# Question about breast cancer awareness



## pacanis (Oct 6, 2013)

It seems like just yesterday the NFL's players were wearing pink gear, and ribbons, and the announcers had pink ties on, and ribbons, and the cheerleaders were dressed in pink outfits... and today I noticed a special commemorative type football with a pink ribbon on it. It is breast cancer awareness month I heard.
When did this happen and why? When did breast cancer become "the"
 cancer? What about just cancer awareness? How about prostrate cancer, does it have its own month and color? Not that I'm aware of.
It's almost like a well worn fad this pink thing. I'm all for cancer awareness. I'm just trying to figure out how breast cancer became the mainstay that it is. At least in relation to other cancers.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Oct 6, 2013)

National Prostate Health Month - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was aware of it last month.  And yes, I have my mammogram scheduled for this month.  Like to keep what I have left after my brush with breast cancer.  I think women are more open about their health...


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 6, 2013)

It's all about a sister's promise to end breast cancer forever and genius fundraising and marketing: Susan G. Komen for the Cure®


----------



## Dawgluver (Oct 6, 2013)

Skin, lung, and prostate cancer are the top 3, followed by breast and colon.

I think breasts kind of define a woman, and when they cut them out, she may no longer feel like a woman.  The chemo hair loss would also contribute to the loss of identity.  

Prostate cancer is almost inevitable in all men, and usually is not fatal for a long time. (Exception, Frank Zappa)


----------



## pacanis (Oct 6, 2013)

GotGarlic said:


> It's all about a sister's promise to end breast cancer forever and genius fundraising and marketing: Susan G. Komen for the Cure®


 
ah, perfect. Thanks, GG. Just like the Ambert Alert, one person pushing like hell for a worthwhile cause. Now I understand how it got to be so big/widespread.


----------



## pacanis (Oct 6, 2013)

Dawg, for all the things I mentioned I assumed that breast cancer was #1. I thought maybe that's why, it/the awareness, was so mainstream and in your face (for lack of a better term).


----------



## Dawgluver (Oct 6, 2013)

Probably best to not wave your prostate in someone's face...


----------



## KatyCooks (Oct 6, 2013)

Interesting question Pac.  

This article is quite thought provoking:

Think Before You Pink » Think Before You Pink®: Toxic Time Is Up!


----------



## pacanis (Oct 6, 2013)

That _was _interesting. Obviously you would think with such a widespread pink movement they would make sure they are using carcinogen free products to help promote it, but it's not like the ribbons are worn against your skin either. Still...


----------



## Andy M. (Oct 6, 2013)

I have no issue with breast cancer (or any other disease) awareness.  If there is enough focus on the problem, it will be fixed.  However, if my memory serves me, more women die from heart disease than the next 17 diseases combined.  I think that would be a good area to focus on.


----------



## Dawgluver (Oct 6, 2013)

Indeed.


----------



## KatyCooks (Oct 6, 2013)

pacanis said:


> That _was _interesting. Obviously you would think with such a widespread pink movement they would make sure they are using carcinogen free products to help promote it, but it's not like the ribbons are worn against your skin either. Still...


 
It seems to imply that many companies are jumping on the "pink" bandwagon, regardless of the fact that they are making products that are potentially carcinogenic.   Quite the contradiction!


----------



## KatyCooks (Oct 6, 2013)

Dawgluver said:


> Indeed.


 
Ditto


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 6, 2013)

KatyCooks said:


> It seems to imply that many companies are jumping on the "pink" bandwagon, regardless of the fact that they are making products that are potentially carcinogenic.   Quite the contradiction!



It's "innocence, " if you will, by association. They hope the goodwill of being seen as promoting a cure for breast cancer rubs off on them.


----------



## pacanis (Oct 6, 2013)

KatyCooks said:


> Ditto


 
Oh, I'm with you now. I skimmed that too fast.

Was it someone here that mentioned the new pink hoppers for gathering old, unused clothes? Maybe that was in the local paper.
Now you would think that a pink clothing hopper would in some way benefit cancer awareness, just because of the pink movement everywhere, but it's simply a marketing ploy to get you to choose their hopper over the red Salvation Army's hopper. It doesn't benefit any organization other than the private enterprise whose hopper it is.


----------



## KatyCooks (Oct 6, 2013)

It's a tricky subject.   On the one hand, it seems that the scientists are tending to focus on specific types of cancer - and are getting results by doing so.  Some cancers are now treatable where once they would have been a death sentence.  

On the other hand, fundraising and awareness efforts focussing on one type of cancer over another, seems wrong somehow.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Oct 6, 2013)

That's why I walk every year at Relay For Life, it takes donations and fundraises for all cancers, not just breast cancer.  My Mom and I both have breast and ovarian cancer, Shrek has bladder cancer, my DIL died of lymphoma.


----------



## pacanis (Oct 6, 2013)

KatyCooks said:


> It's a tricky subject. On the one hand, it seems that the scientists are tending to focus on specific types of cancer - and are getting results by doing so. Some cancers are now treatable where once they would have been a death sentence.
> 
> On the other hand, fundraising and awareness efforts focussing on one type of cancer over another, seems wrong somehow.


 
I've said this for years about breed specific rescue organizations. 
True, you can't rescue them all, and maybe you have a personal interest in say, Poodles, but how can you turn away the others just because they are not a Poodle? It just doesn't seem right, but I understand the philosophy behind it. 
God, I can't believe I chose Poodles...


----------



## pacanis (Oct 6, 2013)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> That's why I walk every year at Relay For Life, it takes donations and fundraises for all cancers, not just breast cancer. My Mom and I both have breast and ovarian cancer, Shrek has bladder cancer, my DIL died of lymphoma.


 
Do you know if there is any cross-distributing of funds? Obviously breast cancer must be taking in a lot of donations, do they put some in a general research fund? (if you know).


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Oct 6, 2013)

That one I don't know Pac!


----------



## KatyCooks (Oct 6, 2013)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> That's why I walk every year at Relay For Life, it takes donations and fundraises for all cancers, not just breast cancer. My Mom and I both have breast and ovarian cancer, Shrek has bladder cancer, my DIL died of lymphoma.


 
My mum had bowel, liver and eventually lung cancer. 

My dad had prostate cancer (though that was not his cause of death).

I tend to agree that fundraising should be for all cancer research. 

It is interesting to see how huge the "pink" campaign has become though. It must have some pretty high profile backers.

I support Cancer Research UK.   It raises funds for research into all cancers.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Oct 6, 2013)

Many companies here in the states donate to Susan G. Koman.  I donate to Save the Ta-Tas, Relay, Women's Heart Health and the American Diabetes Association.  I only fundraise for Relay.


----------



## Andy M. (Oct 6, 2013)

I'm not sure but I think a cancer cure won't be universal.  A cure that works for one type may not be effective on other types.


----------



## KatyCooks (Oct 6, 2013)

Andy M. said:


> I'm not sure but I think a cancer cure won't be universal. A cure that works for one type may not be effective on other types.


 
Hence my earlier post about scientists focussing on specific cancers and getting results in those areas.   

I guess the issue is whether enough funding is being funnelled through to all cancer research.


----------



## pacanis (Oct 6, 2013)

That is the question


----------



## KatyCooks (Oct 6, 2013)

What we need is progress in finding cures for all cancers, not just the "high profile" ones.  

It would be sad (but perhaps not surprising) to find that "fashionable" cancers are attracting research funding, and even maybe more experts, than the "unfashionable" ones.


----------



## pacanis (Oct 6, 2013)

There for a while I thought the pink ribbon had become universal and was representing all cancers it is so high profile. And maybe in a way it is.


----------



## KatyCooks (Oct 6, 2013)

pacanis said:


> There for a while I thought the pink ribbon had become universal and was representing all cancers it is so high profile. And maybe in a way it is.


 
That's true Pac.  

Very interesting topic you raised.  Though I think we ended up with more questions than answers!


----------



## pacanis (Oct 6, 2013)

Well GG answered my original question right off the bat anyway.


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 6, 2013)

I used to work at a medical school that did research into breast and prostate cancers, primarily. They're working on developing a blood test that can detect proteins associated with different cancers. They're also working on developing a blood test to differentiate fast-growing from slow-growing prostate cancers. Prostate cancer usually is slow-growing and usually affects older men, like in their 60s and 70s, and usually they die of something else. So surgery may not be the best option, since that has its own side effects.

Andy is right - different cancers need different treatments. The problem with chemotherapy is that it's a general treatment - it attacks all kinds of growing cells, which is why it causes such severe side effects.

I don't really think it's about "fashionable" cancers. I think some attract more dedicated advocates than others. As Dawg said, losing one or two breasts can have a devastating effect on a woman's self-esteem. I have even heard of women whose boyfriends or husbands left them because they couldn't deal with the reality of a partner without a breast and with a scar. Putting aside side effects like baldness and thinness, most other cancers don't leave such visible reminders.


----------



## jennyema (Oct 6, 2013)

Good points made.

My SIL is a breast cancer surgeon and heads the breast health center at one of America's foremost teaching hospitals, so I do no begrudge the focus in breast cancer.  Also, knowing so many friends that have and are suffering ...

But I agree that cancer is cancer.  Let's fight it all.


----------



## CatPat (Oct 6, 2013)

Mamma and Papa require me to give some of the money I earn to causes such as these. I have chosen these: breast cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, leukemia and the Humane Society.

When I become more successful, I shall expand of this list.

With love,
~Cat


----------



## CarolPa (Oct 6, 2013)

Dawgluver said:


> Probably best to not wave your prostate in someone's face...




Probably depends on whose face you're waving it in.


----------



## CatPat (Oct 7, 2013)

CarolPa said:


> Probably depends on whose face you're waving it in.



Perhaps if one is married to another, the view of this may be very nice. 

With love,
~Cat


----------



## Cooking Goddess (Oct 7, 2013)

The Susan G. Komen organization was a good idea that morphed into a slushfund for its founder.  Nancy Brinker and her group got to the point that the purpose of the organization was to raise money.  I had read a descriptive tale from one woman who did the walk every year, raised untold amounts of donations...but when SHE needed assistance when she developed breast cancer she could never get in touch with them. Can't find it even though I spent the last 15 minutes looking.

 I did find this article that really rips on the organization and their pinkification of the world.  Warning:  It's a very angry article filled with lots of "fingers-in-the-ears" kinds of words.  The writer takes no prisoners in his rant.  If you're interested, you can find the article here:  The Susan G. Komen Foundation: Why It Sucks  Also, if you google "Susan G. Komen scams" you get a ton of links.  One of the links took you to a page with...more links!

Moral of the story?  Investigate any fundraising group to see exactly what they do with that money.


----------



## pacanis (Oct 7, 2013)

CG, that sounds like the Humane Society of the US.


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 7, 2013)

If you want to support any kind of medical research, I would suggest donating to a medical school that actually does the research. Donation money in institutions like this are held and spent separately from administrative expenses, like advertising and salaries.


----------



## Gravy Queen (Oct 7, 2013)

Cancer Research uk does not fund research for all cancers equally though . The biggest killer in the UK is Lung Cancer , it is on the rise too amongst young women I particular , it kills more than breast and ovarian cancer yet gets the least amount of funding.


----------



## CarolPa (Oct 7, 2013)

Gravy Queen said:


> Cancer Research uk does not fund research for all cancers equally though . The biggest killer in the UK is Lung Cancer , it is on the rise too amongst young women I particular , it kills more than breast and ovarian cancer yet gets the least amount of funding.




I wonder why that is?


----------



## taxlady (Oct 7, 2013)

GotGarlic said:


> If you want to support any kind of medical research, I would suggest donating to a medical school that actually does the research. Donation money in institutions like this are held and spent separately from administrative expenses, like advertising and salaries.


That's a great idea. I suspect less of the money will go towards fund raising expenses and other administrative expenses that go with being a charity.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Oct 7, 2013)

CarolPa said:


> I wonder why that is?



It's because Lung Cancer is erroneously thought to be only caused by smokers and the public is reluctant to fund cancer research into something patients have brought upon themselves.  So those who have been exposed to secondhand smoke and/or have lung cancer caused by other factors are tarred with the same brush.


----------



## GotGarlic (Oct 7, 2013)

taxlady said:


> That's a great idea. I suspect less of the money will go towards fund raising expenses and other administrative expenses that go with being a charity.



I used to work at a medical school; donors could donate to specific research efforts, or to a general fund where it would be used "where needed most," so the school could decide.


----------



## Cooking Goddess (Oct 7, 2013)

pacanis said:


> CG, that sounds like the Humane Society of the US.


Is that the group with late-night commercials, playing "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face" and showing sad puppy faces?  Then they ask me for $19 a month?  Um, for $19 a month I could head to the town kitty shelter, pick up a new companion, and spend less than $19 a month for kitty's upkeep!


----------



## pacanis (Oct 7, 2013)

Cooking Goddess said:


> Is that the group with late-night commercials, playing "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face" and showing sad puppy faces? Then they ask me for $19 a month? Um, for $19 a month I could head to the town kitty shelter, pick up a new companion, and spend less than $19 a month for kitty's upkeep!


 
I don't even know.
When those commercials come on I change the channel.
I have no time for sensationalized commercials or pics of dogs shaking from being so afraid while a camera is thrust in their face to make a commercial 
I think there are two organizations now.
All I know is HSUS is more of a lobby group now and very little money goes towards the pets. They don't even rescue pets themselves anymore and have no ties (or help in any way) the local humane societies. And they are way too tight with PETA for my liking.


----------



## CarolPa (Oct 7, 2013)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> It's because Lung Cancer is erroneously thought to be only caused by smokers and the public is reluctant to fund cancer research into something patients have brought upon themselves.  So those who have been exposed to secondhand smoke and/or have lung cancer caused by other factors are tarred with the same brush.




PF, I was actually asking why lung cancer is the biggest killer in the UK.  I understand that it is considered to be caused not only by smoking but by other environmental conditions, and wondered what those conditions were in the UK.


----------



## Gravy Queen (Oct 8, 2013)

It's the biggest killer in the United States too and I suspect the link, or most common cause is smoking . 

It also gets the least funding there too probably for the same reason as here, as it's seen as preventable ie don't smoke . You can get it if you don't smoke too but the highest majority of cases are in smokers . We introduced laws against smoking in work places because of passive smoking which also kills .


----------

