Susan G. Koman Response to Pinkwashing Letter and KFC Buckets

The following post is not intended to offend. I just personally believe that there is an awful lot of lying going on in America, both in the for-profit and the not-for-profit camps. I get really angry when companies con people and play on their weaknesses. And I get even angrier when I learn the money that not-for-profit companies make is not really used for the purposes in which it was intended. Especially when a company like Susan G. Komen for the Cure, that makes $400 million (2010) in earnings per year, spends a miserly 21% or $84 million on actual research. Doesn't it make you just a little bit curious as to where the other $316 million goes?

As a Real Food eater, I am very aware of what processed foods can do to our bodies and how the chemicals used to process them can actually cause us to get sick, sometimes terminally. So, when I saw that Susan G. Komen for the Cure had partnered with KFC, I was outraged. I signed my name to a letter from Breast Cancer Action that indicated my level of angst. I am writing this post so that I can not only share that letter, but the follow-up letter from "some unnamed person" at SGK and my response to that letter. If this is an area that is sensitive for you, you might want to stop reading now.

Original Letter to SGK and KFC
Dear KFC and Susan G. Komen for the Cure,
I am appalled by your “Buckets for the Cure” partnership. I share Breast Cancer Action's shock at this outrageous campaign, which uses the breast cancer epidemic to improve the American public's perception of KFC, and increase the company’s profits from the sale of pink buckets of chicken. There is no doubt in my mind that countless people affected by breast cancer find this campaign offensive and upsetting, as is evident from many blog posts and Facebook pages I have seen.

KFC (with Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s blessing) is engaged in one of the worst examples of pinkwashing. A pinkwasher is a company that purports to care about breast cancer by promoting a pink-ribboned product while at the same time manufacturing products that contribute to the disease. In this
case, KFC is encouraging people to buy pink buckets of chicken to demonstrate its alleged commitment to ending the breast cancer epidemic. However, KFC's food is unhealthy and much of it is marketed to low-income communities. KFC thus contributes to the significant problem of providing poor food choices
for low-income communities in the United States, who disproportionately suffer from poor breast cancer outcomes and other problems that may be exacerbated by an unhealthy diet.

Instead of partnering with a corporation that sells unhealthy food, I believe that Susan G. Komen for the Cure should work with companies that do not contribute to the breast cancer epidemic.

Response from SGK
Thank you for your email. The KFC partnership in 2010 helped Komen reach women in about 800 communities not currently served by a Komen Affiliate, with the pink buckets and links to a website with breast health information. It also helped us raise more than $4.2 million for cancer research and other
programs.  It has not been continued this year. I hope this is helpful to you.  Please feel free to email back if you need more information.

Sincerely,
Susan G. Komen for the Cure

My response back to SGK
Dear Unnamed Person at Susan G. Komen for the Cure:
Thank you for your canned response. But, no, your response was NOT helpful! Encouraging people to eat disgusting fried chicken that 1) has been raised on factory farms and treated with hormones and chemicals that have been shown to contribute to breast cancer, and 2) contributes to obesity which is one of the factors which increases a persons chances of getting breast cancer - all in the name of curing Breast Cancer??? Ludicrous! Do you people even read your own website???

And let's address that $4.2 million that you so proudly admit to earning. How do you justify the fact that only 21% of those funds actually go towards research and finding a "cure"? And quite frankly, I don't think you really do want to find a cure because if you did there are any number of other ways that all those funds could be used rather than supporting Big Pharma and putting more money in their pockets with your support of chemotherapy (chemical poisoning) and radiation (burning).

An article in Oncology Today (2004) reported that the survival rate of women in the US who received chemotherapy was only 2.1%. Michael Boyer, head of Medical Oncology at the Sydney Cancer Centre, disagrees. He says that the survival rate is closer to 5%. And Guy Fague (The War on Cancer: An anatomy of failure, a blueprint for the future. Springer, 2005), concluded that chemotherapy for cancer is based on "flawed premises with an unattainable goal, cytotoxic chemotherapy in its present form will neither eradicate cancer not alleviate suffering." So, I ask, why is SGK focusing on treatment??? I truly think the pharmaceutical companies have the treatment piece covered. Why would an organization that is called, "Susan G. Komen for the Cure" not be funding and contributing 100% OF IT'S PROCEEDS to finding that cure? 

And here's another question for you, where does the other $3.3 million from selling buckets of chicken go???? Salaries, marketing, pinkwashing??? And while we are questioning where the money is spent, is it really necessary for the CEO of a non-profit organization to make $500,000+ a year? That's more than the president of the United States. Even Steve Jobs, past-CEO to one of the most profitable companies in the world, only made $1/year. Sounds like there are a few more things going on at SGK then a "cure" for breast cancer, but that's just me...     

While I am certainly glad to hear that someone at your organization has come to their senses and realized that buckets of greasy, MSG and soy oil soaked chicken is NOT the correct affiliation for breast cancer awareness and cure, I am still stunned that SGK allowed themselves to be aligned with KFC in the first place. And as long as the pinkwashing continues, I will continue working from my side to educate anyone and everyone about who and what SGK for the Cure is really all about.

Again, thank you for your time in providing a canned response. Please don't waste time responding back if you can provide nothing more than SGK rhetoric. I can read all about it on your website.

Please let me know what you think...is SGK doing what they should be in seeking a cure for breast cancer?

Are You Getting the Flu Shot?

I took my son to the pediatrician last week and there were signs all over the facility announcing that "flu shots had arrived". A special area had even been set up so that you could come in and get a flu shot without having to have an appointment or see a doctor, similar to what is offered at local retail outlets. It's very disturbing to me that you can walk into any number of drug stores (and other locations), pay a fee and get a flu shot. Heaven forbid, what if you were somehow harmed by the shot and incapacitated, how would anyone treating you even know that you had gotten a flu shot?

Meanwhile, back at the Pediatrician's office, the person sitting at the desk when we checked in asked if we were going to get flu shots that day. Very nicely I said, "no we are not going to get flu shots". Then, we were escorted back to the examining room, the nurse taking the vitals mentioned that flu shots were available. When I didn't give a response one way or the other, she asked if we would be getting flu shots. Once again, I nicely said that we would not be getting flu shots. She then looked at me and said, "so, you are refusing the flu shot for you and your son?" Refusing? How about I'm exercising my constitutional right to say no?! I responded, "I would not say that I am refusing, rather that I am declining the flu shot". And then, the pediatrician informed us that flu shots were available and asked was my son going to get one? At that point, I began to wonder if they were making a commission on each flu shot they "sold".

I'll admit, two or three years ago I wouldn't have hesitated to get the shot for my son (I have never had one and don't ever plan to get one), but since I began to read and find out exactly what Big Pharma and the FDA are up to, my decisions about what enters our bodies has changed drastically. I believe it needs to be a personal and educated choice that everyone should make for themselves. But what I experienced at the pediatrician's office really made me question the lengths that health care facilities will go to get people to have a flu shot. I am certain that there are a lot of people who would have just gone ahead and gotten the shot for themselves and their child if they had been in my situation. We have been trained since birth to believe that "doctors know best" and we make decisions and choices based upon that belief system regardless of whether it is sound or not.

I truly hope that some of you will pause and think twice about getting a flu shot for yourself or a loved one. But don't just take my word for it (or your doctor's), please do some research of your own. Find out the pros and cons, the risks, the side effects, etc. Here are some links that will give you more information and more to think about:
Why I never Get Flu Shots or Snorts by Chet Day
Dr. Mercola Flu Shot Information
The Forbidden Truth About the World Health Organization's 2009 "Pandemic"
What's in the Flu Shot?
Funny Video of What's in a Flu Shot?

Please leave a comment and let me know if you do or do not get a flu shot and why/why not. I look forward to hearing from you!

Major Drug Research Company Fakes Documents to Get Drugs Approved - FDA Shrugs it's Shoulders

It is truly astounding to witness the utter corruption that takes place - and practically in plain sight - within the pharmaceutical drug industry. The FDA has announced that drug firm, Cetero Research, for many years knowingly forged thousands of clinical trial documents for drug companies in order for them to gain drug approval. The FDA's response to this was basically to shrug it's shoulders -this massive, years long corruption is basically NO BIG DEAL.

It is no secret that the FDA routinely works in illicit tandem with drug companies to get dangerous drugs on the market in exchange for lining their pockets with cash. The FDA's own scientists have even publicly indicted the agency for censoring truthful scientific data, intimidating and unfairly targeting supplement companies and using the drug approval system to extort cash from drug companies in exchange for its rubber stamp of approval. The entire racket between the FDA and Big Pharma is mind-bogglingly extensive and crooked. In truth, the FDA is really not interested in regulating the drug industry and, like with Big Ag, has told Big Pharma to go regulate itself.

As evidenced by the FDA's recent announcement "against" Cetero, where initially it appears that the FDA is upset at Cetero for lying via its clinical trial documents. But what does the FDA do, it tells the drug companies to go back and redo the clinical trials themselves. The FDA declared that both an internal company investigation and a third-party audit revealed "significant instances of misconduct and violations in conducting clinical trials". Between April 2005 and June 2009 there were at least 1,900 instances of fraud and falsified studies. And each of the studies were falsely used to prove that a drug was safe before it went on the market.  "The pattern of misconduct was serious enough to raise concerns about the integrity of the data Cetero generated during the five-year time frame," said the FDA.

Here, in the real world, the FDA's solution to tell the fox to go guard the hen house, while simultaneously reassuring the world that the fox itself is safe and would never hurt anybody, is outrageous. In fact, the agency is actually alleging that all approved drugs - even those that were approved with falsified Cetero data - are perfectly safe and "unlikely to be affected" by this massive criminal cover up.

Need more, how about this? One would assume that the nation's food and drug regulatory agency would, at the very least, have records of which drug companies used Cetero for their early clinical trials. Such information is standard on any drug application, right? Apparently not. The FDA actually has no idea which drug companies used Cetero's services and it is now asking drug companies to search their records and determine whether or not they contracted with Cetero. HA! Does the FDA really think the drug companies that used Cetero are going to willingly participate in this? Of course not!!! It would mean the companies would have to go back and redo their clinical trials if they fess up.

So........
- Why doesn't the FDA itself have records of the research companies used for the drugs that it approves?

- Why is the FDA apparently unconcerned about the safety of these drugs, considering they were approved using falsified data?

- Why is the FDA not attempting to hold Cetero accountable for its actions, other than to make an announcement about them?

Despite the nonchalant way in which the mainstream media is reporting on this issue, what Cetero has done is nothing short of high-profile crime. By falsifying drug trial data, Cetero has willingly put millions of people's lives at risk. The only right thing to do is immediately shut down the company and order a full investigation. Followed closely by pulling every drug, that had falsified data, off the market immediately!!!! All parties involved must be held accountable, including those at the FDA that may have been complicit as well.

But the real kicker is that the FDA also stated that this is not really that big of a deal. Millions of people's lives are on the line as potentially fatal drugs were approved with false data - but according to the FDA, nobody should be concerned. In fact, the FDA has known for years that Cetero has been falsifying data and has done absolutely nothing about it.

So there you have it. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as only the FDA can shovel it. It is absolutely insane, but the FDA expects you, me and the world to take it seriously.

SOURCES:
NaturalNews.com
Reuters.com