Breast Cancer Sells ...

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Ilena Rose - 24 Oct 2007 16:45 GMT

Note from Ilena Rosenthal:

For those here who don't like me and don't want to read what I post
... you need only to close this window.

For those of you here who appreciate the skeptical viewpoints that I
bring to Usenet and write me regularly with appreciation (and others)
... I invite you to read this fine article.

http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.com

EXCERPT: According to the bubblegum-colored magazine, one perk is a
pair of new boobs that "will face the horizon, not the South Pole.'
Better yet, they will be paid for by insurance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note from Ilena Rosenthal & The Humantics Foundation.

The quote above shows the depths the breast implant / breast cancer
industry goes down to, to market this highly profitable product.

Please don't be fooled by their advertising / PR.

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/
http://breastimplantawareness.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AlterNet
Breast Cancer Sells
By Lucinda Marshall, AlterNet
Posted on October 24, 2007, Printed on October 24, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/65943/

October means falling leaves, ghosts and goblins, and pink, lots of
Pepto-Pink as we observe National Breast Cancer Awareness Month
(NBCAM). From Campbell's Soup to Breast Cancer Barbie, it seems as if
just about everyone has jumped on the pinkified bandwagon. And
although October is also Domestic Violence Awareness Month (DVAM),
we'd much rather be aware of breasts, even sick ones, than talk about
black eyes and things that aren't supposed to go on behind closed
doors. That point is reflected in women's magazines, which devote much
more space in their October issues to breast cancer than they do to
domestic violence.

Of nine publications that I recently found on a grocery store magazine
rack, all of which advertised breast cancer articles on the covers of
their October issues, only two also contained coverage of Domestic
Violence Awareness Month (and mentioned that on their covers).* And,
what's worse, of the coverage dedicated to breast cancer, much of it
was offensive, superficial, misleading, or flat-out wrong.

This year there is even called Beyond Breast Cancer that cheerfully
proclaims that there are "10 Good Things About Breast Cancer." Who
knew? And just what are the pluses of getting this dreaded disease?
According to the bubblegum-colored magazine, one perk is a pair of new
boobs that "will face the horizon, not the South Pole.' Better yet,
they will be paid for by insurance. Oh, and you get lots of cards and
flowers.

Meanwhile, both Good Housekeeping and Woman's Day give incorrect
information about mammograms. Good Housekeeping claims that "[N]o one
disputes that all women 50 and over should be screened annually." Yet
physicians in different countries disagree on how often women over 50
should be screened. While doctors in the United States recommend
annual mammograms, those in Europe say every two to three years. In
Australia, where a study out last year shed significant doubt on the
extent to which mammograms save lives, the recommendation is every two
years. Interestingly, in some of these countries, the incidence and
death rates for breast cancer are actually lower or comparable to the
United States.

When they're not spewing misinformation, the October issues of the
traditional women's magazines are offering overly simplistic
information about breast cancer risk factors and tips for preventing
it. Woman's World (not to be confused with Good Housekeeping discuss
factors you can change, such as smoking, and those you can't, like
genetics. Missing is any mention about the purported connection
between breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy. Also absent is
information on parabens, phthalates and other carcinogenic chemicals,
which are disturbingly common in consumer goods from lipstick to
lotion.

The silence on these subjects mirrors the focus that both the American
Cancer Society and Susan G. Komen for the Cure place on the profitable
business of curing cancer rather than preventing it, which likely
would hurt the bottom line of many of their biggest donors. Consumers
are told that shopping will help find a cure -- a message that is not
lost on advertisers.

Vogue sings the praises of one prolific advertiser, Ralph Lauren, who
this year is selling polo shirts with bullseyes above the breast to
target breast cancer. The ad shows a group of young, mostly white
women wearing skimpy thongs, the polo shirts and nothing else. Subtle,
huh?

A Pine Sol ad in Essence features motorcycle riders Aj Jemison and Jan
Emanuel "driving for the cure," which is awfully hard when your
vehicle is spewing cancer-causing exhaust. On top of that, Pine Sol
contains 2-butoxyethanol (EGBE), which has been linked to fertility
disorders, birth defects and other medical problems.

Redbook carries a sparkling wine "Cheers for the Cure" ad. Curiously,
their article, "Who Beats Cancer and Who Doesn't," was one of the few
risk factor pieces that failed to mention the link between alcohol and
breast cancer, something that is highlighted in several of the other
magazines.

And what if you or someone you love gets breast cancer? Not to worry,
the women's magazines are full of inspiring survivor stories.
Unfortunately, while most breast cancer victims are over the age of
50, not one of the nine magazines I analyzed focused on those women
and the impact the disease has on their lives. Far more typical is a
piece in Vogue discussing a very attractive young woman's agonizing
choice to have a preventive double mastectomy because she carries the
genes that can cause breast cancer. And with the exception of Essence,
whose target audience is black, most of the women in these survivor
stories are white, even though black women are more likely to die from
the disease.

Despite most of these magazines having sections on health, family and
love, only two of them (Redbook and Essence) had any mention of
Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

While it is questionable that additional awareness of breast cancer is
useful, in the case of domestic violence, more coverage would be
helpful. Domestic violence is the most common type of violence
experienced by women both globally and in the United States. The
Family Violence Prevention Fund reports that one out of every three
women worldwide is "beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused
during her lifetime." Here in the United States, the rate is one in
four. In 2005 (the latest year for which statistics are available),
976 women in the United States were killed by by men that they knew.
Yet because we tend to see this violence as a private, shameful issue,
only 20 percent of rapes and 25 percent of physical assaults against
women in this country are reported to the police.

Also underreported is the great financial toll domestic violence takes
on communities. FVPF estimates that the health-related costs of "rape,
physical assault, stalking and homicide committed by intimate partners
exceed $5.8 billion each year." About 70 percent of that goes toward
direct medical costs; the other 30 accounts for indirect costs such as
lost wages.

Though lacking in many other details, this month's article in Redbook
did attempt to demonstrate how common domestic violence really is,
with featured pictures of two women as well as two men who knew a
woman who had been affected by domestic violence.

And the article in the October issue of Essence, which delves into why
black America is "so silent" about the violence that is committed
against black women (a number that nearly doubled between 2003 and
2004, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics), also pinpoints
why more coverage in these magazines would be more useful.
""Awareness, or lack thereof, is also a factor, says Rose Pulliam,
president of the National Domestic Violence Hotline and the National
Teen Dating Abuse Helpline. "We have to find a way to talk about
domestic abuse that doesn't demonize our men but creates a way of
looking at this as something to discuss openly," she says.

What to take away from all this? The bottom line, literally, is that
we shrink away from black eyes. Breasts, on the other hand, are highly
marketable commodities, as these magazines' advertising and helpful
hints about pink products attest. Glamour even uses breast cancer
awareness as an opportunity for a little full frontal nudity,
featuring young, pretty and oh-so-white survivors with their best come
hither looks. This emphasis on youth and whiteness is a true
disservice to older women who are far more likely to get this disease
and black women who are more likely to die from it.

Such irresponsible coverage of breast cancer and blindness to domestic
violence suggest that many publications are less concerned with
women's health than with making a buck. By tugging at consumers' purse
strings instead of promoting their well-being, these magazines fail to
serve the women who read them.

*The magazines surveyed for this article were: Essence, Redbook, Good
Housekeeping, Womens Day, Womens World, Ladies Home Journal,
Glamour, Vogue and Beyond Breast Cancer.

Lucinda Marshall is a feminist artist, writer and activist. She is the
Founder of the Feminist Peace Network, www.feministpeacenetwork.org.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/65943/

Reply to this Message

Tim Jackson - 24 Oct 2007 17:12 GMT

> Note from Ilena Rosenthal:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> bring to Usenet and write me regularly with appreciation (and others)
> ... I invite you to read this fine article.

Ilena I have no problem with you posting your (or for that matter other
people's) views on breast cancer here, and have never criticised that.
I may not always agree with you, but that is as it should be. We can
all post our own opinions.

The only things I have an issue with are off topic posts, and excessive
cross-posting that tends to bring flame wars unnecessarily to our group.
This post suffers from neither of these.

Of course I cannot speak for others, but I think most will agree. This
is not a group prone to flame wars, and criticism is usually constructive.

Tim Jackson

Reply to this Message

Kyle Schwitters - 30 Oct 2007 15:29 GMT

*** SOME AREN'T BUYIN' IT ! ***

The American Cancer Society and other big-time cancer "fighters" have
been, they tell us, assiduously searching for cancer cures since, at
least the 1950s. Total monetary contributions to these groups are
estimated to have reached the TRILLION-dollar mark, although accurate
figures, we're told, are not available.

We're also not told precisely how much money CEOs and top managers of
these organizations receive in annual salary and bonuses. Estimates
start in the 6-figures and go up to $10-million.

Yet, despite all this money being tossed about, and despite the
frequent, glowing news releases out of the cancer community, the
OVERALL "cure rate" for all types of cancers in the U.S. is about
where it was in 1953, 49- to 51-percent! Naturally, the cancer
barons deny this.

Is this seemingly immutable cure-rate because of waste in research
programs, waste in terms of overpaid "managers," or waste in pursuit
of the wrong answers? Or a combination of these factors?

Scientists and oncologists, sotto voce, say that quite possibly a
cancer "cure" will never be found, much less some type(s) of
"immunization."

RISK AVOIDANCE -- preventing, eliminating, or reducing risk factors,
including known carcinogens, just might be the best approach.

But the "Big Cancer" folks might have some things to say to opposers
of the bad science, regulatory sclerosis, and outright fraud that have
played a role in the decades-long "war on cancer."

-------------------------------

"Author's Book on Cancer Fuels Flames Again"

By Cindy Skrzycki
Bloomberg News
In The Washington Post, D03
Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Devra Davis spent part of her growing-up years in a Pennsylvania steel
town that became famous for a lethal industrial fog that settled over
the community and killed 20 people over five days in 1948.

So it's no surprise that Davis, 61, an epidemiologist at the
University of Pittsburgh, has written controversial books drawing on
her experiences. The latest, "The Secret History of the War on
Cancer," claims that 10 million cancer deaths could have been avoided
over the past 30 years had it not been for industry opposition to good
science and regulatory inaction by the U.S. government.

Davis's message, hailed as courageous or fanatical and fringe, arrives
at a time when the public is concerned about tainted domestic food
supplies, lax import rules on lead-contaminated toys, and charges of
doctored government reports on climate change.

"We want to believe we can cure cancer -- throw a lot of money at it
and solve the problem," Davis said in an interview. "It hasn't worked
because we want to kill the disease but don't look at what causes it."

A major theme of the book is that the battle against cancer is being
fought mostly on the treatment front. The overall cancer death rate
has declined in recent years because there are fewer smokers and
better detection and treatments. About half a million Americans die of
cancer annually, the National Cancer Institute says.

The hard work of identifying environmental factors that may lead to
cancer is often not undertaken, Davis writes. Or the results of
research are ignored, dismissed as lacking proof, or treated as a
"trade secret" by the government and manufacturers.

Not enough attention is being paid, she says, to the effects of small
doses of chemicals that, when taken together, may put people at risk.

Davis, director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at Pitt's
cancer institute, raises a red flag on children using cellphones or
bubble baths containing 1,4-Dioxane, a foaming agent that is banned in
Europe because it has been linked to cancer in animals. She cautions
people of all ages to avoid home insulation containing asbestos, to
limit CT scans and to shun the use of aspartame.

"It's death by a 1,000 cuts for us and our children from these low-
level toxins," she said.

"Unusual cancers" are popping up in younger people, she said, with a
growing number of cases of childhood leukemia and brain and kidney
cancer. Ten percent of the nation's 10 million cancer survivors are
younger than 40.

Regulators should look at the combined risks of small amounts of
hazardous substances and find safer alternatives, Davis argues. She
would let companies tell what they learned about the hazards of their
products from their own research, in exchange for amnesty from legal
liability.

Davis's book is drawing predictable reactions from each end of the
political-scientific spectrum.

"We see the out-and-out manipulation of research or suppression of
it," said Francesca Grifo, senior scientist and director of the Union
of Concerned Scientists' scientific integrity program in Washington.
"The fact she is putting these things together maybe will get people
to ask more questions."

On the other hand, Bruce Ames, a retired University of California
biochemist and National Medal of Science winner, said Davis is
fanatical and "has gone completely overboard about traces of chemicals
versus what is out there -- bad diets and smoking."

Elizabeth M. Whelan, president and founder of the American Council on
Science and Health, a New York group of doctors and scientists who
question the reliability of the science government uses to regulate,
agrees with Ames. She called Davis's book "fringe." The real health
risks, Whelan said, are tobacco, exposure to sunlight, obesity, and
for women, sexual habits, childlessness and drinking too much.

The Donora accident from childhood prompted Davis to write her first
book, "When Smoke Ran Like Water," which became a National Book Award
finalist after it was published in 2002. It took 20 years and the loss
of both parents to cancer for her to write her new book.

Equally important in shaping her views, Davis said, were the years she
spent in Washington. She worked on toxicology studies at the
Environmental Protection Agency in the 1970s. She spent a decade at
the National Academy of Sciences, again focusing on environmental
toxins. And President Bill Clinton appointed her head of the U.S.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, which investigates
industrial accidents.

She said she learned in Washington how corporate lawyers had succeeded
in setting the standard of proof for dangerous chemicals higher than
it should be by arguing that it's hard to "prove" what the real cause
of a cancer might be.

"In the absence of regulatory focus in the U.S. today and the lack of
leadership, we are losing ground," Davis said. "The devastating impact
on science makes McCarthyism look like child's play."

(Cindy Skrzycki is a regulatory columnist with Bloomberg News. She can
be reached atcskrzycki@bloomberg.net)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/29/AR2007102901951.html

Reply to this Message