Now you are playing games using your superior intellect.

 

You've had a long day on Pro Football Talk. I agree something needs done, but this ain't it. Read someone just tweeted Goodell was just quoted that he would never resign. Not sure how authentic that is, but just thought it interesting.

You've had a long day on Pro Football Talk. I agree something needs done, but this ain't it. Read someone just tweeted Goodell was just quoted that he would never resign. Not sure how authentic that is, but just thought it interesting.

 

I saw the tweet too, it looks legit.

 

How about this, what if the ACS went on record saying they want an independent, outside investigation to uncover all the facts and if the NFL fails to do so 2014 will be the last year they associate with the NFL?

I saw the tweet too, it looks legit.

 

How about this, what if the ACS went on record saying they want an independent, outside investigation to uncover all the facts and if the NFL fails to do so 2014 will be the last year they associate with the NFL?

I think many NFL corporate sponsors will do that. And when it becomes a financial concern, then something will give. But I don't think the ACS wants to cut off its nose to spite its face. I know we had it on here one time in another thread about it, but that figure best I can recall was a significant #.

I think many NFL corporate sponsors will do that. And when it becomes a financial concern, then something will give. But I don't think the ACS wants to cut off its nose to spite its face. I know we had it on here one time in another thread about it, but that figure best I can recall was a significant #.

 

It is a financial concern, any woman that is interested in the NFL is having their doubts right now.

It is a financial concern, any woman that is interested in the NFL is having their doubts right now.

I'm sure they are. I simply disagree that the ACS needs to cut bait with the league. Of course if an investigation turns up what we all believe and then there is no repercussion, well, then maybe.

I'm sure they are. I simply disagree that the ACS needs to cut bait with the league. Of course if an investigation turns up what we all believe and then there is no repercussion, well, then maybe.

 

All ACS has to do is float the idea and the NFL powers that be will go Ape.

Once someone has gained the knowledge that the American Cancer Society is a big business and pawn for the cancer industry instead of a charity (see the epilogue of this: The Scam of the War on Cancer ) it becomes evident that the call for the deceptive group to "boycott the NFL" on "behalf of all women" is utterly ignorant or naive.

From that link:

 

[h=2]The Real Truth About The American Cancer Society: Non-Profit Charity Or For-Profit Business?[/h]"People do not want to believe that those in positions of power are self-serving, because they have given their power [i.e., responsibility] away to them. Therefore, they often go to great lengths to stay in denial about the state of affairs, although the effort they can expend in battling their cognitive dissonance can reach surreal levels." (Wade Frazier, Investigator & Writer) [explanation added]

 

Looking at the pink ribbon history, Gigerenzer' aforecited observation that "Pink ribbons and teddy bears, rather than hard facts" dominate the discourse on mammogram screening for breast cancer applies also fittingly to the American Cancer Society (ACS), "the richest private charity in the world" [XXXVII] and "one of the oldest and largest voluntary health agencies in the United States" [XXXIX].

 

One of the American Cancer Society's few icons responsible for the charity's phenomenal growth and success during the 20th century, Elmer Holmes Bobst (1884-1978), a businessman who used to be a pharmaceutical executive before becoming a leading figure at the ACS in the 1940s, explained in his autobiography:

 

"[...] I decided to apply [my] philosophy to the cancer society program: run it like a business with a well-planned 'sales' campaign." [XL] [explanation & emphasis added]

 

And...

 

"The society [=ACS] was being run by the scientists and physicians with a kind of polite sufferance of its lay leaders [...]. I decided that the first priority was to move aside the scientists and physicians who were in administrative control of the organization. [...] they were not getting results. [...]. [because they] didn't understand fundraising, or promotion, or even money. [...]. I wanted majority control to be in the hands of qualified lay leaders." [XL] [explanation & emphasis added]

 

And...

 

"[...] [we] trained our best people in more sophisticated fund-raising techniques: special gift solicitations among wealthy potential donors; high-intensity community-wide fund campaigns; letter and card campaigns; arresting public service advertisements; fund-raising contests; special appeals to civic organizations, and so forth." [XL]

 

Under the leadership and auspices of Elmer Bobst, the reorganization of the ACS during the mid-late 1940s [XXXVII,XXXIX], and the subsequent explosion in fundraising activities and promotions by the ACS business, worked. In 1978, Health journalist Peter B. Chowka made the observation that:

 

"Almost everything the public knows or believes about cancer [...] has originated within or been channeled through the American Cancer Society." [XXXVII]

 

Slick advertisements promulgated by mainstream media outlets, advocating preventive medical screening tests, such as mammograms, coincide with the cancer charity's fundraising periods [XXXVII], witnessed by the increased mammogram screening promotions leading up to the official national breast cancer month (October) by the ACS [XXXIX] and other breast cancer charities. While the governing message of these marketing and fundraising crusades used to center around the "fear of cancer" at mid-20th century, by the 1970s [XXXVII] up to the present time the appeal had shifted to "hope" -as in mammogram-marketing images of cheerful breast cancer survivors.

 

After Bobst's revampment of the ACS, the charity has become primarily a corporate-funded sales force and megaphone of and for corporate medicine, advocating and protecting their private interests, but officially presented to the public as a non-profit philanthropic organization since 1922 [XXXVII,XXXIX,XLI,XLII].

 

In 1978, Peter Chowka wrote about the ACS:

 

"[...] ACS, contrary to its claim, in no sense is a non-profit corporation. Each year ACS makes a hefty profit that most profit-making corporations would envy. [...] ACS is hoarding and investing for profit many millions of dollars contributed by the public to fight cancer, while the society claims that vital research is going begging for funds." [XXXVII]

 

After the first decade of the 21st century, the hoarded fiscal reserves of the ACS is in the neighborhood of 1$ billion [XXXIX].

 

Even an independent overseer of non-profit organizations and charities had noticed the discrepancy between the official representation of the ACS and its financial status years ago [XXXVII]. In more recent times, other authorities on charitable organizations have continued to reveal and notice the true, but covert, status of the ACS as a for-profit assembly [XLIII]. The top executives of the ACS earn massive salaries [XXXIX].

 

Samuel Epstein, MD, author of "The Politics of Cancer" (1978) and "Cancer-Gate" (2005), noted in 1999 that:

 

"Most of the funds raised by the ACS go to pay overhead, salaries, fringe benefits, and travel expenses of its national executives [...]. [...] salaries and fringe benefits are by far the largest single budget items, a surprising fact in light of the characterization of the appeals, which stress an urgent and critical need for donations to provide cancer services." [XLIII]

 

The "ACS has interlocking interests with the pharmaceutical, cancer drug, mammography film and machine, and biotechnology industries", encompassing large corporations that contribute hefty sums of money to the acclaimed cancer charity [XXXIX,XLII,XLIII]. That's no coincidence, apart from overhead expenses, high salaries, and other "perks", much of what's left of the ACS budget goes to mundane research and research of orthodox modalities of cancer and breast cancer treatment, mostly geared towards ineffective anti-cancer drugs [XXXIX,XLII,XLIII].

 

Epstein explained that:

 

"The ACS has close connections to the mammography industry. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents, and in its every move, the ACS reflects the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and films [...]." [XLIII]

 

And...

 

"[...] the mammography industry conducts research for the ACS and its grantees, serves on advisory boards, and donates considerable funds." [XLIII]

 

The ACS has sponsored a number of pro-mammogram studies, among the funded study authors is a prominent mammogram scientist with well-known extensive conflicts-of-interests that have earned him a fortune [XV].

 

Other private industry members and lavish ACS sponsors, such as the cosmetic industry, the junk food industry, the pesticide industry, the petrochemical conglomerate, and other polluting industries, find protection of their interests via the charity's pervasive silence, dismissal, or denial about well-known cancer-causing occupational, industrial, and environmental toxins [XXXIX,XLII] (despite that, for example, the pioneering account of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) had incontrovertibly pointed in that direction over half a century ago). And, a dubious lack of ACS funding in those areas. In 1998, for example, less than 1% of the ACS' revenues was allocated for research into environmental-xenobiotic, industrial, and other cancer causes [XXXIX].

 

As Epstein had pointed out:

 

"Giant corporations, which profit handsomely while they pollute the air, water, and food with a wide range of carcinogens, are greatly comforted by the silence of the ACS." [XLIII]

 

ACS' severe pro-industry bias has existed for decades [XLII]. This relationship, however, appears to be of a more general nature in regard to the charitable culture, suggesting that conflict-of-interests are at work categorically, because Epstein remarked that:

 

"Rarely does a non-profit organization flack for private industry." [XLII]

 

Moreover, the mass media is an ally in censoring the abuses of the ACS, as Quentin D. Young, MD had stressed in 2001:

 

"The ACS political agenda reveals a pattern of self interest, conflicts of interest, lack of accountability and non-transparency to all of which the media have responded with deafening silence." [XXXIX]

 

Not too shocking if you consider that top corporate executives from the media industry sit at the "ACS Foundation Board of Trustees" [XXXIX].

 

 

[h=2]Pink Ribbon Groups & Cancer Charities: Mouthpieces, Gatekeepers, And Profiteers Of The Cancer Business[/h]“To reveal reality as it is and not as power represents it, is indeed the most genuine subversion. Only truth is revolutionary.” (Jean-François Brient, in “On Modern Servitude”, 2007)

 

Analogous to the Komen breast cancer foundation, the ACS has misguided and lied to the public with misleading "cancer facts & figures" and survival statistics for many years [XXXVII,XXXIX,XLII]. The ACS still employs these marketing tactics over a decade into the 21st century, using disinforming sensationalistic "advertisements" of breast cancer information and screening statistics under the veneer of real science, insinuating a very high mammography benefit, to lull women into getting mammogram screenings [XLIV].

 

Best-selling author and biologist, Barbara Ehrenreich, PhD, had long exposed the breast cancer awareness culture, with their own pink ribbon logo, slogans, clothing, and other merchandise, as a highly commercialized "breast cancer enterprise" and a "cult" [iI], denoting that:

 

"[...] cult activities, paraphernalia, and testimonies encourage women to undergo the diagnostic procedures, and since a fraction of these diagnoses will be positive, this means more members for the cult as well as more customers for the corporations, both those that provide medical products and services and those that offer charitable sponsorships." [iI]

 

In analogy to the situation with the ACS, many large corporations, destined to greatly profit from a mammogram-favorable public image and an increased use of the screening test such as pharmaceutical companies and mammography equipment manufacturers, donate huge amounts of money to breast cancer ribbon charities [iV,VII,XLII]. The National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (NBCAM) was created in the mid-1980s byCancerCare Inc., a cancer charity, and Imperial Chemical Industries, a manufacturer of petrochemical products, which in 1993 became part of AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical corporation and maker of various breast cancer drugs [XVIII,XLIII,XLV]. AstraZeneca, for instance, is the sole maker of tamoxifen, a top-selling anti-breast cancer drug and established carcinogenic agent [XV,XLIII].

 

CancerCare Inc. has been spreading traditional pro-mammography propaganda, such as the scientific lie that mammogram radiation exposure is "completely safe" and "not harmful" [XLVI].

 

This is very similar to Komen's continuous announcement that small dose mammogram-medical radiation is "believed to be safe" [XLVII] and the charity's longstanding denial of the well-established breast cancer causes, by stating that "the causes of breast cancer are not fully known" [XLVII] and that "we don’t know what causes breast cancer to develop in any one woman, no matter her age" [XLVIII] when low dose x-ray exposure from medical procedures, for instance, had been scientifically identified and "fully known" to medical science for decades to be one of the significant causes of cancer, especially breast cancer [XV]. (The same scientific lie had been repeated by the ACS for eons [XXXVII,XXXIX].) Even Komen's founder, Nancy Brinker, proclaims "We don’t know – yet – why breast cancer starts" in her founder's message at the cancer charity website [XLIX].

 

This deep misrepresentation helps Susan Komen (and the ACS) to justify to continue to ask the public for charitable donations purportedly allocated to the breast cancer organization's purported mission, "Susan G. Komen for the Cure®" (=a Komen trademark), to search for, find, and to "Race for the Cure®" (=a Komen trademark) of the disease.

 

In her book "Pink Ribbon Blues" (2012) author and sociologist Gayle Sulik, PhD wrote:

 

"Though Komen's selling point is to end breast cancer, the organization's efforts revolve around the perpetuation of the cancer industry and Komen's leading place in it." [iV]

 

Similarly, Chowka made this admonition about the American Cancer Society:

 

"[...] behind the cancer society's well-orchestrated facade of help and hope for the cancer victim is a bloated, corrupt, self-perpetuating public relations machine [...]." [XXXVII]

 

Years ago a high official of the American Cancer Society was reported to have admitted that:

 

"Public education may not save lives, but it sure raises money." [XXXVII]

 

Meanwhile, the Komen group talks a lot about risk factors of breast cancer, a term with a relatively "weaker", more nebulous connotation, instead of causes of breast cancer, a term carrying a relatively "stronger", more distinct, and more incriminating meaning.

 

Breast cancer charities, and cancer charities in general, have an ongoing history of consistently neglecting to divulge relevant information on both the causation and prevention of cancer [XXXVII,XXXIX,XLII,XLIII]. In other words, the reigning cancer establishment has been suppressing the real truth about cancer [LVII,LIX,LX]. (In Dietary Supplements And Risks | The Attacks On Supplement Safety I showed that mainstream medicine and the conventional health care system are overwhelmingly focused ontreatment and diagnosis (which leads to treatment) because that's where the big profits are, not in prevention of chronic disease.)

 

Many of Komen's emphasized risk factors for breast cancer shift the culpability and point the blame on the individual (and away from corporate industries, e.g., the big business of modern medicine), such as being overweight, drinking more than one drink of alcohol per day, a lack of exercise, or not breastfeeding [XLVII], akin to how the American Cancer Society has been arguing for many years [XXXIX]. And, among the breast cancer risk factors erroneously and misleadingly listed by the Susan Komen foundation is "exposure to large amounts of radiation at a young age" [XLVII] which, of course, is a "fully known" breast cancer cause.

 

Samuel Epstein, MD, denoted in an extensive treatise on the ACS that:

 

"From its inception in 1922 until now, the public has been and continues to be misled by the ACS [...] with their exclusionary emphasis on personal responsibility and faulty lifestyle as the predominant cause of cancer." [XXXIX]

 

And...

 

"The ACS and NCI [=National Cancer Institute] have long continued to devote virtually exclusive priority to research on diagnosis and treatment of cancer, with indifference to prevention, other than faulty personal lifestyle, commonly known as "blame the victim," to the exclusion of a very wide range of then well-documented avoidable causes of cancer." [XXXIX] [explanation & emphasis added]

 

And...

 

"[..] the NCI has joined with the ACS in denying the public's right to know of avoidable causes of cancer from industrial chemicals, radiation, and common prescription drugs." [XXXIX] [emphasis added]

 

And...

 

"The silence of the NCI, besides the American Cancer Society (ACS), on avoidable causes of cancer has tacitly encouraged corporate polluters and industries to continue manufacturing and marketing carcinogenic products." [XXXIX]

 

On the same note, the Susan Komen foundation had been caught to engage in "pinkwashing" at multiple times, an organization's practice of pledging support to the "breast cancer Cause" or the promotion of a pink ribbon product while selling and/or manufacturing merchandise that may be carcinogenic and are linked to an increased risk of breast cancer [iV].

 

 

[h=2]What Is The Actual Truth About The Cancer Establishment?[/h][h=3]-"Everyone should know that the "war on cancer" is largely a fraud ..." (Linus Pauling, PhD, 1901-1994, Dual Nobel Laureate)[/h]“[...] truth is [...] the daughter of time, not of authority.” (Sir Francis Bacon, 1561–1626, Philosopher & Scientist)

 

The "war on cancer" is governed by a standard Michelle Holmes, MD, PhD, Harvard professor and author of many research studies on breast cancer, had brought up when she stated this in 2014 about cancer drug development:

 

“What is scientific and sexy is driven by what can be monetized, and that becomes the norm.” [L]

 

Over two decades earlier, James P. Carter, MD made practically the same observation:

 

"Corporate interests determine which medical procedures will be researched and developed." [XLI] [emphasis added]

 

And...

 

"Corporations now control the practice of medicine with the weight of their wallets." [XLI]

 

But Holmes' illuminated leading "norm" has been in full effect for even much longer because on 24-Oct-1979, two-time Nobel Prize winner, Linus Carl Pauling, PhD, (1901-1994), wrote in letter to Ralph Moss, PhD, a cancer investigator:

 

"Everyone should know that the "war on cancer" is largely a fraud, and that the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." [LI]

 

In a 2001 investigative paper by long-standing mammogram opponents they stated:

 

"Mammography is a striking paradigm of the capture of unsuspecting women by runaway powerful technological and pharmaceutical global industries, with the complicity of the cancer establishment, particularly the ACS, and the rollover mainstream media." [LII]

 

Quintessentially...

 

Mammogram science and the marketing of the breast x-ray screening procedure is subordinated to, and dictated by, massive vested interests.

 

The mammogram economy's longstanding and ongoing denial, dismissal, disregard, and distortion of the actual scientific knowledge about mammography and breast cancer prompted Karuna Jaggar to ask:

 

"At what point are we going to stop this madness [...].?" [XVI]

 

A woman's recognition that vested interests lay very heavily and pervasively at the core of this "madness", tweaking, manipulating, and biasing...

 

• the actual mammogram research "studies",
  
• the cultural dissemination of mammogram information,
  
• women's perception of mammograms, and
  
• the mammogram establishment's representation of dissenting screening data,
  

... should naturally and logically steer her into a cautious questioning frame of mind, an arguably very necessary self-serving trait and habit in a highly commercialized, bureaucratic-corporate world, protecting her from becoming another victim of "the mammogram myth".

According to this article, more women watched the 2007 Super Bowl (42.2 million) than men and women combined watched the Academy Awards (40.2 million), and 66 percent more women watched the Super Bowl than the Academy Awards (25.4 million), according to Nielson Media Research.

 

Personally, I stopped giving the NFL any of my money a long time ago. There is already talk on FB from women I know who are huge NFL supporters to start boycotting games. The NFL can't afford to alienate 45% of their fan base.

 

Football fanatics and the men who love them - Dateline NBC - 'Honey, You're on Hidden Camera' | NBC News

 

The Best Way to Get Women to Care About Football is with Clothes

They will not give up that pink money, no way, no how. Aint happening. All about the green.

All I ask is that everyone involved be honest and say it is about money/business first and doing the right thing is a distant second.

All I ask is that everyone involved be honest and say it is about money/business first and doing the right thing is a distant second.

 

Ha! Good luck with that! :lol: