I've commented on this before, but, is it me or has this 'pink thing' gotten way out of control. I can see it now.....the year is 2050 and the Susan G. Komen Run for the Money is going stronger than ever and still people are dying to know the truth. Talk about a money pit !!! Absolutely no progress against cancer, but the marketing frenzy is way out of control with no accountability. A sibling was just diagnosed with cancer and had thought about going after it the way I did, but has succumbed to the intimidation of traditional medicine. Of course, introduce carcinogens into your body and hope to stop the cancer-give me a break !!!!
kcat:(
Hmmm, yes, I've noticed recently this big push for "Stand Up To Cancer"... even an episode of Embarrassing Bodies was dedicated to it, and it came across more like children in need or comic relief with the presenting touting for donations every 2 minutes.... then when you look into it... it's a collaboration between Channel 4 and Cancer Research.... so really it's just cancer research trying to get even more funds than they already do (just a slight re-branding so people think it's something new), whilst so many cancer hospices are still struggling for funds to care for those who need it.
And I still think it's sexist that "race for life" is for women only... as if blokes don't want to help raise money for breast cancer.
Things seem completely unbalanced in favour of the science research. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do such research, but there needs to be more done in terms of looking at what's already available or known about in nature.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
More than that Giles - men can also get breast cancer, so why shouldn't they be allowed to participate?
Huge fan as I am of holistic and complementary therapies, and I wouldn't be doing what I do if I didn't believe in them, the scientific research has produced amazing strides in cancer survival rates.
I do agree breast cancer does get a lot of publicity, and I agree men should be allowed in Race for Life. But scientific research is enabling improved survival rates in other cancers too. In fact Pancreatic Cancer is the only cancer where no significant improvements have been made - and that is now being targeted. So please don't write off what my research colleagues do just because they use drugs
Sally
I have quite a definitive stance on this - I won't give any money or support to charities that raise funds for cancer research.
My reason for this is that as far as I know, quite a number of research scientists have come across key therapeutic regimes for cancer treatment and for various reasons, they have been ostracised and sidelined, notably Johanna Budwig in the latter half of the last century.
There are other names - an Austalian doctor whose approach was embraced by an American institution who 'bought' the rights to his treatment approach and then stopped him form developing it further. I would need to spend a couple of hours online to assemble all the names and details - not possible at the moment.
It is always possible that my information is wrong - after all, I've got this information from the internet - but if it is true it bothers me. I know that power games in big institutions are endemic, but it seems morally wrong to play power games in the realms of health.
And if my information is right, then it is very morally wrong to have the general public believe that millions are needed for cancer research, when there are dedicated pioneers who have made great progress and who have not been allowed to fully develop their work because of power games by big institutions.
Link to info about Dr Sam Chachoua
AlisonM, I could not agree with you more. It is now and will ALWAYS be about the $$$$$. The FDA (Friends of Drug Advocates) has never once approved any natural product-EVER !!! They wily nily approve just about anything from the pharmaceutical industry and then post warnings of how damaging it may be for you.Sally, unfortunately, it must be drug based in order to be approved. There's no money to be made in natural healing, for the most part. AlisonM, there are many studies to support what you say. Dr. Linus Pauling was condemned as a heretic in the 1970's for his work supporting Vitamin C. The cure for scurvy was suppressed for over thirty years-Vitamin C !!! They wanted it to be a drug-based cure. The 'drug pushers in white coats' get their marching orders from the pharmaceutical industry and they sit on the board of the medical universities to ensure that fact. Hospitals do not dare to espouse anything other than what Big Pharma tells them. Check it out....look it up and see who sits on the board of these hospitals and universities. In my case with a cancer Gleason score of 8, they have had the nerve to say that maybe it wasn't cancer at all because I didn't get 'chemo'd to death'. They have an answer for everything !!!
kcat
I totally agree!
The "pinkification" of cancer is so obscene, I think it is because it is a (predominantly) female cancer it is more marketable...that is unfortuntely the way the world works now, its all about branding.
Interestingly this morning the BBC website has an article about Breast Screening and "over diagnosis"
[url]BBC News - Breast screening advice updated amid controversy over harms[/url]
More women will die of heart disease . . 3 times more than breast cancer, but then that isn't as marketable as boobs! 😡