THINK BEFORE YOU PINK

Tucker, I didn't say anything about the motives of those companies (Gap, Cheveron, etc).  My point was that BCA claims to stand for transparency and accountability and denounces KFC, for example, for the pink-chicken thing (which I completely understand!) for selling a breast-cancer-promoting product, but then it (BCA) accepts sponsorship/funding from other companies that very well could be selling/manufacturing products and services that could be carcinogenic.  It seems so hypocritical and UNtransparent.

I know BCA claims not to accept funding from  Pharmaceutical companies, Chemical manufacturers, Oil companies, Tobacco companies, Health insurance organizations, and
Cancer treatment facilities.  But that seems to contradict my post above where I posted just a few of BCA's contributors/sponsors - Aetna (Health insurance co?), Chevron (chemicals/oil?), Anchor Brewing Co (contraindicated for BC? chemicals? )

By the way, my source is Breast Cancer Action's own site www.bcaction.org.  Did you think I was making it up?

Hi Sunflowers!  That's exactly what I thought, and I just find it so very disingenuous and hypocritical of BCA.   However, the bigger reason I can't personally support BCA is their pseudoscience and quackery, which I also believe to be hypocritically contrary to their supposed mission. I don't believe junk science ever to be in the best interest of breast cancer patients.  

Interesting question.... I don't know of any org that gives more to scientific research than Komen.  Despite the recent uproar, I desperately hope that SGK's research funding increases, but I realize it's quite possible to decrease instead, which would be a terrible shame.

            Well, if the qualification is a "cure" for cancer, that requirement will not be met for at least another 50 years.

             There's no "cure" for cancer.  Any kind of cancer.  There will never be a "cure" for cancer.  Any kind of cancer.

              There's management.  Which is what is available now and it's of various kinds.  None of which "cure" cancer.  Or ever will. 

              And maybe some time in the future there will be some limited kinds of prevention.  But there is a whole lot of genetics that has to be understood and proven before getting on the preventive side of cancer will occur. 

              In the interim, there will be increasingly better means of early detection and more specifically targeted management. 

              But no one is going to work on a "cure" for a process of cell division and cell aging which occur naturally.

              Anyone who thinks a "cure" is coming down the pike in the life time of anyone here is more likely to be disappointed than not.

              Which is why, at least to me, the slogan, "For the Cure" is nonsensical. 

            The more we know about cell biology and genetics, the less likely it will be that there's a "cure" for cancer. 

            Which is why the "front end" of the equation or to put it simplly, learning how to turn some things "on" and turn some things "off" is really a lot more promising.

            The "cure" for cancer is going to be like the "cure" for polio and measles and small pox: target prevention in the first place.  Rather than treatment after the fact which somehow targets and effectively shuts down all of the functions which lead to recurrence.

            My best friend, who is responsible for new cancer therapeutic development in the bio-tech sector tells me no one is working on a "cure" and everyone is working on "front end" prevention methodologies or better detection or more specifically targeted therapies.  Which goes along with the research on "front end" prevention methods.

           I really think we do ourselves and those who come after us a disservice by saying that research for a "cure" is where research dollars should be spent.

BCRF gives about $30-35 million in research grants annually. Unlike Komen, 90% of money they raise goes to research. Not as much $ as Komen, but not shabby. plus, far more of the $ goes to research into causes and cures, and not into high salaries, overhead, and PR.

I always assumed that I would get breast cancer - after all, everyone of my known female relatives on my maternal side had it.  I didn't live my life, though, in the pursuit of NOT getting it.  If I had it to do over again, in all honesty, I probably wouldn't do anything very different (at least in relation to getting or not getting cancer) . 

I ate pretty healthy, didn't over-indulge (at least not too often ), exercised regularly.  However, I am somewhat overweight, I am in a high stress job, and I've spent most of my adult life in and around electrical fields.  Could I have been "better"?  Of course.  But I didn't spend my life worrying about the future possibility of cancer, and in all honesty, I do not now spend my life worrying about the future possibility of more (and probably worse) cancer.  Everyone is going to die of something, and cancer is just one of the possible "somethings" to die from.

I think it is possible that in the future they will find a "cure" for cancer.  Genetic probes and markers will, I feel certain be the future to curing a great many things that appear to be incurable at this point.  Prevention is almost undoubtedly a "better" course, but there are still so many unknowns, that preventing cancer by modifying our diet, actions, exposures, etc. seems almost a joke to me.  I'm not a big believer in blaming the victim, so I don't think there were too many things I could have done differently and as a result not got this d***ed disease.  My life has been tumultuous, exciting, painful, chaotic, and everything that almost everyone elses life has been.  I don't really regret a minute of it - and I thank whatever powers that be for as many more minutes of it as I get.

I hope like h*** that a prevention/solution is found before my grand-daughter contracts it (though I think she's probably got more of her mom's genes, so she's probably OK anyway). 

Gardengumby, I really like your posts here, and your attitude!

Tuckertwo, thank you for starting this thread.  I share your feelings and disgust.  Let's not forget Yoplait and the damn pink lids.  How long did it take for them to agree to finally remove the suspected cancer-causing ingredient from their yogurt?

I've made a personal decision to stop supporting cancer research.  Instead, my donations go to breast health outreach for minority and low-income women.  For me, it is a much more satisfying way to use my money.  And a little goes a long way

Tuck - I was never into the pink thing.  I donated some money to Komen before the recent hooraw, but more to the American Cancer Society, as there are many forms of cancer and I'm just as interested in them finding a cure for leukemia, prostrate, colon, lung, etc cancer as breast cancer.  I do differ with you on the idea that it's not in the best interest of pharma to find a cure for cancer.  Though it's true that they make billions off of cancer sufferers now - they would make billions as well off the cure (and think of the advertising dollars!!!)

That said, they also make me very angry at their many attempts to stop our access to vitamins and other supplements.  I want to have many things available for my defense, not just the letrozole prescribed by my oncologist.. besides, which, the SE's from the letrozole are much more difficult to bear when I don't take my supplements.  So, I'm not a big fan of either doctors or drug companies, I think in many cases they do more harm than good, but I don't think it's solely from a "making more money" point of view.  Maybe I'm more naive than I'm willing to admit, but I think the problem is more that they have a very narrow world view, and they really think they are not only the best, but the only answer.