Leaders & Breasts: Michigan to wear pink Saturday vs. Illini
October 12th, 2012 at 12:12 AM ^
What does money for breast cancer prevention mean? I would think it would be raising awareness regarding risk factors, and raising money for research about the causes... I'm pretty sure that's what they're doing now.
October 12th, 2012 at 12:27 AM ^
but when did GMO's get linked to cancer? Sounds like the stuff of a conspiracy blog
October 19th, 2012 at 11:49 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 12:37 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 1:30 AM ^
Unfortunately N=1 is a terrible study. You need to look at the broad scope studies that look at data from around the country and analyze that. I don't know what the research is on the benefits of breast cancer, but I know with the PSA test for prostate cancer, just a harmless blood test actually does more harm than good. I'm sure there are false positives with mamograms, or non malignant tumors that are detected and removed when they never would have hurt the patient anyway.
October 12th, 2012 at 7:39 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 8:28 AM ^
That whole idea that taking a blood test actually does more harm than good is nothing but a falsehood perpetuated by the people who don't want to pay for it. The same group of people that said you shouldn't bother with mamograms until you're in your 40's. The convenient truth they ignore when they say it causes more harm than good is that the guys who do get tested and they catch the cancer early enough live many more years but all they focus on are the few problems that can arise from having surgery. My dad is still alive today because of that blood test so maybe I'm partial but this whole idea that testing for cancer causes more harm than good screams of a pathetic attempt by insurance companies (the gov't included) in trying to save a buck. What's next? Yearly phsyicals cause more harm than good because you may find out something it wrong that otherwise you wouldn't have known? What about cholesterol screenings? The new federal health care plan will only pay for them once every 5 years whereas before most people have them covered once a year - tell me that isn't just some BS about trying to save a buck at the expense of the health of Americans...
/end rant
October 12th, 2012 at 10:04 AM ^
Anecdotal Evidence from your one experience is not enough for you to make blanket sweeping statements regarding health decisions for everyone.
the National Cancer Society (not an insurance company) does not operate based on "what costs the least money." They operate on what is best for everyone, and they do not reccomend that women below the age of 40 get mammograms without good cause.
October 12th, 2012 at 1:34 PM ^
You're demonstrating a lead time bias in your analysis. Take this example:
Day 1 = your first prostate cell turns cancerous
Day 100 = you die from prostate cancer
Scenario A: you wait until you have symptoms of prostate cancer before you go to the doctor. This occurs on day 75 because the cancer has to get big enough to start interrupting your normal functions. Your survival is 25 days after diagnosis.
Scenario B: you have a test done that can identify the cancer before it starts causing symptoms. You get your diagnosis on day 50. Your survival is 50 days after diagnosis.
Don't confuse survival time after diagnosis with actual increases in survival. Both of these scenarios end with the person living 100 days with cancer. Regarding prostate cancer, two large studies in the US and Europe demonstrate no significant differences in survival for prostate cancer with PSA screening at any age.
For breast cancer screenings, the data NEVER suggested that these tests be done in your 40s. The original data sets from the 60s and 70s all said start when you're 50. It was actually several politicians who had family members who died in their 40s from breast cancer who advocated for the old guidelines. All the actual data say 50.
Please consider the data before you start criticizing everything. Please go check my bank account--us scientists aren't getting paid big bucks to lie to the public. Also--USPSTF guidelines on screening DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT COSTS. They are strictly based on benefits vs harm to the patient.
October 12th, 2012 at 1:43 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 10:06 AM ^
October 11th, 2012 at 11:50 PM ^
There are other diseases that athletics could also show their support for in addition to breast cancer...
October 12th, 2012 at 12:59 AM ^
Now that's just crazy talk.
October 12th, 2012 at 8:54 AM ^
The people that are lining their pockets with this campaign. The "message" has been overused, and too many people are making money with it.
October 11th, 2012 at 11:52 PM ^
are their traditonal home colors of maize and blue, the wristbands, towels and gloves can be what ever color they want.
I'm all for breast cancer awareness, but you DON"T mess with the home uni or the helmet for any reason anytime for any game. The bull shit of splashy uniforms to attract recruits is crap! It's bush league, it's beneath Michigan standards. It's something Sparty does.
USC, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma haven't done it, don't do it and won't do it and these schools are traditionally if not ALWAYS in the top 5 in recruiting. If you're good and have a quality program you don't need gimmicks to attract the best players. PERIOD!
October 11th, 2012 at 11:57 PM ^
You do know that we messed with our home uniform just last season right?
October 11th, 2012 at 11:57 PM ^
This is one of the best titled threads I've ever seen.
As a reward, I give you this.
Pink!
October 12th, 2012 at 12:47 AM ^
might be doing that for Justin
October 12th, 2012 at 1:45 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 9:41 AM ^
He deserves whatever she is doing for after last night.
October 12th, 2012 at 9:57 AM ^
bouncing boobs.....never gets old.
October 11th, 2012 at 11:58 PM ^
It would be much more helpful if they put donation boxes at the gates on Saturday! It would easily raise $250,000 or more .... and dollars are much more important than another "awareness" reminder in fighting this dreaded disease.
Go Blue!
October 12th, 2012 at 12:00 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 12:16 AM ^
http://www.cancer.med.umich.edu/
October 12th, 2012 at 12:57 AM ^
Ugh. Is it politically incorrect to say that I'm sick of all this boobie love? Why don't other diseases get as much attention? Isn't heart disease the leading cause of death for both men and women?
On a related note, if only the NFL cared as much about concussions as they pretended to care about breast cancer.
October 12th, 2012 at 1:41 AM ^
nothing sells better than twisting a deadly disease into a sexual campaign to "save" our mothers' titties.
October 12th, 2012 at 2:22 AM ^
While it may be a cynical viewpoint, it's been said that the NFL's Breast Cancer Awareness campaign isn't rooted in pure altruism. Rather, it's a way to help market to and grow the female fanbase.
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/why-does-the-nfl-care-about-breast-cancer/
October 12th, 2012 at 9:23 AM ^
Not saying that this is not a hold cause - it is - bit you raise a great point.
October 12th, 2012 at 1:32 AM ^
Wouldn't they raise more money by simply giving the money that they spend on pink wrist bands to charity? Everyone knows about breast cancer, the only people whose awareness you are raising are too young to have any money to give to medical research.
October 12th, 2012 at 1:47 AM ^
Lung cancer. Quit smoking, ladies.....
October 12th, 2012 at 6:16 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 8:14 AM ^
That is exceedingly false.
Pancreatic cancer has a long-term mortality rate of nearly 94% Lung cancer has a long-term mortality rate of 84%
October 12th, 2012 at 9:14 AM ^
Pancreatic cancer has one of the worst survival rates, but because it affects far fewer people, it is not as prevalent of a killer of women.
October 13th, 2012 at 2:01 AM ^
I stand corrected. Still, you need to quit smoking, ladies.....
October 12th, 2012 at 10:00 AM ^
My wife smokes and I just fucking hate it. I have been trying to get her to quit, but she can't/won't. If she wants a baby from me, she will have to quit smoking forever and that's the bottom line.
October 12th, 2012 at 3:31 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 4:28 AM ^
it's kind of funny that the NFL has been doing breast cancer awareness for years while trying their hardest to pretend they aren't aware of any link between pro football and traumatic brain injuries?
October 12th, 2012 at 8:50 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 10:59 AM ^
While it may have started with Snyder's wife, it is an NFL campaign. The league is behind the marketing and fund raising, which includes licensed pink gear for every team.
October 12th, 2012 at 3:20 PM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 4:57 PM ^
Oh, Gotcha. Misunderstood that.
October 12th, 2012 at 11:00 AM ^
and any other deviation in anything have to be approved by the NFL commissioner. NFL teams do pink for Jersey sales, similar to the UTL Jerseys.
October 12th, 2012 at 8:14 AM ^
This year's tribute happens to coincide -- probably deliberately -- with the Saturday when UM will be honoring Gerald Ford with the Legend patch. First Lady Betty Ford was a breast cancer survivor and activist. Some good content at this link. http://www.spectrumhealth.org/bettyford
October 12th, 2012 at 12:50 PM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 3:44 PM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 8:37 AM ^
+1 for the thread title.
October 12th, 2012 at 9:22 AM ^
I seriously can't watch another football game with pink uniforms. It makes me feel like i'm going color blind or something. Every woman knows about breast cancer now. Get checked already. Awareness month promotions are ridiculous. There are so many diseases out there, and breast cancer is not even the leading killer of woman. I'm done with this.
October 12th, 2012 at 9:35 AM ^
The silly thing is, the National Cancer Society does not reccomend women under 40 to get mammograms without good reason. The false positive rate is high among younger women so it can actually cause more harm than good.
October 12th, 2012 at 10:16 AM ^
October 12th, 2012 at 10:44 AM ^