Pinktober Revolution
Comments
-
Sooooooooo many good ones they are ringing in my brain! I just cannot think of one. Will be back when I have something. But these are good guys. Barbe - yours absolutely HITS IT. Veggy yours lists it, but I would add 'assinine doctors' for one of the As. Kate - stop pinkwashing is brilliant. And really, the marketing thing, I don't know but I think that they don't market like this for prostate cancer, bcz they know the men would not be out there running marathons or wearing blue. Cure needed. Prevention and cure.
0 -
cure=life
(I like SN's tired of walking find a cure!!)
0 -
This is the shirt I sleep in.
0 -
Gracie-- I really like that one!!!
Barbe- I love your too !!
0 -
Wish I had the guts to wear it "outside".
0 -
If I was closer to you I would wear it with you *outside*
0 -
DianeEssa - I added it just for you.
0 -
Gracie- Love the t-shirt! Might have to add that to my wardrobe soon!
0 -
Screw the new normal. I want my old normal back.
Why yes, isn't it great that you can get a tummy tuck and a boob job now and insurance has to pay for it. Idiot.
And oh yes, do tell me another story about a friend that was fine one minute and dead the next week. It really cheers me up. Bigger idiot.
0 -
43,000 U.S. breast cancer deaths in 1992.
40,000 U.S. breast cancer deaths in 2011.
This is not progress.
0 -
And most of that difference is probaly due to diet awareness and women taking more control of their own treatment, not any medication or surgery.
0 -
Breast Cancer
FIND A VACCINE
0 -
You think you want new boobs? Be careful what you wish for. You have a a 1 in 8 chance of getting your wish.
0 -
A lot of that so-called progress in numbers may be due to earlier detection, meaning that people who likely weren't going to die anyway got dx'd and sometimes overtreated. It may also be due to the Women's Health Initiative study. But there is no evidence that it is due to improved treatments or --hormonal causes a big aside-- a better knowledge of what, if any, preventive measures to take. In fact, improved numbers that look like gains may be offset to some degree by increased environmental hazards. But that last bit is only speculation.
There's really no compelling evidence that the fate of women diagnosed with BC is any better than it was decades ago ago. Lives can better be prolonged, but so can suffering.
I would like a huge placard to annoy Nancy Brinker that said: TAKE THAT SMILE OFF YOUR FACE AND STOP USING SO MUCH HAIRSPRAY AND MAKE-UP - YOU ARE POLLUTING YOUR WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THAT MUCH BLING!
0 -
OMG wonderful thread.Last nite I wanted to bump it but I forgot....No need.All the right ones are here..And I am sure more are coming.
I still want a tee shirt that says FUCKTOBER.
0 -
If I have learned one thing from this disease it's that numbrs can be skewed to mean anything you want them to. They could be lower because more women are unable to get tested (i.e. lack of insurance or access to a facility) or simply refuse tesing. Fewer people mammoed, fewer diagnisis' of BC. It's such a racket.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Get a book called The Harm We Do by Dr. Otis Webb Brawley. It's an eye opener. And he's the Chief medical officer for the ACS, not some quack out to make a buck. I wish I lived in Atlanta so he could be my oncologist.
0 -
Mini, couldn't agree more. I will go one step further and say those numbers are skewed to benefit shareholders of whatever pharmaceutical de 'jour. Just my opinion, of course. I'll have to give that book a read.
Edited to add: grannydukes, wouldn't it be cool if calenders actually read that for the month of October? Love it.
0 -
Gracie 1 - I told my husband last night that if I had any money I would invest it in companies that make cancer drugs and MRI and CAT Scan machines. And they say cancer rates are expected to go up 80% as India and China becime more "westernized." And don't get me started about osteopenia and acid reflux disease. Grrr. I don't how those people sleep at night.
0 -
If those numbers are valid, that is not a good sign. This is not number of cases but deaths.
That is a 20 year time span. I wonder if population increase could be a reason for the absolute number?
How many unwell persons have entered our country.
Are those deaths caused by inadequate care of poor women?
Or are they caused by the attacks on organizations that serve women's health needs?
0 -
Someone should create a tee shirt!!!!!!!
Mini-I read the CNN report on that book.Everything he says is true.They are trying to kill us!!!!
Oh yes they are!!!!!
0 -
What I found the most scary about it was that a women actually came into the ER at the hospital with her breast in a bag (yes, it fell off) and she still waited 4 hours to be seen. She wasn't shot, bleeding profusly or having a heart attack when they triaged her, so she sat there with it in a bag and waited 4 HOURS. He said they could have saved her for roughly $35k 12 years before but she had no insurance and now, instead, they spent $150k to keep her alive for an add'l 18 months. Where is the logic in that?
In another chapter, they over-treated a man right into the grave (prostate CA). There has to be a happy medium somewhere.
We are a just little guinie pigs for big pharma. There are good drugs to be sure, but it's scary what they are doing and the power they wield.
0 -
From what I have read, even on this web site, cancer deaths have fallen about 2% a year for the last 20 years. Try this:
0 -
Infobabe - I'm sure they have gone down, but it's because of prevention and/or earlier intervention and more people having access to medical care, not cures. I just read one that admitted that they don't believe they will ever find a "cure," just better treatments. Not trying to be a pessimist, just a realist.
0 -
I do not believe for one second it went down.
I read it was an epedemic.
1 out of 3 will get bc????/what was it before 1 out of 1?
I think im a realist too!!!!!!
Find the reason,vacine or the cure but Find something!!!!!
0 -
I made a mistake there in my reading of the post.
I heard on NPR a couple of days ago that they have discovered cancer stem cells that are impervious to radiation and chemo. They hide out and that is what causes mets later. Now they know the enemy, they can develop treatments to address it.
I think cancer will be cured on the cellular level. 50 years from now they will consider what we do now is barbaric. That is my unprovable opinion.
My dad died 60 years ago at a young age. If he had the same health problems today, not only would he had lived but he would have been cured. My grandmother died of breast cancer in 1939, again, at a young age. It would not have happened that way today. Progress has been made and we don't know what will be discovered in the future. DNA, genome projects, etc, hold so much promise, I am optimistic. I would love to know what the future holds for breast cancer.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=157720638
0 -
It's the present day and I already consider some of what we do barbaric.
Death and prevalence rates as a percentage of the whole population, or in raw numbers, cannot be used to judge treatment efficacy for reasons that have been gone into in earlier posts in other forums. If you get BC today, however, you are not that much less likely to die of it than you were 50 years ago - slightly less, but not much less.
0 -
Infobabe, I admire your optimism...I really do, wish I had it. Cancer deaths falling by 2%/year in 20 years, assuming that stat is accurate, pisses me off. 20 freakin' years, billions of dollars and a decrease of 2%. That's a joke to me.
0 -
I mentioned Dr. Otis Brawley's book..How We Do Harm on the Book Lovers thread as well! It would be a privilege to have his permission to be one of his patients! One of the most important books that I've read in recent memory!
0 -
Patmom
I have come to HATE pink! I LOVE that slogan !!!!
0 -
You have to be careful with statistics. I was watching something the other day where a man said his mother is listed as a survivor because she lived to the 60 month landmark. Nevermind that she died at 66 months. She was a survivor. I believe we will make inroads for sure. My husband is alive because the cancer he was born with and should have showed up before he was five didn't show up until he was in his 20's. When he was five he would have died because there was no treatment. Now he's almost 30 years past chemo and doing just fine.
But we also are dying because we are over-treated because insurance wil pay for it. I'm telling you, read The Harm We Do. All I am saying is that there is no on size fits all treatment. Yet that's how we are treated. I'm treated with the same dosage of a pill that someone twice my size will take. I may not need the same treatment, yet I will get it because that's what the statistics say works. I want necessary treatment, just not unnecessary treatment. I don't want to be treated like I'm courting death because I don't goose step into the cancer center for the same treatment as everyone else. I want choices. I want to be seen as a person not a statistic.
That's more in line with this thread. I'm a person not a statistic.
0
