Previous poll Next poll

Have you ever worn pink to show support for someone who has breast cancer?

Response Percent Votes
Yes.
 
54% 310
No.
 
45% 254
Total 564

Comments

labmonkey 4 years, 9 months ago

Not until prostate cancer gets to claim a whole color for itself.

Gene Wallace 4 years, 9 months ago

Being a bit Sexist? How about you use "Pea Green"?

grammaddy 4 years, 9 months ago

The yellow bracelets were started by Lance Armstrong who survived testicular cancer and went on to win the Tour de France numerous times.

gatekeeper 4 years, 9 months ago

Boy, showing your stupidity just a little. See, they may find one treatment for breast cancer and then try it on other cancers. They have found many drugs that treat multiple diseases and sometimes treat something they never thought it would. But of course, how dare we focus on a disease that mainly affects women and kills thousands every year. How selfish of us.

Mike Hoffmann 4 years, 9 months ago

How does wearing a color support anything? I think tomorrow I will wear blue to support the starving people in the world. You're welcome!

gatekeeper 4 years, 9 months ago

I do regularly in honor of my sister, bless her soul, and my mother who survived.

So many ignorant comments on here it makes me ill. Just wait until your mother, wife, sister, daughter is diagnosed. You'll be thankful that there are so many supporting research and trying to find a cure.

CreatureComforts 4 years, 9 months ago

I have never worn pink for support breast cancer, but I have donated money...maybe it's foolish but I think that accomplishes more.

gatekeeper 4 years, 9 months ago

Thank you for donating to the cause. Everyone just needs to do what they can do, whether it's bringing more awareness about the disease or donating to find a cure.

Bunny_Hotcakes 4 years, 9 months ago

http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/

I'm all for awareness, I am all for research, I wholeheartedly support finding a cure. What I hate hate hate is cause-based marketing. I hate that I can't buy anything that hasn't had a layer of pink slapped on it during the month of October. I hate that companies think I'll buy any stupid thing (and even pay extra, I'm looking at you Dell) if they "shrink it and pink it." I'd rather donate directly than line the pockets of a company that paints its products pink because it's good for PR.

Mike Hoffmann 4 years, 9 months ago

I don't think anyone is questioning or maligning the impact breast cancer and the work being done to cure it have. The question is why do we have turn to everything in the world pink for a month? It's like some Christo artwork.

gatekeeper 4 years, 9 months ago

A large part of the pink campaign is making people aware. It's trying to get the message out to all women that you need to do self exams and get mammograms after age 40. A lot of women don't do either. So many lives can be saved by self exams and mammograms. So, suck it up and live with pink during the month of Oct. The awareness it brings may just save the life of someone you love.

dontsheep 4 years, 9 months ago

We're being manipulated. I hurt for all of those impacted by cancer, but this month [and all the year round cancer awareness efforts] do nothing to help. They may make us feel better, but there is no tangible outcome with respect to a cure. There never will be.

The ACS uses 15% of the funding it receives [about $1B a year] for research. That's despicable. The rest is tied up in marketing efforts to raise more money, overhead costs and real estate investments. http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm

We've poured over $2T into research already in the last 20 yrs and rates of occurrence have barely changed. In fact, if you factor in a decrease in smoking, they've actually risen. Why don't other countries [like those in Asia] have the same problems we have?

Does anyone know who started Breast Cancer Awareness Month? AstraZeneca. The world's leading manufacturer of the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen. http://wearewhatweabsorb.com/?p=417. They get to approve what material is used in education materials and awareness campaigns. Isn't that a conflict of interest? The more people with cancer the more they profit.

Partnering with companies who manufacture diagnostic equipment ensures we get our annual screenings, many of which are inaccurate, and then quickly get on their drugs.

It's shameful and manipulative...and we fall for it all the time.

We need to wakeup. We need to ask questions. We need to become aware of where the $$$ comes from. Who's benefiting and why do they want us to fall in step?

What other options are there when it comes to prevention and a cure? Why don't we ever hear about them? Why have we never heard the Nobel Prize for medicine was awarded to a doctor who discovered the cause of cancer in 1931?

Why are we kept in the dark?

gatekeeper 4 years, 9 months ago

Those stupid screenings. Saved my mom's life. Tamoxifen - cuts reoccurance rates significantly. My mom's been cancer free for 8 years now and did take Tamoxifen. Stupid treatments and stupid screenings. Your just into wholistic, nutrition stuff and will talk down medicine. Do I approve of everything that drug companies do. No. Do I think people that refuse to get screened for a disease that can be easily treated and have high survival rates is important? HELL YES! Who knows why the women in my family get breast cancer. BUT, I do know that I get screenings so I don't end up like my sister who didn't get screened and was diagnosed at stage 4 and died.

dontsheep 4 years, 9 months ago

I'm sorry about your sister. It's examples like that which make me want to tell others all the more about what's really going on, encourage them to stop acting like sheep and start asking questions.

I don't talk down all medicine...just the ineffective and dangerous kind. If someone wants to poison their body to within an inch of death to eliminate something other doctors do repeatedly without the patient hardship, then that's their choice. But at least give them the choice. Give them the information. Give them options.

Do you even know the survival and success rates of radiation, chemo, surgery and drugs? It's pitiful and manipulated because they are based on a survival of 5 years. They do nothing to stop cancer...all they do is attempt to eliminate the tumor.

Your mom is a survivor because she made it beyond 5 years. I hope she has a lot more ahead of her. Those who don't and die at 5 yrs and 1 day are still considered a survivor by the ACS and NIH. Is that honest?

You're right. Tamoxifen cuts the rate of breast cancer re-occurrence significantly...but it causes uterine and liver cancer occurrences to skyrocket. (plus about 25 other horrible side effects)

In 1992 the Lancet published a review of a number of studies in which a total of 30,000 breast cancer patients were randomly assigned either to take tamoxifen or not. The average patient was followed up for between 5 and 6 years. Of the patients taking tamoxifen, 74.4 per cent survived, as compared with 70.9 per cent in the non-tamoxifen group. Is that worth the risk of a blood clot, uterine or liver cancer, early menopause, decreased eye sight and increased broken bones?

There are at least 3 alternatives to tamoxifen with no side effects and similar levels of success. Why aren't patients offered those?

Lots of doctors can tell you why your family suffers from cancer. They would say it's all about the terrain. When we are overly acidic and low on oxygen cancer thrives. When we aren't, it doesn't. That's why the Nobel prize was awarded to Dr. Warburg 80 flippin' years ago.

Make light of a holistic, nutritional approach all you want, but there is a reason you don't see those products packaged in pink.

You want a cure? Change what you eat, drink and absorb.

Dr. Warburg was quoted shortly before his death in 1970.

“Nobody today can say that one does not know what cancer and its prime cause be. On the contrary, there is no disease whose prime cause is better known, so that today ignorance is no excuse that one cannot do more about prevention. The prevention of cancer will come there is no doubt, for man wishes to survive. But how long prevention will be avoided depends on how long the prophets of agnosticism will succeed in inhibiting the application of scientific knowledge in the cancer field. In the meantime, millions of people must die of cancer unnecessarily.”

I think that sums up the last 40 years pretty well.

brent flanders 4 years, 9 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

dontsheep 4 years, 9 months ago

What are you using as the comparison to tamoxifen? I can provide 3 others with very similar results. Estriol, progesterone and phyto-estrogen. Why not offer those to patients since there are zero side effects?

I know you're only a pharmacist and don't make the recommendations...but why don't you ever fill those scripts?

When 15,000 women take tamoxifen and have less than a 4% better chance of survival then the 15,000 who didn't, should we consider that a gold standard? If they do survive more than 5 years but end up dying from a drug induced stroke or break a hip and die from a staph infection picked up during surgery, was the 4% worth it?

Very specific...are you kidding? It's the most widely prescribed cancer drug in the world.

I'm sorry to hear about your wife. With your background, you're obviously more than qualified to research other methods of treatment. I can think of no greater motivation. Watching preventable diseases, over medication, drug interactions and pitiful insurance driven medical policies destroy those close to me are what prompted my research.

I encourage you to do the same.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.