Pinktober Revolution
Comments
-
Done with Cowboy --this is what I posted for them---great chat with Terry Wheatley who had BC in 2000 and over lunch with a friend came up with the program and made it happen. 12 million dollars later.........
I volunteered to help dlb823 to apply the above questions to TETWP program. TETWP program identified by dlb823 above is uniquly different than other organizations. How it works in the rodeo /western community. A group wanting to do a fund raiser contacts TETWP. The group defines the fundraiser and where the funds raised will be sent too. TETWP allows the group to use TETWP's Trademark Marketing campaign machine for the groups campaign. Upon completion of the fundraiser, the group informs TETWP how much was raised and where they are sending there money. TETWP adds that to there total of funds raised (12 million as of 2012), but no funds actually go through them. The funds go directly to the named recipient from the local group. If the local group does not have a designated receipient, TETWP requests it be sent to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. 99% of funds raised stay in the local community where the event took place. Those organizations identified on the who benefits page are the top fund raiser recipients for the year. The list is revised yearly. There have been over three hundred organizations that have been recipients with BCRF-Breast Cancer Research Foundation being primary.
TETWP does not want direct donations. They are not 501c3 approved and don't want to be. They use their Trademark Marketing Campaign machine to help locals get the word out and raise funds. Bless them.
All info verified with Terry Wheatley of TETWP( final review to be done soon)
Pass Question 1 and 2, 3 doesn't apply, 4 not under there control .
SAS
0 -
Divine, trust me, the fact that you are stage iv (which is posted under your posts) is not the reason for the thread to get quiet. I'm pretty sure that others, like me, didn't like the political feeling that this thread was becoming.
0 -
Barbe sorry you see it that way Barbe
Divine, Actually, from the first word it was political, that's what revolutions are about and we have done quite well at stirring things up. The only thing I disagree with is shooting each other. People come and go on threads, it's normal. besides it's Friday the boards regrettably slow down on Fri. and pick back up Sun. evening then Full strength. Since I have limited social life I know this b/c few are here to talk with on the weekend. That's why a way long time ago I started the Insomnia thread. The insomnia thread is also a good way to meet the southlanders--Australia, Aukland
Wren did I help you figure out how to find the List?
0 -
I think it's ok to have differing viewpoints posted. Sometimes it helps to hear alternate points of view. It will either cause you to think about your POV and shore it up, or cause you to re-think your POV and change it. Either can be a good thing. Also, people may choose to give for different reasons. One area may be more important to one person than another, so they may opt to give to an organization that best fits their preference. That's what makes the questions such a good idea. It helps people to ask the questions and think through their options.
I had a friend tell me her friend is upset that everything BC related is about a cure and not enough attention is being given to prevention. This is a person with BC in her immediate family. It just demonstrated to me that while we all have the same disease, we do not view the disease or the associated fundraising with the same eye. This page and its differing POV's is just a reflection of those opinions. While we may not all agree about pink, or how we want others to support our cause, we can all agree that we need to make the need for breast cancer fundraising obsolete.
0 -
So have we imploded?
0 -
Naw, we've just lost our steam. There isn't much to rebel against this year. I think Komen shot themselves in the foot with the Planned Parenthood episode. Since this happened pretty early in the year, I suppose companies could have pulled their ads or plans for merchandising they may have had. I don't know, I'm just guessing.
I have seen some pink stuff around, but nearly the volume as last year. BUT I did see an ad in the coupon section (of course P&G had pages of pink coupons) that just killed me. It was for "FAT BASTARD" wine, and it had a pink ribbon on the label! Talk about pinkwashing AND bad taste. Anyone had this wine? Maybe it's really nice, but I'm not sure I'd buy any of it.
0 -
I also haven't seen a ton of pink crap this year, not like in years past. Just a few things here and there. No stores I shop at collect at the register, or anything like that, either. Two hundred Facebook friends, and only three have posted anything bc-related. After I removed those three, I haven't seen anything. (Or the remaining people were thoughtful enough to block me from seeing posts about it.)
I HAVE seen a lot of posts on news sites around the Internet about pinkwashing, and anti-Komen articles.0 -
Quite a few local fundraiser goin on around here but all state 100% of proceeds go to.....And the charities named are research institutiona and local groups providing direct services and cash to patients.
0 -
Maybe our revolution worked and our job is done?
0 -
Shall we declare VICTORY!!!!!????
0 -
Not until the stupid 5 hour energy commercial stops running. It's connected to the Avon foundation which may explain why the actress is wearing so much makeup.
0 -
What? I haven't seen it. Is it pink?
0 -
Of course it's pink. I saw it on CNN.com.
0 -
Even my eggs have little pink ribbons stamped on each one!
0 -
Hey --great to see ya'll--I entirely agree, not nearly the amount of pinkwashing as in years past. The first year of BC and my DH's Lymphoma ---When the clerk at Publix's, biggest grocery in at least Florida Asked for a donation at the register---I went to management and had a few words(right a few). They haven't done it since.
Shells I wore the tee That said POR --CANCER IS A DISEASE NOT A MARKETING OPPORTUNITY --to the grocery today---Lots of people looking ---after I realized that I had to walk straight so the whole thing could be read. Also, stopped at the local Allsate office that had a sign out front that said " Save the Ta-Tas, cancer policy sold here". Explained that many with Bc found that phrase objectionable. It was changed in less than two hours.
Finished The BCRF on the List thread. Found out allot of stuff in the research that I didn't know. Primary was that Evelyn Lauder started it in 1993 and was chairman of the Board until her death last year. My notes on it are in the archives thread. I had links to a couple of sites, PETA for one, that identified Estee Lauder as doing animal research which at one point they stopped apparently. It is stated in the links that they have restarted b/c China requires animal testing to enter their markets. So, if you read the List thread and the notes in the archives you will get the picture. I didn't put the links in the List thread b/c there is no way to verify the information. So, in response to question 4, I suggested keywords for anyone interested to google.
Don't want to scare anyone off from doing a research post on the List thread, but I was very surprised how much time it took to answer the info that I've put in the header. The header has been revised multiple times as I learned stuff along the way. As I do more I will revise header as needed.
You will notice that the cowboy one THOUGH ENOUGH TO WEAR PINK--TETWP, IDENTIFIES BREAST CANCER RESEARCH FOUNDATION As it's primary donation site when a local rodeo/ western fundraiser doesn't designate a local charity-----As Chabba identified that most/ much money stays local with fundraisers---- when TETWP allows an organization to use their machine, 99% says local. But I wonder (have a call out to the lead person who also is a BC survivor) what the "western" community would think if they put any relavance to the connection between Lauder and BCRF, and that Lauder is ? doing animal research---how would that sit with them. Hate to cause a potentional ruckus, but the two concepts are in conflict. Western folks take very good care of their animals. Also, BCRF supplied 40(41) million $ to research through 190 plus researchers for this fiscal year. It is the second largest organization for research funding. What to do? $40 million is allot. Conflict out the wazoo. I used Leukemia and Lymphoma Society as a comparison. The LLS did 270 million. So, 40 million is paultery in comparison. But BCRF the second largest. I think I will do the first on the list next, can't name them now b/c I was concentrating on BCRF. Sheesh, LLS has a machine that can draw that much in donations, but they have been established since 1949. I used LLS b/c I know how much in Grant money, they gave DH with Lymphoma---5000$'s - each fiscal year. We used every dollar of it for the first fiscal year that we made application. He was approved for the next fiscal year for another 5000$ Grant, but he passed in the first month. Had we known about LLS the first year he would have been approved back to his dx in April 2009
There isn't a person on this site(BCO) or BC anywhere that couldn't use the same type of Grant. What I've learned so far is it is the "machine" or operations behind the Foundations. LLS Society has a 40- 60 year start, they've worked the bugs out and the "machine" runs extremely well. So, where does that put BC in comparison to what LLS did in the same time of growth? Since we are talking "epidemic" of BC, a term that is often used to describe BC stats increase---what does it mean?-- Be Back sheila
0 -
Terry Wheatley from TETWP just rang in. I verified the info I wrote. We talked about BCRF. She new Evelyn Lauder and commented that she worked tirelessly to promote a Cure.
Evelyn Lauder had ovarian cancer and died of complications of ovarian cancer. She had a vested interest in what she was doing. My words not Terry's. So, however question 4, causes someone to respond is up to their own belief system. Please, review links on the BCRF post on List thread. BCRF has funded many amazing breakthroughs for BC. A rush to judge anything should take this into consideration---If BCRF hadn't funded the research that it has funded where would we be?
I think I will add the last paragraph to the List thread post.
Links to the List thread and the Archives thread are in the header above. It's very convenient to travel between the threads. I did this on the Catholic thread for three linked threads. It's great. Saves travel time, so, to speak. It's like the transporter in Star Trek.
0 -
Wren If you would like to do Love's thing for the list thread let me know. If you would like me to do it , I would be willing b/c the header has been revised even to minute detail with the three I have done. I understand the flow. Till the bugs are worked out of the header there are two approaches. One let me do Love's and see what other bugs I can work out or you do it and suggest what needs to be changed.
I may not understand, Love's thing b/c I haven't had time to go there yet. Is she involved with a foundation, Independent researcher--What? It's easy to change header material. I think Love needs to be included. But if she doesn't fit the description of the TOPIC, what I can do is ask the Mods to change the thread topic name. Please . advise. Thank you
Originally, when I did the archives thread it was supposed to be a place to put links with a brief, like one sentence thing to describe why the linkage. But the archives have turned into a different usuage. It could return to original intent of usuage, but I'd have to get everyone there to delete. It wouldn't be hard b/c they are still all posting. I did however find it a very convenient place to store my notes when researching for the List thread. Versus making a mess around my home computer, and when I wanted a research link that may or may not be included in the List description.
So, again Wren Please advise--sassy/sheila /sas------I forget who I am sometimes wherever --The below is sas, I'm really sheila, and sassy is a nickname given by a dear friend TheFuzzyLemon-----
0 -
Glad to see we haven't imploded---we have allot of work to do --Love you all >>>onward to the unknown
0 -
I saw the 5-hour energy drink today. Yes, put a pink ribbon on a really unhealthy product, that's helpful.
0 -
So Lauder died of `complications of ovarian cancer`!!! Just what I`ve been saying about how the stats are skewed!!! If someone dies of say, heart failure due to chemo (like Marybe) they are put as `heart disease`and not `cancer`. So it looks like less women are dying and they`re not!! They are just labeled differently.
Now to animal testing. I LOVE animals. I cry when I READ a book where an animal gets injured, but let`s get real. Do YOU want make-up tested in your daughter or grandaughters eyes??????? If the stuff is dangerous enough then they probably aren`t using in on our faces and it wouldn`t do `too much`harm to the animals, just distress. Is a little bit of distress wrong? Of course it is!! BUT I don`t want it tested on MY family. Do you want to use yours??????
0 -
Mini what should we do about it? We have know idea who's reading us-----could be lot's of people producing stuff. I agree absolutely that Komen screwed up with Planned Parenthood. tHAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE BEST THING THAT HAPPENED TO BC sorry only briefly about caps, hit inadvertantly. But it is a point. Komen screwed up bigtime----heard a NPR thingy I think discussion.-whoe is me if I'm wrong. That it showed how far to the right the organization was and that they did not understand all the services offered to women and that their stance on womens issues was revealed once Brinker(sic) left. So, and well How often do I use those words-----hmmmm .............Well they kept everything under the radar. Blew it when B left b/c the person below her didn't comprhend what she was doing, And had no comprhesion of Suffrage. The things they don't teach in school and the things people don't know that are in a power position. Had the idiot that replaced B , had a clue about womens issues, she would not have screwed up the Komen outfit. BUT it was to all of our advantage. Yeah, b/c we found out and every one did that the supposed biggest organization supporting women -WASN'T
0 -
Actually, it's not a little bit of "distress." Animals have their eyes clamped open and chemicals dripped into them for long periods of time. (Last I checked, if I get mascara in my eye, I can blink to help clear it, then rinse my eye if necessary. The animals don't get this luxury.) They have their fur shaved, and stuff is applied that gives them chemical burns. As in, it eats through their skin and into the tissue underneath. Again, they have no option to get away, to clean themselves off. This is all done with no anesthesia. When the animals are injured to a point where they are no longer "useful," they are killed. And because drugs that euthanize gently cost money to purchase and administer, the animals are not killed kindly.
If you think not much harm is caused, you are very, very wrong. (And you're wrong if you think it's just mice, rats, rabbits that are tested on. Companies use dogs and cats, too.)
Lets be honest here: The only animals that wear makeup are humans. There is absolutely no reason makeup, or their chemical ingredients, should be tested on non-human animals. No reason. There are already hundreds of things that were tested in the past, companies should be using these things that already have data available. There is no reason to be coming up with a new chemical that might make mascara extend lashes an additional half a millimeter, or to make blush stay on a half an hour longer. No reason.
Additionally, animal testing is not required by US law. Companies that test on animals in the US are doing so for no reason. Companies that were formerly cruelty-free but have recently started testing on animals to sell in China have thrown away their ethics in pursuit of the almighty $$. It's disgusting.
I personally will not use ANY personal care product (makeup, soap, etc), or household product that is made by ANY company that tests on animals. I won't use anything made by a company OWNED BY a company that tests on animals. (For example, The Body Shop is owned by L'Oreal, which tests on animals. I will not buy Body Shop products.)
I don't care how nice the products are, I will not use them for any reason. I've seen on a couple rads threads that some RO's have recommended using only Ivory soap during rads. Well, Ivory is owned by Unilever, which tests on animals. I will not use it.
I also do not care how much money a company donates to a worthy cause, if they test on animals I will not buy their products or support them for any reason.
Sorry, but if HUMANS want to use makeup, it should be tested on HUMANS.0 -
Barbie I get your response Re: makeup the problem is if you go to the sites that I have on the arhcive thread ---makes a story for non use of makeup. I have only routinely started to use make up b/c after one round of chemo I went totally gray---many colors of gray and it continues changing----but without makeup I look washed out. Do I care? Only in certain situations. But for anyone else--I care---if they make a choice about a product and don't know that it can harm them---that's wrong. BTW glad to see you back---sassy
0 -
As much as I like that BCRF allocates more cents on the dollar to research, I cannot discount its ties to Estee Lauder and the fact that they produce and market carcinogenic cosmetics. The following is from an article entitled Pinkwashing with a Side of Breast Cancer, from the website Organic Authority:
Take this incredibly overt example: Estee Lauder. This mega cosmetic company owns not only their own namesake but a slew of other popular lines including Cliniqie, Origins, Prescriptives, Bobbi Brown, La Mer, Aveda, Bumble & Bumble and more. Though they trumpet breast cancer awareness - they even have a section devoted to it on their website - many of their products are not in line with the campaign. Select Bumble & Bumble, Aveda and Clinique products contain chemicals that are likely to be contaminated with the carcinogens 1,4-dioxane or formaldehyde; Bobbi Brown Blush contains silica and titanium dioxide (which poses a risk of cancer from inhalation); and several Estee-owned brands still use parabens, which can act like estrogen in the body (elevated estrogen levels can lead to the development of cancer), just to name a few.
0 -
Cottontail--Glad to see your back--- you saw my response to Barbie-----yes I agree with you, but each individual has to make a choice. Your statement absolutely suppoirts what I preceive as the goal of the List thread that is linked in the thread header. THE FOUR QUESTIONs RAISED by Breast Cancer Action Are a critical analysis of what to know---not just foundations---but whomever is doing research or whomever wants to know what kind of research is being done and or if funds are available to individuals to pay bills. The thread is still in the evolving phase. Read what I wrote to Wren. I learned allot in doing those three posts that I had no clue about and putting the thread header together , other than the the four critiacal questions developed by BCA. I have added and changed the header. I will continue to do so..........I see this header as very important, to produce factual information about organisations. That's not easy. It takes research and ability to talk to the leaders of orgs. to say is this corrrect information. But I have learned in this pursuit that sticking to and answering the questions is a major task and resposnsability.
To me this is a very necessary undertaking to identify organizations that fund BC research and or supply nfunds to BC people. Can't do that by fly by the wind links. Cotton need help as I expressed to Wren. I'll do the work till the header is right or you do and organization and see where the flaws are in the header. Charity navigator does NOT supply the answers to the four questions.---------Getting tired of being serious---want to go play.
0 -
Hey SpecialK been writing ---so post may have seemed long after yours it's not. You've got my point. The List I'm trying to develop makes a point based on four critical analysis questions developed by BREAST CANCER ACTION out of California. i wish they had applied there own questions to all foundation/ charities/ government. No such chance when I called them. They thought it was great for what I described what I wanted to use their questions for, but said the questions were developed for the individual to use. Bummer. B/c I applied the questions to three organizations---got physical problems from the research--sheesh.......swollen ankles and other
If you link to the List thread and research notes left in the archives( which I will within a week delete) , which has a link in this header and see what I wrote, you will pick up on the condonrum. Translation for those reading(lurking) ---a conondrum --is essentially a puzzle. What do we do --when what we support is conflicted by what we don't support-----in this case----the 2nd largest supporter of BC research at 40+ million dollars, does research on animals that causes harm until they blink or die, to get into a new market------can we start a request for clarification---that we don't agree that animal testing and carcinogenics be excluded.
We can raise the word--"It's not right"
0 -
Sas, I posted about Love on some thread, but can't find it now. I don't know what the 4 questions are.
Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation funds research directly, including research to find the cause as well as the cure. Her website states that 85 cents of every dollar goes to research. She has some sort of partnership with Avon (which I find ironic). She also has the 'Army of Women' who have signed up to be informed of research projects which need subjects. She sends an e-mail with descriptions and contacts. She is also involved with the 'Health of women' study (how.org). This study is done on-line with plans to follow women for 20 years. This study needs every woman possible: every age, ethnicity, income level, world wide. They are also enrolling high risk men.
Please feel free to copy and past wherever you wish.
0 -
Wren I have no problem at all doing the research on her. Glad to hear Foundation behind her name, b/c she fits within the the list thread without any alteration of the thread. Cool.
sassy0 -
Wren look in the header on this thread. I've put link to go to the List thread and the Archives thread for this thread. It's there, I made it up. it's a new way to connect between threads----star trek transporter
0 -
sas, I never went away, I just post when I have something to add, but enjoy reading here.
0
