Cancer Sucks, Pink is Profitable, and Cures are Magically Blameless
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 Last week, I started following a twitter account called @Reduce_Risk, a Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation campaign focused on helping women reduce their breast cancer risk. Looking back through their tweets, I found one that said:
80% of Canadian women are at "average risk of #breastcancer. Do u know what that means? Learn more: ow.ly/8pA4L
I clicked on the link and read the information, which detailed the factors that lead to average risk and high risk of breast cancer. I responded to the tweet, saying "You talk about average and high risk -- does that mean no one is low risk?". They replied:
Thanks @phdinparenting. Average risk is the "lowest" level of risk but it still means a 1 in 9 or 11% lifetime risk of breast cancer!...
This is when I began to panic.
Yes, survival rates are increasing (due to early detection), but ultimately very little has changed over the years in the way breast cancer is treated. We still take a "slash, burn and poison" approach to treating the disease and we still don't know what causes this disease. There is a lot of inconclusive research that suggests what the risk factors might be, but we don't truly know what causes it.
That is a scary prospect and fear is a big motivator.
I have run for the cure, I've donated for the cure, and I've decorated pink panther birthday cakes with pink M&Ms for the cure. I've jumped on board for too many pink ribbon campaigns without first questioning them.Was it fear motivating me? Or hope? Or wanting to feel like I was making a difference?
I'm not sure.
While some campaigns seem obviously wrong (Kentucky Fried Chicken for the Cure), I must admit that I haven't always questioned pink washing as carefully as I should in the past. That all changed when I saw the new documentary film Pink Ribbons Inc.
Take a moment and watch the trailer:
"Raising money has become the priority, regardless of the consequences"
This quote from the film truly is the message that comes through loud and clear. At best, companies are using this disease as a way to profit. But it gets worse, much worse than that. There are companies that are selling products with known carcinogens and slapping a pink ribbon on them. They rake in profits, give a very small amount of money to research for the cure, and continue with business as usual. Except when they are exposed.
One example given in the movie is the Yoplait pink-lid campaign. In Ecouterre's 10 ridiculous pinkwashed products that may increase your risk of breast cancer, they explain the problem with this campaign:
For every pink yogurt lid you send in until December 31, Yoplait will donate 10 cents to Susan G. Komen for the Cure until it reaches $2 million. Simple, right? Except that it costs 44 cents just to buy each stamp, not to mention the fact you'll need to down 100 yogurt cups for a middling $10 contribution. But fuzzy math aside, until recently, Yoplait also contained rbGH (or recombinant bovine growth hormone), a synthetic hormone with unresolved questions about its impact on human health, including cancer.
The rbGH was only removed after Yoplait was called out by the breast cancer community. The suggestion in the film -- don't bother with the yoghurt. If you truly want to help, make a direct donation rather than wasting your money on stamps to send in lids that are worth pennies.
This film clip called Eli Lilly is Milking Cancer is one of the other stories shared in the movie that shows how disgustingly self-serving corporate interests can be.
Mainstream Breast Cancer Organizations Fear Alienating Supporters
Everyone wants a cure, of course. But the reason so many of these big corporate interests are focused on a cure is that it is blameless. Focusing on prevention, however, can have dire consequences for corporate interests. If more research goes into prevention, and it turns out that the products they are selling are causing cancer, it will hurt their bottom line. A focus on the cure is much easier. By not drawing too much attention to nasty carcinogens, cancer organizations like the Komen Foundation can keep raking in the cash.
As if that wasn't enough, this week the Komen Foundation proved just how important it is to keep your supporters on board. The organization succumbed to political pressure from right-wing anti-abortion supporters and pulled it support of breast cancer screening services (mammograms and clinical breast exams) at Planned Parenthood.
But in their attempts to keep corporate sponsors and other donors on board, are breast cancer organizations alienating the very women they are supposed to be supporting?
The focus on all things pink and beautiful may be a great way to keep corporate sponsors on board, it doesn't resonate with all breast cancer patients and survivors. "We're human beings, not a pink ribbon," one of the women interviewed in the film noted. Women with breast cancer feel pressured by the positive energy around breast cancer campaigns -- "the tyranny of cheerfulness". Breast cancer is not pretty or normal and many women resent the attempt to present it that way.
One of the key messages in breast cancer campaigns is around the fight. The message that women get is that if they fight hard enough, they will beat the disease. But what does that say about those who do not survive? Did they not fight hard enough? Not pray hard enough? Were they not pink and cheerful enough? There are evidently some breast cancer survivors who can relate to the wave of pink and take some comfort in it and strength from it. But there are just as many that resent it.
A shift in focus?
The bulk of breast cancer research money in past years has gone into researching a cure. In the movie, they note that only 3 to 5 percent of funds go towards prevention of breast cancer. In Canada, around 6.5 percent of money raised goes towards research into risk factors and risk reduction. Why is the number so low?
- Is it because the prospect of a cure generates hope and therefore attracts more research dollars?
- Is it because the focus on the cure doesn't upset any corporate sponsors that may be contributing to the cause?
- Is it because preventing cancer may dry up the enormous cash cow that pink ribbon campaigns have become?
In an interview with CBC's The Current, Sandra Palmaro, CEO of the Ontario region of the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation said that they need to find a balance between looking for opportunities to increase funding and ensuring that they work with companies whose beliefs and aims are aligned with theirs. When asked specifically about partnerships with organizations that are selling pink ribbon products that contain known carcinogens, she noted that "we don't know what quantity of a product over what period of time" would contribute toward cancer and used that as a justification for working with those companies.
But if we truly don't know how harmful those products can be, wouldn't that at least be cause for being cautious instead of encouraging people to go out and buy more of the product? Can we shift our focus a bit from cure, cure, cure to a good dose of research into understanding the cause and preventing the disease?
I'd like to see us come around to a place where there truly can be a "low risk" of breast cancer. The work that the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation is doing now on Reducing the Risk is a start, but we need so much more.
Go See Pink Ribbons, Inc.
I knew about pink washing before I saw this movie, but I didn't know just how bad it was. I had to pick my chin up off the floor several times listening to the words of executives from Estee Lauder, Revelon and the Komen Foundation. I had to wipe tears away listening to the words of women with stage four breast cancer.
Ravida Din, the producer of Pink Ribbons Inc. wrote:
I hope that by seeing this film, audiences will engage in a bigger social debate around the issue. The public - especially those who are involved in fundraising for this cause – may want to ask more questions next time they hand over their hard earned dollars and their time to pink ribbon causes. We need to critically think about how we can become more effective as a society in addressing this epidemic of cancer. Let’s re-envision the kind of public platform we want to create and how we as a civil society want to determine how we manage our health.
That is a message I can get behind. As you know, I'm not one to shy away from social debate or talking about re-envisioning the future. In addition to seeing this movie, I'll be following an organization called Breast Cancer Action more closely as their message and priorities seem more aligned with mine than the pink ribbon campaigns.
The movie Pink Ribbons Inc. will be in theatres in Canada starting on February 3, 2012 at the following theatres and more:
Barrie Imperial Theatres / Calgary The Plaza / Concord AMC Interchange / Edmonton Metro Cinema / Grand Praire Jan Cinema /Halifax Empire 17 Bayers Lake / Kamloops – February date (tba) Paramount / Kelowna – Feb 10 Paramount Theatre / Kingston The Screening Room / Laval Megaplex Pont-Viau /Medicine Hat The Monarch / Montreal AMC Forum, Quartier Latin / Nanaimo – Feb 10 Avalon / Oakville AMC Winston Churchill / Orleans Feb 24 Mayfair /Ottawa – Feb 17 Bytowne / Québec City Le Clap / Regina RPL Theatre /Saskatoon Roxy / Scarborough AMC Kennedy Commons/ Sherbrooke Maison du cinéma /Sudbury Rainbow / Ste-Adèle Cinéma Pine / Toronto AMC Yonge & Dundas, The Carlton, The Kingsway/ Vancouver Denman / Victoria Roxy / Waterloo Princess Cinema /Winnipeg Globe Cinema / with more to come…
In the United States, the film will be shown at a variety of film festivals from January to April 2012, with more dates and showings beginning in early Spring.
Update:
- The film can be downloaded here: http://www.nfb.ca/film/pink_ribbons_inc/download/ $14.95 in HD/$9.95 in SD
- The film can be rented for 48 hours here: http://www.nfb.ca/film/pink_ribbons_inc/rental $2.95/48 hour rental
- The trailer is available here: http://www.nfb.ca/film/pink_ribbons_inc_trailer/
How do you feel about pink washing? How has it impacted the way that you look at breast cancer organizations? Do you plan to see the movie to learn more?
Photo credit: National Film Board of Canada
Reader Comments (70)
Pink washing makes me seething mad! And this bullshit focus on "raising awareness," especially in regards to slacktivism. No substance to any of it. The movie sounds right up my alley!
the cure is in the cause.
not just for breast cancer, but for all disease.
while these companies search for the elusive "cure", millions of women are sucking down diet sodas, buckets of kentucky fried chicken, with low-fat yoplait yogurt...
the cure is in our diet. our lifestyle. our choices.
I cannot stand the ubiquitous pinkwashing. I purposely don't buy any pinkwashed products and find the heroic narratives of breast cancer Making You a Better Person soppy and weirdly one-track (I guess anal cancer just isn't the same kind of inspiration).
My Facebook has also EXPLODED in the past 24 hours with people upset about SGK's decision to pull their Planned Parenthood funding. I doubt they'll reverse it, but they are most certainly driving people away who until now saw SGK as apolitical and the pink campaigns as just nice ways to "save the tatas" (and other cutesy infantilizing slogans), and are now realizing that deeper corporate and political tides are at work. I personally will never give to SGK at this point; if I knew someone who was fundraising for them, I would explain why I did not plan to give but offer to make a donation to another organization (PP or more ethical breast cancer prevention organization) on their behalf.
[...] Great piece on the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood debacle here. [...]
My mother died of breast cancer, when I was 14 years old. She spent two years in and out of hospitals dying. I have never donated to pink ribbon campaigns or thought much of the Komen Foundation. I have always questioned what we seem to think we know about breast cancer. Why is breastfeeding rarely mentioned in regard to lowering risk? Why are women irradiating their breasts to "prevent" cancer? Breast tissue is one of the more sensitive tissues to radiation. Radiation causes cancers. Why was mammography chosen over thermography in breast cancer detection? Thermography does not carry the risk of radiation yet is also very capable tool for detecting breast cancer. It's all about the US medical-industrial complex where decisions are made dependent on profits not science. Non-profits/foundations (not just the Komen Foundation) have become the front for industry and their desire for profit. Knowing who donates to non-profits is important to understanding what is stated and not stated publicly.
interesting website on mammography and breast cancer
http://www.naturalnews.com/028959_radiation_brst_cancer.html
I'm tired of the pink. I'm tired of the facebook "what color is your bra" posts. Guess what people? There are OTHER forms of Cancer out there. I'm sick and tired of being inundated with requests to support the pink campaign. How about supporting all forms of cancer? Why just one?
A Thyroid Cancer Survivor
Amazing and important post.
... or the milk!!!! http://axiomatica.org/myvideos/video/130/Monsanto
Thank you for posting this. I knew about the pink washing, but really had no idea of its extent. Wow.
Thanks for this. I'm hoping that this Planned Parenthood mishap will help more people discover this information. Breast cancer has become a brand--because it's become palatable and pink and non-threatening to say "breast" on a box of cereal. It's time to stop buying in!
WOW! Thank you Annie for a great and very insightful post. Having had no breast cancer in my family until a few months ago, I have to admit I am ignorant about the Pink Ribbon campaign. However the times I have seen it on TV, etc I was always skeptical of the sponsorship knowing what I know about nutrition and cancers. I am a fan of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and their preventative approach to cancer. It is so unfortunate that these small groups message is often lost or stifled due to lack of big sponsorship. To change the topic slightly, I am was shocked when my Aunt called me a few months ago to tell me that she was having a double mastectomy. Just like that. Found a lump, biopsy, double mastectomy and reconstructive surgery within 2 weeks. It seemed a little archaic to me. Breast cancer is still treated the same it was many years ago, there has been very little advances. The Pink Ribbon Campaign gives us a false sense that there are millions and millions of dollars being pumped into breast cancer research and the reality is that there isn't:( There is some good nutrition based research out there that focuses on cancer prevention but it does not support the USDA or Canadian food guides, so it is not government endorsed.
THIS! Plus so many of those breast cancer awareness campaigns (as if people don't know about its existence) focus on "saving the boobs" and not saving the women (and men) who have cancer.
I've been avoiding the pink bullshit for years knowing so little of that money spent actually goes into research. And the SKG foundation is horrible IMO. They have actually sued people for using the word "cure" in their disease awareness/fund raising campaigns.
I really appreciate your perspective on pinkwashing.
And I get what you're saying about prevention. But I'm coming at this with an excess of knowledge about what breast cancer prevention research looks like, so a lot of things were kind of bugging at the edges of my brain as I was reading this.
You want to be in a "low" risk category for breastcancer? Easy...
Don't drink or smoke, and do exercise regularly. You knew that.
Be born in a family without any history of breast cancer (duh). Be born asian.
Also, don't eat soy or milk. Don't eat meat, except for maybe fish, but not fish with mercury. Never use any plastic products, or any canned foods.
Get your first period when you are 16, have your first child as shortly afterwards as possible, spend two to five years breastfeeding, and repeat at least 4 times. This is the key "lifestyle decision" you can make (except for onset of menstruation. Really, just move somewhere that isn't the US or Europe to increase those odds. Except not somewhere like India, where they still use DDT for malaria).
Die before menopause. This is the BEST thing you can do to lower breast cancer risk!
There. Does that put the "controllable factors" in perspective a bit?
Breast cancer is a disease specifically of those who live long enough to get it. Breasts, as a tissue, are great at growing rapidly and changing- they need to do that so that they can adapt enough to nourish babies. That proclivity for growth is intrinsically less stable in a species that has menopause, lives a long time, and has the time to accumulate a wide variety of mutations (from both completely unavoidable sources- e.g. natural radiation background [like the kind in rocks on earth, and from space], and things we don't really need and should probably get out of our food storage systems e.g. BPA). While I believe in prevention, I'm pretty familiar with the state of that science. They are extremely expensive studies to do right (e.g. large prospective population studies). So they have a very low payoff- not just in terms of patentable drugs (although that is part of it!) but also in terms of knowledge. Many times, or best efforts blow up in our faces (look up the SELECT trial on vitamin E and selenium in prostate cancer). Not to mention, the things we *already know* would be huge positives for breast cancer prevention- like having babies at age 16- may not be worth it.
As always, a really thoughtful post A. Thank you for sharing.
So, so many things have always perplexed me about the pink campaigns:
- Why does heart disease struggle so much to get a word in edgewise with the media, even though it's the single biggest killer of women?
- What on earth do pink frying pans/nail clippers/hockey pads/you-name-its have to do with breast cancer? Can no one think of a better way of going about things?
- Why is it SO acceptable to talk about our breasts as sources of disease, but simultaneously SO UNacceptable to talk about them as sources of life and nourishment? (And does the former actually propagate the latter?)
A friend recently raised the issue of mammography radiation at a women's group that we both belong to. I cannot believe that it had never occurred to me. Since then several members of our group have talked to their doctors about radiation exposure, with fairly negative results. Physicians don't seem to know the actual amount of radiation involved (although this is certainly a known quantity to somebody out there!) or the risk posed to the woman. My friends' physicians were very disapproving of their questioning mammography and/or decisions to have less-frequent mammograms. I'm appalled that these doctors expect women to march lock-step to the current mammography advice without being able to present clear cost-benefit information to them. Patients have a right to know both the risks and the benefits and to make their own informed decisions. Women are generally not treated like autonomous, intelligent individuals when it comes to breast cancer screening.
I agree! Every October I groan inwardly (and sometimes publicly) about the pink coating that hits every store and every commercial campaign. I've long been skeptical of the pink ribbon. My skepticism drove me to look into how much money these companies are making versus how much they are donating, and I was appalled (although sadly, not surprised).
The Facebook "awareness-raising" memes are obnoxious. I recently sent a "reply-all" to my cousin and the women she had copied on the latest meme, pointing out the many flaws with these games. I linked to several feminist critiques of the FB games. I received a "to each her own" dismissive response and "it's all in fun" retort from one girl and the rest remained silent. It pisses me off that women who raise these issues are dismissed as killjoy harpies without a sense of humor, or ignored. Way to support women.
Your last point is really interesting. I'd never thought of that but it's very true.
I agree with MOST of this. Those products that come with pink ribbons do contain cancer causing ingredents a lot of the time. But planned parenthood does NOT provide mammograms. Look it up or just call one of them. Or visit liveaction.org.
A dear friend of mine died from stage 4 breast cancer last summer. She was 30. She would have been considered low risk, but she died anyway. I miss her terribly.
She HATED October. Number one, because it was a constant reminder of her disease, but also because she felt like she and other breast cancer patients were being taken advantage of. That breast cancer was being presented as "the sexy cancer." You don't see ads for testicular cancer awareness saying "grab your balls" do you?
There's way too much emphasis, IMO, on "awareness," whatever that means, and not enough on treatment of cancers that have spread. How many women have to die from metastatic cancer before research efforts are focused more significantly on those women?
Tracy also pointed out that while BC patients are busy going through chemo and surgery and radiation and whatever else, life still goes on. One of her fave charities was The Pink Daisy Project, which helps cancer patients with every day stuff--housecleaning, child care, cooking meals, etc.
After the last "what color is your bra" thing on FB, I posted something about finding it ignorant and not helpful and someone left a comment that if it made one woman more aware it was worth it. Aware of what? That BC exists? How do you not know that? I linked to Susan Nieber's post on the subject, in which she said she can't post a bra color because she doesn't have any breasts. Susan, as you may now, went into hospice care recently.
I agree. My understanding of the PP defunding was due to misattribution of funds. Why would an abortion provider do mammograms anyway?
Otherwise a good and thought provoking article.
I had no idea Annie. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We will definitely be watching the film.
As far as breast cancer goes, I worked next door to a lab that worked on prostate cancer. These scientists were very frustrated because guess what? If men live long enough, 100% of them will get prostate cancer. This isn't to diminish any cancer but the "pink-washing" might be hindering research money that goes to other forms of cancer.
While I agree with your statement in principle and theory, Nicolette, I also think that it's misguided to place all the blame upon diet/lifestyle/choices that a woman makes. Sometimes a person can get cancer regardless of her lifestyle choices and I think it's akin to saying that it's the woman's fault for getting cancer if we place all the blame on her choices. Without a doubt, it's been proven that certain lifestyle choices elevate a woman's risk of developing cancer, but that's not taking in to account other factors, such as genetics. Saying that someone's lifestyle choices caused their cancer is akin to saying that they can cure themselves by changing their lifestyle. Cure and prevention are not the same thing.
Jess, This maybe of interest to you. Dr. Samuel Epstein is a professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University Of Illinois School of Public Health. He wrote a book years ago (over 1000 pages) called the The Politics of Cancer. This website tells you about the actual amount of radiation exposure. It does not mention that radiation exposure is also dependent on the correct calibration of the x-ray equipment. http://www.preventcancer.com/patients/mammography/dangers.htm
Agreed, and thank you for allowing me to validate why I have always felt suspicious of the pink ribbon.
One other thing: the fact that the ribbon is pink has always bothered me. Have we really not progressed beyond the notion that pink is for girls? Furthermore, men do get breast cancer. It's rare, but it happens.
I agree with this. I lost a grandmother to ovarian cancer. Also think the save the boobies, bra colours etc obnoxious to survivors who might no longer have tatas or need to wear a bra. All the awareness bs, if it was about awareness we would post risk factors, facts about diagnostics and treatment both conventional and alternative, things to watch for signs and symptoms etc. And it completely angers me when only breast cancer is targeted, can't we talk about other cancers?
YES, this -- most PPs do not offer mammograms and breast screening. Even then, it was only a few hundred thousand a year in funding.
For me, and for many other women, the disgusting thing about Komen giving money to PP is the correlation between therapeutic abortion and an increase in breast cancer risk, which has been demonstrated in several large scientific studies -- and which causes many people vast discomfort and has caused a lot of controversy. In my mind, this is a lot like companies using carcinogens in pink products -- can you see the paralell from this POV?
Excellent post and comments. Have GOT to see this doc.
The pink ribbon stuff bothers me for the same reason as many others here - what about other diseases that are not "sexy" -- cancers and other things as well? My mother has lupus and several other autoimmune disorders, and no one cares. It will slowly cripple and kill her, unless she catches measles or a bad strain of the flu (vaccinations don't work as well in people with autoimmune diseases; they must rely on herd immunity) and she dies. When I try to discuss this with people, they couldn't be the least bit interested. Try finding a corporate sponsor for an illness that means tortorous, unmitigated pain, and gloves and a mask at the grocery store in flu season.
I myself had a frighterning, life-threatening pregnancy disease (hypermemesis gravidarum) and now volunteer with a foundation which offers support to sufferers --and a large part of what we do is try to educate medical professionals -- even doctors and nurses don't know about this disease -- many think it is "all in our heads!"
So I become highly cynical of all this "raising awareness" nonsense too -- who DOESN'T know BC exists? How about we spend some of that money convincing doctors it's not OK for pregnant women to lose 30 lbs and go into kidney failure?
OK, rant off. Sorry, got carried away. :)
To your first point: hearts aren't "sexy".
Good post, Annie, and lots of good food for thought in the comments, too. I have not been up in arms about the SGK/PP issue primarily because I have always been suspicious of SGK's motives, and their use of all the money they rake in.
I was surprised that you didn't link your breastfeeding support and advocacy to breast cancer prevention, however. As Becca noted above, breastfeeding is only one factor in the possible prevention of breast cancer, but it is one of the few in which women can actually make a choice that may affect her future health (and the breast health of her daughters, too). Improving and increasing support and information about breastfeeding for ALL mothers (a la the Best for Babes strategy) is most definitely part of an effective breast cancer prevention campaign.
SGK has been a company/brand for a long time, even if not recognized as such in the corporate tax structure. We should never be surprised to learn that a company's driving goal is to bring in more money.
PP is not just an abortion provider and not all the clinics offer the same services. Here is the breakdown on the Planned Parenthood 2010 Annual Report for the services provided:
STI/STD Testing and Treatment 38%
Cancer Screening and Prevention 14.5%
Other Women's Health Services 10.4%
Abortion Services 3%
Other Services .6%
Contraception 33.5%
Haven't seen the film, but met with one of its researcher/writers yesterday. Another really great resource that digs beneath the surface of the breast cancer industry is Breast Cancer Action Montreal. Amazing org, check them out. http://www.bcam.qc.ca/
You need to site your sources on the abortion/cancer link because, no. That is not factually correct. From the National Cancer Institute:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage
Thanks Olivia.
I was going to make that comment too, but didn't have the figures handy. Just because an organization offers abortion services, does not mean that is the only part of their mandate. The Ottawa General Hospital provides abortions, delivers babies, does mammograms, puts casts on broken legs and more.
I felt the post was already getting long. I should probably do another post at some point on what we do know and don't know about prevention and risk factors. If there was "Similac for the Cure" or something like that (please tell me there isn't), I would've raised it for sure.
I can appreciate what you are saying here. I know there are a mix of risk factors that we can't control, ones we can control, and ones that we have some control over (perhaps at the expense of other things).
But I'm still not convinced that we know enough or are doing enough. If these studies are as expensive as you say, then putting around 5% toward prevention research isn't nearly enough.
I'm sure more could be done too in order to support women in avoiding the risk factors. More regulation or at least labelling of carcinogens, more support for breastfeeding to reduce the gap between moms who want to breastfeed and those who succeed at it, less pushing/subsidizing of dairy and soy, etc.
That's a fact sheet. Here are all of the scholarly articles and studies on this topic available on the web at this point.
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=abortion+breast+cancer+studies&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
Notice the NCI's fact sheet doesn't link you to the clinical studies.
Also, that 2003 workshop was hiughly controversial because of who was and was not invited. All that info is floating on the web, too.
These kinds of organizations and companies certainly make one question donation giving...I personally give to our medical school and nursing college ...they are usually looking for cures and prevention...and I have direct info from them...charitable organizations many times fund themselves first and then their cause...I guess "donor beware" in all cases. Thanks for this info
We have to remember, too, care while we wait for a cure. www.TheDragonflyFoundation.org
We have to remember to care while we wait for a cure. www.TheDragonflyFoundation.org
(Oops, it wouldn't let me delete my typo!)
We also have to remember to care while we wait for a cure.
(That's what I get for multi-tasking!)
www.TheDragonflyFoundation.org
Not sure why a fact sheet should be disputed. As a lay person I really don't understand why an abortion would put women at greater risk for breast cancer than having a miscarriage or giving birth. Regardless, the studies you linked to say the link between breast cancer and induced abortion is inconclusive.
Just curious if you have any studies that ACTUALLY show what you're claiming? Going through the first few results of your Google search gives this:
- Pike et. al. 1981 grouped induced and spontaneous abortions (ie miscarriages) as a single risk factor
- Gao et. al. 2000 showed: "Cases and controls were similar regarding ...induced abortions..."
- Kvale et. al. 1987 "Those who reported at least one abortion had somewhat lower risk than those who did not..."
- Brind et. al. 1996 is the first on the list to actually indicate a relationship, however "No quality criteria were imposed" on the studies they included for analysis. Moreover they did not include any data on spontaneous abortions, so there is no way to determine whether the link is due specifically to the induction of abortion, or whether early term pregnancy loss itself is the risk factor.
In other words, just because you can find both of your search terms in one study, doesn't mean that study shows correlation between said search terms.
I was giving what I could find on the issue -- there's a lot out there.
What gets me is the fear-mongering over what is for the average women just an 11% risk over the course of her entire life. That could be anywhere from 60 to 80 decades and just 11%.
If the weatherman said you have an 11% chance of being rained on tomorrow, would you take an umbrella to work with you?
The misinformation about our risk, the limitations and risks involved with early screening for women without high risk factors. The fact that we can't tell a cancer that will kill us from one that never would.
Komen is part of the problem.
I'm one of the women online who freaked out about the Facebook games about breast cancer, and my attempt to get people to post actual awareness information about breast cancer did absolutely nothing because it wasn't cute and cuddly. I'm still trying to figure out how posting something racy or even downright offensive to some raises awareness about breast cancer!
The one that drove me over the edge was the post about "I'm x-weeks pregnant" as a joke that came three days after my miscarriage... It was really hurtful to me and everyone I called out on it treated me like a leper for it.
I'm also still confused as to how "raising awareness" of a disease is going to help. Find me someone who doesn't know breast cancer, autism, epilepsy, brain damage or AIDS exist and I will show you a liar...
Been reading through lunch and must conclude I need to rethink on this one (abortion/Bc link -- my old links are coming up null or are revised.) I am going to call a friend who is a cancer researcher in the States and get his thoughts, too.
Thanks for stimulating discussion -- I am not a PP supporter, that will not change. But I need to rethink ABC.
My sister participated in that one. I had re-posted someone's complaint about them and the reasoning behind it and it changed her mind. She then re-posted and no longer joins in those "games"
I might not bother with an umbrella, bc if I get rained on it's not that big a deal. If I were told I had an 11% chance of getting hit by a bus on my way to work tomorrow? I might just stay home. Ten percent sounds small, except when the consequences are kind of a big deal.