Crimson Red Sports

I hate to sound so obstinate, but I am sick to death of all the political correctness when it comes to breast cancer. Is this the ONLY disease in the world? Is it the only cancer? Is it the most deadly cancer? The obvious answer is no. Does no one care about Lou Gehrig's Disease, throat cancer, Parkinson's, lung cancer, MS, MD, brain cancer, and one of the most deadly of all diseases, pancreatic cancer, with a 1% survival rate. Am I the only one who feels this way? Just wondering.



http://college-football.si.com/2013/10/17/oregon-ducks-pink-helmets/?sct=hp_t2_a3&eref=sihp

The pink helments will be a big improvement and more manly than the all 'highlighter' yellow uniforms they wore a few weeks ago.

I don't mind the pink events. I think it has more effect when women's sports (like Alabama's Power of Pink gymnastic meets) do it. It has become a fashion statement in the NFL.

I think brest cancer is a noble cause that has directly affected many families including mine. There are many other good causes. I strongly support heart disease since that is how we lost my Mother.

MD I support all efforts against all diseases. I do however agree that wearing pink helmets might be cheating a little bit. Why? Well the other team will be so busy laughing they won't be able to play and tackle. So I don't think they should be able to wear such items in a college football game. RTR!

we do it but , I believe it's just the ladies sports
I may be wrong ...

http://www.rolltide.com/genrel/101613aaa.html   from RT.com

those pink hats should be different  :unsure:


(http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/alab/sports/genrel/auto_bsi_wide/9337370.jpeg)

they had the NFL refs with pink penalty flags in one game I watched
I couldn't tell if a ref threw a flag of if one of the players dropped his
sweat rag

I'm not talking about just sports, but throughout our society all this stuff about wearing pink ribbons, and holding special events, etc. Again, why aren't we focusing more on all the other more deadly & debilitating diseases? Breast cancer is easy to detect and treat and has a high survival rate. You can't say that about most other diseases. Parkinson's, MS, MD, brain cancer & Lou Gehring's Disease are horrendous diseases. Read up on them and let me know what you think. None of my relatives have had these diseases so I am going strictly on what I have read and looking at this with an open mind.



 :think:

MD I don't know the answer to your question. My guess is Breast Cancer people have done a better job of promoting their organization than the others.

You are exactly right but that is only part of it. The other part is political correctness. The media & women's groups (feminists) made a big to do about the issue not receiving enough attention & how women were dying due to it so political correctness kicked in and the media blew it out of proportion and made it seem to be the biggest medical issue on the planet. No politician or other public figure will dare say a word about it. This is just one reason I hate political correctness so much.


 :dog:

I hear you, MD. There are other cancers that don't get the publicity breast cancer does.

My sister is fighting Melanoma. It would be nice to see this and other diseases get equal, or, at least, some acknowledgment.

Did you know that all the pink being worn at sporting events was started at Alabama ten years ago by Sarah Patterson when she started the first Power of Pink event. It spread throughout the NCAA and is now in MLB and NFL.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Crimson_Tide_gymnastics

Here is a Crimson White article about how the Power of Pink got started:
http://cw.ua.edu/2013/10/14/patterson-teaches-power-of-pink-to-ua/

Cool.  Didn't know it all started with Sarah Patterson.   :clap:

Actually, the pink ribbon & breast cancer campaign got fired up big time in the mid 1990's and of course Bill & Hillary played it up to the max.



 :D

Alabama did not start the pink ribbon or the color pink to represent breast cancer. They were the first to start wearing pink and promoting breat cancer research at a sporting event.

Why on earth would anyone attack the breast-cancer campaign?

It's like so many afflictions, people kept quiet about it.  The result: women failed to be checked for it, and women with it weren't getting adequate treatment.  So now this campaign brings it into the light, and there's real progress in detection and treatment.  If it saves one life, and certainly it has, then the campaign is worth it.

Find something inconsequential or trivial to attack.  Breast cancer isn't a joke and shouldn't be a target of complaint.

Once again you have MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE. Is breast cancer the ONLY disease  
in the world? There are MANY more victims of other more deadly/debilitating diseases than breast cancer. MS puts young people in a wheelchair for life then slowly kills them. Brain cancer is a horrible, horrible way to die as it eats your brain up, pancreatic cancer has a 1% survival rate and kills you in 3 months are less.  I am attacking POLITICAL CORRECTNESS not breast cancer awareness.

This isn't the place (and I understood very well).

You're obviously a good poster and highly intelligent person with a good sense of humor, but I sincerely do not think you understand my point. Not trying to be mean but political correctness is killing our country. It's okay to attack Christians but you're "intolerant" if you do not accept the gay agenda. It's okay to mock Christians but try saying something negative about Islam. It's free speech to rip George W. Bush but you're a racist if you rip Obama, and so on.

I like the heck out of you so don't let me upset you and think I am attacking you.

Thanks.  :toast4:
No offense intended, and I understand that political correctness can be irritating.
But please understand that numerous people on this forum are dealing with cancer now, so I am sensitive to comments about it.  But please be sensitive to the feelings of others here, and understand that giving an opinion that one cancer is getting all of the attention (and has become politically correct) is upsetting to those who work to bring attention to all cancer.  I wish all of the campaigns were equal, all were successful, and (most of all) that the campaigns weren't necessary.  But funding depends on public awareness and political pressure.

Sorry, I don't like discussing this.  Let's just agree to disagree, and stay friends!
No ill will intended.

My idea has been to cut back on a lot of the spending we do on welfare, food stamps, Obama phones, etc and set up a special program like the Manhattan project from World War II. We would identify 10 or 12 major diseases/debilitating conditions and throw huge sums of money at it with the best researchers in the world. The list might look like this:

Parkinson's
MS
MD
Spinal Cord Injury (paralysis)
Brain cancer
Pancreatic cancer
Lou Gehrig's Disease
Alzheimers
Blindness
and so on


As one condition is cured, another would be added to the list. We might have to set up research facilities around the country or just expand research at places like Vanderbilt, UAB, Harvard, Duke, Mayo Clinic, John Hopkins, etc. We can do this but we must cut through all the politics and the waste spend on so many social programs. I know this sounds like a pipe dream but it is doable.

WV hasn't left us.  His spirit lives on at CRS.

I am always impressed when people with differing views debate and struggle, irritate and get irritated, but stay in the discussion and show genuine respect for one another. Washington should function so well.

On the matter of the privileged place of breast cancer, this is actually a point of agreement among scholars in the fields of epidemiology and medical sociology. Although it is the #1 best funded cancer cause, it is the 11th most lethal form of cancer (accounts for 11th ranked cancer mortality cause). It is also the most survivable cancer, which, ironically, means it has the most living advocates to promote this particular cancer cause. The draw back of all this advocacy is that emotion, rather than science, shapes political/medical responses to breast cancer. For example, there are compelling data that mammography for women under 50 isn't much help in preventing cancer deaths. Yet this finding and the accompanying recommendation was met with a torrent of public criticism. For all cancers, early detection can create the illusion of effectiveness without actually changing rates of cancer death. This is because we measure cancer outcomes in terms of 5 yr survivorship. The chances of surviving 5 yrs post diagnosis increase when the cancer is discovered earlier than it might otherwise have been. But this is not necessarily because the detection has add years to the patient's life, but rather because it was merely detected three years sooner.

There is little doubt that a general 1980s-90s finding that clinical trials often excluded women had a sling-shot effect that rocketed breast cancer into the status that it currently enjoys. While the result might be unfortunate/disproprtionate in some ways, the "political correctness" of paying attention to women's health shouldn't be trivialized. It was politically correct to end slavery, but that doesn't mean it was a bad idea.