More like Followers and Best. Pinktober is a sham.
landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
More like Followers and Best. Pinktober is a sham.
Early detection is the sham and has a net 0 impact at best and potentially causes more harm than good. And this is for almost all cancer not just those for which people try to raise awareness for in October and November.
Please provide the relevant journal article to back up your claim. Thanks. Otherwise I'll treat this the same way I treat the "anti-vaccination" people.
Whenever evidence comes out that opposes the idea of more screening it is quickly attacked by stories of someone supposedly saved by early detection. But no one ever speaks for those who are falsely believed to have cancer and who suffer complications or death for something that would never kill them.
I think you may be misinterpreting this article. The author is saying that early screening for certain cancers may not help b/c the slow-growing ones can be treated later, and the fast-growing ones are usually detected too late anyway (so you're screwed even with finding it early).
I'm sorry Farnn, you provided a blog and opinion article from the NY Times. Not really a peer-reviewed journal article. Plus the author is mainly talking about one type of screening for prostate cancer as he states:
"We all wish that finding prostate cancer earlier would lead to better outcomes. But as I will tell my patients, that is no reason to keep on ordering the P.S.A. test."
I'm just going to leave it at that, b/c it's futile to disagree on the internet. But please, remember that what you're reading is an opinion piece.
There are peer reviewed scientific articles on the subject. Many say that the screening and treatment approach of recent years has benefits, but also drawbacks, and in many cases and among certain populations the harm outweighs the benefit and/or provides no statistically significant improvement in long-term prognosis.
But again, it's a very nuanced and complicated issue, so we aren't going to solve it before kickoff.
My issue is with our blind following of the mantra of early detection and deathly fear of the word cancer. (Those were just two articles I could Google easily on my phone.)
The tests are far less accurate than medical professionals care to admit and provide plenty of false positives. (Even if they are 95% accurate, if 1% of the tested population has cancer, about 80% of your positives will be cancer free)
Many cancers are either benign or so slow growing as to not be likely to kill someone, especially older people. And yet those people will want the cancer removed while putting themselves at risk of post surgery complications or death. Others are so aggressive that no matter when you find them you won't survive. And yet they undergo chemo and treatment and spend their last years weakened and sick instead of trying to enjoy their life. For some early detection does save lives but people never consider the costs and harm done to those who wouldn't die from cancer or benefit from treatment. And that's before you get to the amount this costs.
vaccination" people usually don't have time to look for relevant journal articles to back up their claim, as they are too busy attempting to get their previously alert and content child to again respond to his or her name, like as soon as a week after the needle offensive is complete.
But lets not go down the road of the do-vaccinations-cause-autism* debate. There be dragons at the end of that conversation.
you mean Dany Stormborn than I badly want the conversation to continue.
thank you. i use the anti-vaccine folks as the poster child's for the need for peer review and repeatability in science in my science classes.
you see it happen in front of your own two eyes you tend to be less inclined to require proof or repeatability, you are too busy trying to plan the rest of your life to deal with it. I did see it, and yeah, whatever, sample size, yayada, but people who have seen it will tell you that if and when they have another kid they(i) are not taking them anywhere close to those needles. Think what you like, but for the scientific and medical community to be as smugly dismissive as they are about that discussion is outrageous and insulting. Autism spectrum disorders and the number of children being given regular vaccines have increased at an alarmingly similar rate in the last 50 years. What do you go that is better? "Partly genetic, partly environmental, partly nutritional, partly auto-immune, but only maybe and not really any of those."? Certainly does not seem like the tight little diagnistic package capable of lableing another possibility as absurd to me.
sigh...I don't know where to start with this post. It is filled with scientific illiteracy. You do realize the Dutch research group that started the entire anti-Vaccine campaign completely falsfied there experimental data.Scientific fraud as in the autism-vaccine controversy is the reason we have double blind peer review for publication of experimental results.
There has been NO link or even any positive experimental correlation produced in either the lab or clinic between vaccines and autism that has been published in any high impact scientific journals. The only time a study did come out to show positive correlation was found to have completely falsified their empirical data. '
Sorry, but I will save my trust in the scientific method and peer review. Not the observations of crooks with education from diploma mills. We in the community of science and medicine are dismisssive as there never been a published positive correlation without falsifying data. People who push fraudulant beliefs such as links betwen autism and vaccines, in my honest opinion, are nothing but ignorant frauds.Sorry, to be harsh, but I hold my trust in the scientific method much more than any other philosophical arena including religion.
I have seen the heartbreak of having a child on the spectrum. My cousin is on the spectrum. For her sake and others, I will follow the current understand and state of peer reviewed observations and data. Scientists can say it could be multiple causes for autism as the community is in a still early state of research and understanding of the molecular basis of autism. There needs to be patience and education in the public not panic of early empirical results.
The false vaccine panic harmed MANY children by exposing them to diseases that were thought to be eradicated, such as MMR.
sigh...so much ignorance and scientific illiteracy in this post.
I won't try to argue that there is a connection between vaccines and autism, but I will say unless you buy into some romanticized notion of scientists, their methods, and the peer review process, it should be apparent that there have been and always will be collossal failures and errors that sometimes continue for years, decades, and even centuries propagated by the scientific community. Yes, they are eventually corrected, but the kind of group-think, turf wars, battles for promotions and research dollars, not to mention petty jealousy and arrogance that affect every group also lead scientists to sometimes forestall any independent research that would challenge accepted scientific dogma. The scientific method does not occur in a political or social vacuum.
I hope you also include in your course examples where the scientific community (or sections of it, such as peer review boards) acted in concert to close off any contrary points of view. It's not always the lone scientist falsifying research and leading the non-scientific community astray--sometimes it's the scientific community itself that is the problem.
Of course there will always be incorrect hypotheses in science. That is why we do science. That is the reason Copernicus performed his observations of the constellations to show the validity of heliocentritism. We constantly revise our hypotheses based upon our observations and data analysis.
I always tell my students what makes science special is the emphasis on independent repeatability in observations. The requirement of repeatability protected the community from: fraud in cold fusion, false links between evolutionary science and eugenics during the Holocaust, fraud in autism-vaccine research, and certain industrial sources attempting to create a false sense of heated debate in climatology.
Science or the scientific community is not the problem, it is panic and ignorance in the populace that takes published reports OUT OF CONTEXT is the problem. STEM education in the country is woefully inadaquate, particularly in a basic understanding of the scientific method and experimentation. I feel many of my colleagues in science education do not prepare their students with a decent understanding of why we do science. We spend too much time having our students learn a bunch of random scientific concepts. At least the newly adopted Next Generation Science Standards emphasizes education in experimental skills and the scientific method over memorizing random scientific understandings.
Edit: removed section, which could be taken to be political or ideological. Not my intent.
Science is conducted by people, and there is nothing special about scientists. They are prone to the same human failings as everybody else, and conduct themselves accordingly. Yes, there is a self-correcting aspect, eventually. But if you think science is somehow immune to politics (both within the scientific community and without--perhaps the part you removed proved my point), greed, professional jealousy, arrogance, you are mistaken. We can look back through the history of science continuing through today and be thankful for the corrections that have been made while at the same time recognizing oftentimes those corrections were delayed by decades due to a whole host of factors, some of which I listed in the previous sentence. One of the greatest arrogances, I believe, is that somehow this generation is not prone to the same kinds of mistakes as previous generations and the lack or understanding that some of the very views scientists are so sure about today will be proven false by the next generation of scientists.
And I don't really mean this as an attack upon you or what you do. I commend you for teaching the scientific method and I am probably much closer to your view on the value of science (I certainly share your view on the whole vaccine-autistic issue) than may come across.
are iffy at best.
The Cochrane review group is pretty well-received. Read the whole article if you can--it's really fascinating and daunting how far we have to go just to do something as basic as diagnose cancer. But, the money line:
If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% after 13 years of follow-up and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings.
Now, they only look at mortality--i.e., how many lives are saved--rather than how many cancers are actually detected. But it's still...not what you'd expect.
And with prostate cancer you have the same false positives but the side effects of treatment are worse. Impotence, incontinence and terrible infections from surgery around the prostate.
My wife is a radiologist with extensive experience in women's imaging and has talked about this topic on several occasions. Like many things, this area, testing and procedures for breast cancer, is in a great state of flux. Ultimately, the big gorilla in the room for screening and procedures that may be unnecessary.is the magic dollar sign. It is a work in progress (like our O-line...couldn't resist).
I am completely against the flu vaccine and for good reason. I am the only one in my office that doesn't get the "flu shot" and I am also the only one in my office that doesn't get the flu!!!!!
The truth is somewhere in the middle. The general consensus is that there is value in cancer screening for some people, but in many circumstances the one-size-fits-all approach can do more harm than good and can actually have a negative impact on long-term overall health.
But we probably aren't going to ferret out the truth on MGoBlog, so let's not start this particular war today.
Hence my call for a truce.
Not trying to be a truce-breaker, since that makes sense at this point, but please do pay attention to growths on your skin and moles that change.
Melanoma is a bitch, very hard to treat and often deadly if caught late. However, early detection can provide a cure, because it can be excised. If caught while still in situ, excision is something like 93% successful for a permanent cure.
And please don't go tanning - oops that probably started something new.
I would be really interested in reading some info on this if you have anything credible that you trust please pass along via email. (i'm assuming you can get my email address since i think you're a mod or whatever)
Not being a sarcastic dick - totally serious. Hard to know what you can believe on the internet these days when i'm researching stuff.
I can't vouch for everything, but the information about Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) is pretty interesting.
But I think he's talking about prescribing chemotherapy treatments for a false positive. I think that's a misfire on his part, as that's a totally separate issue.
That's quite the thing to say with nothing to back it up.
If you have ANYTHING to add, we're waiting....
anything that brings attention and money is not a sham.
The grotesque amount of $ at stake causes it's own problems.
Problem is, it doesn't bring in much money, and the attention it brings is out of proportion to other equally pressing health issues.
Again, I agree with you here. It's a sham just like all the other gimmicky things that television powers think we all need. We are on the verge of becoming Idiocracy. For real.
Susan g komen is enough of a sham as it is with their skimming off the top. there is a reason the director of the organization resigned in shame a year ago. I just wish more non profits would more up front with their financials.
Will there be any special uniform tribute months for prostate cancer awareness, heart disease awareness, or Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever awareness? If not, why not?
Drywall awareness month!
The tweet has some information on specifically what will be worn:
Tmrw, as part of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, players will wear pink wristbands & gloves; coaches will wear hats w/ pink & emblem on shirt
— Michigan Football (@umichfootball) October 18, 2013
If the ONLY auction this off and give 100% proceeds to a notable charity that does solid research, this would be awesome. Limited edition stuff that's game worn has a lot of value that can be exploited for the better of society. The whole "raise awareness" thing people seem to get riled up about wouldn't even be an issue, because who can be upset about a nice big check going to cancer medication R&D with no selfish corporation keeping a check of the profits?
However, see that NFL article for why I will be extremely upset if Michigan makes even a dime of profit off of this.
Breast Cancer "Awareness" /= Breast Cancer Research
The former is CEO-pocket-lining bullshit, the latter is legit
They are one of the most litigious groups out there -- they'll go after your kid's sidewalk lemonade stand for charity if it has "for the cure" on the sign.
Holy Shit Indeed.
What % of people do you think are completely unaware of this? I was in that % until threads on mgoblog the last 2 days (this link and the Oregon pink helmet thread yesterday).
The problem is, who is going to spend time/$ trying to make people aware of what Komen foundation is/isn't doing? It's a PR nightmare cause no matter how you frame it you look the guy fighting AGAINST breast cancer awareness.
The only way is to spread the word about other ways to be charitable where your $ goes directly to research to cure the disease, whatever it may be, including breast cancer.
It's the same reason OSU's band does USA-themed hafltime shows when they come to the Big House. They're still dicks, but booing America is bad form.
/yes, when I was in the band, we did the same thing when we headed to Columbus.
When I was in the band we did a Led Zepplin show in Columbus. I also found the people in their band to be friendly and respectful
That was exceptionally poor wording on my part. I meant that we want to boo OSU, whether it's classy or not, but booing America is pretty much taboo.
They got a lot of bad pub because of that. They also took a big hit when they cut off planned parenthood as a partner due to pressure from pro-lifers (don't want to get into that debate, just presenting what happened) a couple years ago. I think their participation rates were down for a while, not sure if they recovered or not. As you say, it's touchy to be anti SGK without sounding anti-cancer research (as some here have found out).
I know at least one local business owner who wanted to do a fundraising event with Komen but decided to just do it herself when it became clear that the Komenites were too difficult to work with and generally behaved like total asswipes.
I wonder if she uses the Bernstein advantage.
Something tells me all of our muckrakers finding fault with this are really just not comfortable with pink on a football field.
Yes, that's exactly the issue. We don't want no girly colors on our football field and breast cancer awareness is a perfect cause with absolutely no faults.
We recoil at yet another instance of crumbs being thrown from the table of an extraordinarily successfull enterprise (the NFL in this case) under the guise of DOING LOTS OF GOOD.
Dig in to the issue more on your own then. Afterwards, if you think it's an objection to color scheme, so be it.
as an awareness campaign, november is diabetes month, a disease that is often largely preventable with exercise and diet, affects 8% of all americans (26,000,000) and has about 100 times as many new diagnoses each year as breast cancer, 1.9m to 23k.
also, having diabetes makes you more prone to impotence and having a dick (or vagina) that oozes grainy pus. there is your psa, walk more, eat better, drink less, don't get oozing genitals
football sponsored by beer, cars and junk food, not gonna happen. just hang out at buffalo wild wings all day, drive your truck home and eat some taco bell with dorito shells.
You just described my life....Kinda creeped out...
Am I allowed to say I'm sick of this stupid-ass gimmick?
and I have boobs, so my opinion counts extra.
I feel the need to point out that men can get breast cancer.
then your opinion counts extra too. Paint with all the colors of the wind.
Edited to add: I hate you a little for "accidentally" BQ-ing. Which is to say, congratulations on being awesome.
I have moobs.
so Al Borges DOES read this blog!!!! Get the guys to the line quicker this week Al
is Robert Paulson
1) No politics
2) Pretty sure that's really, really, really, hilariously unconstitutional.
Oh that was Oregon. How are we supposed to start running manball in pink?
by far, thanks.
Another reason to return to an upvote system!
I don't understand the article. Not a lot of money from NFL gear sales go to the American Cancer Society, so let's get rid of it? 100% of auctioned gear proceeds goes to the American Cancer Society (where the author laments that only around 70% of it is spent on actually finding a cure, which is the business of the American Cancer Society and not the fault of the NFL, as the author implies).
Is that the NFL used the pink stuff primarily as a marketing tool and only secondarily as a charity effort (and only to the amount to be able to plausibly argue they were being philanthropic), and they give the money to Komen, which... shall we say... suuuucks.
I get that, but the NFL has said (maybe they're lying?) that they don't actually profit from the pink gear they sell, their return goes into running Breast Cancer Awareness month. I'm not sure this is much different than many charitable organizations, which see sky-high administrative costs (salaries, etc.) and then have to re-invest donations into additional fundraising mechanisms, leaving little (or a lot less than we would like) to the actual cause.
Though overall, I suppose I agree. My issue is with the NFL being singled out whereas this is not unique at all to the NFL. We don't really need more awareness, we need cures and solutions.
They sell it through the NFL Store and other retailers too. Per Business Insider, 8.1% of the proceeds from those sales go to cancer research. The NFL often takes 50%.
I say we get rid of cancer all together, I mean really can you guys really name one time that cancer has been beneficial.
The question is if we get rid of cancer what disease do we bring in to replace it?
I know there are some big names out there I read somewhere that Michigan was Ebola's dream job.
in to replace it.
How about diabetes?
has ties here. Malaria has also shown some interest.
Malaria is a warm-weather disease. Its style will never work here.
Small Pox slept with cancer's wife so we won't bring him back...you know West Nile had a pretty good year in the Midwest maybe we shell out the money and bring him in.
is SC is going to shell out big money for West Nile. Screw it. Let's just get SARS. Been out of the game for a while, but we could bring it in for cheap and you know it is available.
I don't think diabetes helps us at all in this situation too old school. See the problem with this style of cancer is that it keeps attacking the same cells. The doctors pack the box with surgery, radiation treatment, and chemotherapy and what does cancer do? Keeps right on attacking the same cells. Why not a quick hitter to the lung or bubble screen to the colon?
It's clear that we want to break through the glass ceiling, as a program. That means air it out. That means Avian Bird Flu. We know it's effective, and it really helps us with recruiting qb's and wr's. And guys who just want to be awesome.
I think I'm going to end up on my company's internet watchlist for clicking on a link that has breasts in the title
Anti-vax, politics, and now religion in the same thread.
And yet it will probably stay up because it's relevant and we're all too emotionally worn out to flame.
the urge to flame on like 3 occassions in this thread, but you're right, I'm just like "whatever, I don't have the energy for this."
I kind of posted this picture because of the big pink wristband. Which is what the thread is about, and what the players will be wearing.
The GBGB one is just there.
You guys saw that picture and thought "He is pushing his religion on me!" ??
He is obviously showing off his UofM Pink wristband. Relax people. The damn religious wristband isn't even in focus.
I personally love boobs! Big titties, little titties, old titties, young titties, white titties, black titties, perky titties, saggy titties!!! All titties! And I personally hate cancer! And cancer hates boobs! Any effort to bring attention and save those beautiful mammaries, I can support. Enough of the political and conspiracy theories on this subject. I think they should do a yoga pant appreciation/awareness month as well.
The criticism is based on public information. See the link I posted to a Business Insider article above.
you enter the disgusting POS zone. Don't enter the disgusting POS zone.
It's even lower than the dreaded "friend" zone.
I was totally out of line. I feel ashamed. I should never bring up how breasts are great and cancer is bad again. Everything needs to be serious and depressing on Mgoblog. What was I thinking. 8-5, fire borges, no pink, rabble rabble rabble......
Has nothing to do with our enjoyment of breasts. It's not about, "how can we save the ta tas?!" It's about how can we save the LIVES of our sisters, daughters, mothers, grandmothers, aunts, and wives. There's nothing sexy about that. Relating cancer to boobs is disgusting.
Lighten up bud. Pink is the color we are discussing. Pink is the chosen color to bring awareness to BREAST cancer. I understand cancer is the target. It's Ok to lighten the mood sometimes Francis! You're probably a blast to hangout with. NOT! I'll bet you can kill a party in record time with your political correctness and hypersensitivity.
But we can all agree that boobs are awesome, right?
After a week of hundreds of depressing posts on this board, you sir, have given us pause to reflect on two of lifes greatest treasures.
sucks in all forms, so I am not trying to minimize any form of it, but it does puzzle me why so much attention is paid to one form of cancer while others are kind of just treated as one big pool. I don't have any problem with it, of course it is a good cause, but it does seem somewhat disproportionate and kind of curious.
It is a great cause.
The University of Michigan, students and alums should be very proud of events like these:
Steve and Landyn Hutchinson will be there.
Wish I could go.
Not sure if this is a common sentiment, but two breast cancers sufferers I know (one no longer with us) both told me repeatedly that October was their least favorite month because they were constantly being reminded of their disease.
I get all the breast cancer awareness month overkill sentiment, but a friend of mine was diagnosed with breast cancer right before summer. Early detection, a quick and non-disfiguring surgery and then 6 weeks of radiation that was a walk in the park compared to a lot of other cancer treatments. She is now cancer-free. I'm not sure if that would have happened without all the pink stuff. So, more awareness for other cancers, but appreciation for breast cancer awareness.
...and I'm glad your friend is okay.
The NFL should none-the-less give a heck of a lot more money to the American Cancer Society.
The fear is that at some point the 'awareness' efforts start to crowd out and cannibalize the actual medically helpful funding efforts. When people think they are "doing their part" by wearing pink and buying pink merchandise believing that the money will primarily go to research, they are less likely to donate to other efforts that might be more fruitful.
In honor of breast cancer awareness month I've pledged to pay more attention to my girlfriends boobs.
that very little money made during these pink games goes to breast cancer research, we should play for ball cancer and nut up Saturday.
...if you don't agree with the "cause" then STFU and watch the football game.
Would you suggest that Michigan bring negative attention on itself by not participating in this nationwide "event." I say event so I don't offend anyone who is for or against the "event."
Some of you need to relax and stop acting like your opinion is the only one in the world that matters. If you don't care for this, that's fine...just move on and watch the game. It's the exact same players. It's not like we're putting survivors on the team or stopping the game every (x) seconds to honor a survivor.
Everything is literally the exact same except for some wristbands and patches. That's it.
people start to get annoyed, get resentful, and that's not a good thing.
we as a society have a hard time finding a balance, and tend to overdo anything that leads to an extra buck.
you can do too much of a good thing, and i'd say breast cancer awareness has surpassed that limit
To wear the Aids awareness ribbon on Seinfeld!
Guarantee no one would notice.
Hell, how many NFL teams skipped the Pinktober promotion after the first week, without anybody noticing?
Moar mammograms and drugs. Moar!!
From work. Wife found a lump the other day. We are going in for screening and results today.
FWIW, I know someone who's found lumps a number of times, and none were cancerous.
...went through it 2 years ago while wife was pregnant....not fun. Unfortunately, my wife's was malignant, but we know many women that just had a bad scare. Good luck...hopefully you will have good news after biopsy.
There's a lot of criticism of Susan G. Komen here and elsewhere - probably rightly so, as only approximately 6% of funds Komen raises goes to actual research/cure efforts. The rest goes to PR, marketing, and corporate salaries/expenses. If you're inclined to give, a much better recipient of your money is the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (www.bcrfcure.org) 88% of funds raised goes to research.
Or even better, the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center
to donate to, that is
I have no connection to this charity and I am thankful I don't have to deal with these 3 day walks, etc. I have always assumed this was a good charity because of its popularity. So I checked what you wrote and I only found the opposite. But the number you quote is wrong and they spend most of the money on education. You make it sound like only 6% goes towards a good cause. Education and awareness are still a good cause.
Two sources I found are below. The second one is critical of them but not about where the money goes it confirms that most of the money goes towards "good causes".
Just thought I'd share.
Cancer sucks. Classy move by Michigan. Go Blue!