komen: They agreed to only use the phrase "for a Cure" in conjunction with the words "lung cancer" to make the distinction clear. But Tighe said they reached a settlement only after many, many months of a free legal team working long hours each day.

"We were very fortunate because we had strong support from knowledgeable pro bono counsel, but it did seem like a misdirection of a lot of people's energy," she told HuffPost. "I don't know what smaller organizations do without free representation."

Sue Prom said Tighe has already put her in touch with her pro bono legal team, and she is prepared to fight for the name of her sledding event in court. The ordeal has changed her opinion of Komen.

"I used to give money to Komen all the time, but now I'm just kind of wary of them," she said. "I'm not buying Yoplait yogurt or anything that has the word 'Komen' on it. They seem to have forgotten what charity is about."
Post Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:56 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Jesse



Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6166
Location: privileged homeless
 Reply with quote  

WrathChild wrote:
I'd be interested to hear Jesse's thoughts on the Breast Cancer Awareness ad campaign targeting men with slogans like "save the boobies" and "don't let breast cancer steal second base".
That's really funny... I never saw this, but I've tweeted and blogged tons about it. I find it - as you probably guessed - super problematic!

I saw this documentary Pink Ribbons Inc last weekend and I think everyone should peep it. It lays out all of the stuff being said in this thread in really cogent arguments and with great facts supporting.

Post Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:21 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Thu Nov 27, 2014 11:10 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon