Cancer and Culture
One of the very first lessons I learned during my first class on post-modernism was this very simple concept: the political is personal and the personal is political. I remember that this calling card was used primarily in the realm of feminism, although as a catch-phrase it's highly versatile.
People often wonder why I spend so much time trying to deconstruct the pink ribbon subculture, and the answer to that is that it is an issue that is both political AND personal. In the past, I've been accused of not doing anything positive (which is up for debate, since everyone has their own idea of what "positive" means). I've also been accused of insulting those who are trying to help by following the norms--those people who are buying the sticky notes and saving the lids and walking the walks.
You know, I've kept my mouth shut to most people about my feelings, and I've kept my mouth shut even here on LiveJournal. And I'm well aware that what I'm about to write is not going to make me popular and will more than likely anger some well-meaning people on my friend's list. I would like to say, though, that this is my journal and I'm not here to be popular. These are my thoughts, feelings and ideas that I feel very strongly about. I do not write--and WILL not write--to make other people happy.
Because remember...this is not a public platform, it's an online journal. It's a place where I document my ongoing and evolving ideas, knowledge and beliefs on everything from my personal feelings of cancer to my political viewpoints on American society.
Ok. I got that out of the way. Here we go.
Doing any of those things I mentioned above-buying sticky notes, saving lids and walking in walks--is not helping. Instead, those actions are contributing to the problem.
I walked in the American Cancer Society breast cancer walk last Saturday. I had a good time hanging out with friends and family and talking to other people. But I can tell you this: the money that I had to spend to walk in this walk would have been better served had I just walked downtown and thrown it into the wind. The money isn't going anywhere, I could meet my friends and family at my locally owned coffee shop, and my contributing to the walk only serves to support this societal institution (and its network) within a system that is already not working.
I'll get into more detail in a minute, but I'd like to offer a case study first.
In 2002, the Komen organization brought in roughly $200 million dollars in donations. $23 million went towards any kind of grants (presumably for research and local community programs--hard to tell, as the Komen organization appears to be very decentralized and I've had a hard time obtaining from them WHERE, exactly, the money goes). Anyways, I'll return to this issue in a little while. For now, let's just look at some raw figures here based on their 2002 tax documents. If you do the math...let's see....200 divided by 23, divide by 2 again...carry the one...and you get…
11.5. That is, 11.5 cents of every dollar goes towards some kind of research or non-profit program. The rest of it went towards things like advertising (with other businesses) and lobbying (to our government). Let's look at the advertising side for a bit and see where it leads us.
One such advertising program that Komen participated in was the joint venture between Komen and the dairy board. The press releases on the program actually claim that milk can help PREVENT breast cancer, despite the fact that there is no published research on the issue. In fact, I distinctly remember writing about the dangers of dairy here. You can read about IGF-1 and its ability to promote cancer here. And here is another link. And here.
But you know...we don't hear Komen saying ANYTHING about these. Considering that this conclusions linking IGF-1 and breast cancer was published in Lancet, I would think that if they had womens' best interest at heart that they would be paying attention and getting the message out to us. But no. Instead, Komen wants you to GET YOUR PICTURE TAKEN with the Got Milk? mustache at all of the Komen "Race for the Cure" events. It's a double whammy of promotions here, advertising BOTH Komen AND the Milk Board at the same time!
Now, one of the arguments in favor of this campaign is that it raises money for Komen. "got milk?" is paying Komen $1 for every photo taken with the mustache. According to the Komen homepage, more than 1 million women participate in the race each year. Ok. Let's round that up and say...1.5 million women participate. Now, for argument's sake, let's say that every single woman poses with the mustache. That’s $1.5 million dollars to Komen. Now, knowing that only 11.5 cents for every dollar goes towards any kind of grant, we learn that $172,500 of that will actually go towards “finding a cure.”
And as a side note, let’s also not forget that this program is a huge benefit for the milk processors. Compared to the 180 million dollar pricetag on the "got milk?" campaign, spending $1.5 million dollars for exposure to 1.5 million women is a veritable bargain. And remember, these 1.5 million women are a perfect target audience for the campaign’s fear-mongering implicit message, which is that if you get breast cancer it’s because you didn’t drink ENOUGH milk.
OK. So we can see here that there is a blatant relationship between Komen and the milk board. Let’s go back to the question I just asked above, and that is: why is it that Komen, who’s objective is to find a cure for breast cancer, is not promoting the research that has been published in Lancet about the dangers of IGF-1?
The answer to that lies in the concept of hegemony.
Hegemony is a term that is all too often strictly associated with things like government or political states or other obvious symbols of authoritative power. But even in its most basic definition, this context is way too constrictive. Hegemony is not about political power overtly exercising its influence over people’s lives, nor is it the subtle kind of subconscious programming that we all adhere to whenever we see a television commercial or advertising billboard.
Simply put, hegemony is a system of societal institutions whose interdependence will always lead towards influencing society in one direction.
Or, to put it another way, everyone is in bed with everyone else with each participant watching every other participants’ back. Let’s use this Komen case study as an example.
The press release announcing the campaign between the milk board and Komen stated that milk could prevent breast cancer. They also stated that this claim was backed by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Well, that being the case, then there must be some truth to the claim, right? I mean…if NCI is backing it, it HAS to be true!
Not necessarily. The head of the NCI is Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, who was appointed by George W. Bush as head of the institute in 2001. Dr. Andrew Eschenbach was president-elect of the American Cancer Society when he was appointed by Bush. Why is this important? Because the American Cancer Society has a history of siding with industry, including agribusiness. The National Cancer Institute has had a creepy, symbiotic relationship with the ACS that had been made even more chilling with the appointment of Dr. Eschenbach. The same people float in and out of the advisory positions for both organizations and most of them bring with them some sort of corporate bias. Some of the advisors are, in fact, people directly out of the pharmaceutical industry. But even those advisors that are supposedly esteemed members of a university faculty bring corporate interests with them simply because corporations fund a majority of university research a la the "land grant" college system. (Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times: The Failure of the Land Grant College, Jim Hightower).
Yes, that's right. Our tax dollars that pay for the land grant college system actually pay for corporations to use our universities to perform research on their behalf. The corporations walk away with little money spent out of their pocket for the research yet hold all of the patent rights on the chemicals that are developed.
But more importantly, the funding arm of the land grant college system is comprised of agribusiness and pharmabusiness industry executives. Each year, the executives meet and decide which universities are going to get funding dollars out of the land grant slush fund (which is furnished by our tax dollars). This is a major conflict of interest. Let me put it this way: XYZ corporation is using ABC University to research a new product. ABC finds something unfavorable in the product and makes this information public, thus preventing XYZ from being able to market the item and gain profits from its sale. Now...do you think that ABC University is going to get money from the land grant college system in the following year when Bob Johnson of XYZ Corporation is on the executive board that is directing the funds?
The unspoken answer to that question is “no” and Universities know this, which is why universities have a strong incentive to push their research into areas that are pleasing to corporations. In fact, some universities have outright LIED about research. In fact, UC Davis did just such a thing involving a product for Shell Chemical Company. In the 1940's, Dr. Charles Hine was a lead researcher at UC Davis who also did some independent consulting work for Shell Chemical Company. In 1977, Hines revealed that he had failed to disclose results of his university testing of one of Shell's pesticides (called DCBP) on rats. The reason he did not make this public are twofold: a) he claimed that he was afraid Shell would begin withholding research funds for his lab at UC Davis and b) he claimed that he had informed Shell privately about the results. Meanwhile, men who had been exposed to the chemical--which was on the market now for over 30 years--became completely sterile and could no longer have children. (Altered Harvest, Jack Doyle).
So, yes. It HAPPENS. Universities are in bed with agri-pharma-business. Universities and agri-pharmabusiness are in bed with two of our major cancer organizations. And our major cancer organizations are providing information to other organizations such as Komen, who begins to model their message and philosopy towards this information. Komen then begins to funnel their efforts towards programs that support the current social structure. The end result is a circuitous cycle whereby all of the social institutions support one another.
The problem with a system like this is that any information that is contrary to such a system is marginalized. What, milk DOESN’T do a body good? To claim that is to attack ALL of the institutions that are involved. First, it’s an obvious attach on the milk board. But any other group or institution that has hitched their wagon to the milk board will also then come under fire. Groups like the NCI will fire back with statements supporting milk consumption, and information such as those published in Lancet will never make it to the public’s eyes.
I think many people may read what I’ve just written and write me off as some sort of hack conspiracy theorist. I can’t stop anyone from thinking what they want of my theories. But I can certainly point out to them that what I am talking about is in no way linked to conspiracy ideology. Conspiracy ideology involves images of a small handful of WASP men huddled together in some secret conference room in some underground tunnel devising new strategies to deceive the American people via advertising and propaganda. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I’m talking about. The kind of hegemony I speak of is right out there in the open. It’s the blatant interweaving of our societal institutions and how this co-dependence on one another leads to a consensus among the masses. These relationships are open and obvious and are free for anyone to deconstruct.
So, no. There is no grand puppet-master pulling strings to make the masses dance. The masses are able to dance on their own for our institutional puppet-masters because they are not given the tools (such as independent media) to question our social institutions.
What I just wrote above is precisely why walking in the popular breast cancer walks are contributing to the problem.
Whenever you give your money and your time towards an institution such as Komen or ACS, you may or may not be helping people. Perhaps that 11.5 cents for every dollar IS going to someone. Perhaps not. That’s not the question one needs to ask of themselves. The question is:
AM I EFFECTING CHANGE WITH MY ACTIONS?
The answer is a resounding no. Donating money to places like Komen or ACS simply supports the current institutional structure. 88.5 cents of every is going towards supporting all of the interdependent relationships in which Komen or the ACS is involved. The problem with this is that information and research that does NOT support this institutional network becomes marginalized and not disseminated to the masses. Independent research and objective knowledge about cancer and its causes is not viable in this system.
If someone can make a case for me that this inability to find objective, non-biased information is a good situation and shouldn’t be changed, then I’ll be the first to back off of the argument that supporting places like Komen contribute to the problem.
We’ve been told for decades now that we’re on the cusp of a cure for cancer. We are absolutely not, and never will with the current structure of institutions we have in this country. Here’s why.
Cancer care is currently in the hands of pharmaceutical companies who reap heavy profits from drugs used to treat cancer. These companies are not going to find a cure for cancer, but it’s not because the CEO has some devious strategy to try to find a way to make people live with the disease longer by using his company’s drugs. It’s not that sinister. A better example would involve, say, a tax company that sells tax services. They are really, really good at doing people’s taxes. Do you think this company, with its service business model, would ever develop a tax software that could be purchased for a dollar and would replace people’s needs to have their taxes done? Probably not, as it’s just not the business they are in. In fact, their business model prevents them from even considering the question, “Hey, why don’t we develop some software?”
It’s the same thing with pharmaceutical companies. They will continue down established lines of research, but the structure of their very institution prevents them from asking the specific questions needed to really try to find a cure (if a cure even exists) OR from researching prevention.
It’s the same reason why places like Komen can’t question things. They are not structured to have any objective inquisition. They aren’t a bad, evil institution trying to raise money to pay the half million dollar base salaries for its top two executives (go here and select "Health Charities" from the drop down box). They honestly feel as if they are helping. Everyone does. But ask yourself this:
How many women do you think might not have ever gotten breast cancer if they were told earlier in their lives about some of the dangers involved in milk laced with IGF-1?
Our problem is society itself, and I think people sense this. There’s a growing sense of futility that runs rampant, this feeling that we have no control over anything anymore. One of the ways to stem this is to funnel energy into something (i.e. cancer walks, cancer merchandise, etc.) that doesn’t really effect any change but just placates us. We obtain an illusion of control when we participate in walks and cover our property in pink ribbons. In breast cancer, everyone feels good after they walk a walk, buy a pin, or wear denim on whatever specified day in October. We are made to think that we are actually contributing by participating in what is, at best, arbitrary behavior. We lose sight of all of the forces involved in what we're doing, and in the end we are only supporting the social structures that serve to quiet independent research and lull us into the belief that the current system can be changed by working within the system.
I honestly believe that our society is beyond that point where we can enact change by following the rules of its institutions. This is especially true in the breast cancer arena, whereby untold amounts of research on carcinogenic pesticides and chemicals is overwhelmingly overshadowed by messages-often weakly supported-about early detection via mammograms. The research that tells us that IGF-1 in milk can cause breast cancer is marginalized and unheard precisely because it deviates from the structures of the institutions involved in cancer research. Yet we hear over and over again the benefit of mammograms, even though research has supported the idea that excessive radiation to the breast via mammograms can actually increase your breast cancer risk.
I don’t know what the answer necessarily is in this case. As much as I believe in the nihilistic deconstruction of our social institutions, I myself do not yet have a personal idea as to what to do to enact a change. The question isn’t a matter of HOW can we find a way to fund independent research that lies outside of corporate bias but…do we even have the ABILITY to find a way to fund independent research that lies outside of any corporate bias?
I’m not yet sure what the answer is to that. I’m not sure if there is any group or organization that has the ability to operate outside of the current social structure, free from the hegemonic influence to which so many other organizations, such as Komen and ACS, have succumbed.
In the meantime, my time and money will be focused on the individuals who actually have cancer. Help them pay their medical bills, make them meals, or just be there to listen as they talk about the side effects from supposed “miracle” drugs. My actions…will go directly to them.
People often wonder why I spend so much time trying to deconstruct the pink ribbon subculture, and the answer to that is that it is an issue that is both political AND personal. In the past, I've been accused of not doing anything positive (which is up for debate, since everyone has their own idea of what "positive" means). I've also been accused of insulting those who are trying to help by following the norms--those people who are buying the sticky notes and saving the lids and walking the walks.
You know, I've kept my mouth shut to most people about my feelings, and I've kept my mouth shut even here on LiveJournal. And I'm well aware that what I'm about to write is not going to make me popular and will more than likely anger some well-meaning people on my friend's list. I would like to say, though, that this is my journal and I'm not here to be popular. These are my thoughts, feelings and ideas that I feel very strongly about. I do not write--and WILL not write--to make other people happy.
Because remember...this is not a public platform, it's an online journal. It's a place where I document my ongoing and evolving ideas, knowledge and beliefs on everything from my personal feelings of cancer to my political viewpoints on American society.
Ok. I got that out of the way. Here we go.
Doing any of those things I mentioned above-buying sticky notes, saving lids and walking in walks--is not helping. Instead, those actions are contributing to the problem.
I walked in the American Cancer Society breast cancer walk last Saturday. I had a good time hanging out with friends and family and talking to other people. But I can tell you this: the money that I had to spend to walk in this walk would have been better served had I just walked downtown and thrown it into the wind. The money isn't going anywhere, I could meet my friends and family at my locally owned coffee shop, and my contributing to the walk only serves to support this societal institution (and its network) within a system that is already not working.
I'll get into more detail in a minute, but I'd like to offer a case study first.
In 2002, the Komen organization brought in roughly $200 million dollars in donations. $23 million went towards any kind of grants (presumably for research and local community programs--hard to tell, as the Komen organization appears to be very decentralized and I've had a hard time obtaining from them WHERE, exactly, the money goes). Anyways, I'll return to this issue in a little while. For now, let's just look at some raw figures here based on their 2002 tax documents. If you do the math...let's see....200 divided by 23, divide by 2 again...carry the one...and you get…
11.5. That is, 11.5 cents of every dollar goes towards some kind of research or non-profit program. The rest of it went towards things like advertising (with other businesses) and lobbying (to our government). Let's look at the advertising side for a bit and see where it leads us.
One such advertising program that Komen participated in was the joint venture between Komen and the dairy board. The press releases on the program actually claim that milk can help PREVENT breast cancer, despite the fact that there is no published research on the issue. In fact, I distinctly remember writing about the dangers of dairy here. You can read about IGF-1 and its ability to promote cancer here. And here is another link. And here.
But you know...we don't hear Komen saying ANYTHING about these. Considering that this conclusions linking IGF-1 and breast cancer was published in Lancet, I would think that if they had womens' best interest at heart that they would be paying attention and getting the message out to us. But no. Instead, Komen wants you to GET YOUR PICTURE TAKEN with the Got Milk? mustache at all of the Komen "Race for the Cure" events. It's a double whammy of promotions here, advertising BOTH Komen AND the Milk Board at the same time!
Now, one of the arguments in favor of this campaign is that it raises money for Komen. "got milk?" is paying Komen $1 for every photo taken with the mustache. According to the Komen homepage, more than 1 million women participate in the race each year. Ok. Let's round that up and say...1.5 million women participate. Now, for argument's sake, let's say that every single woman poses with the mustache. That’s $1.5 million dollars to Komen. Now, knowing that only 11.5 cents for every dollar goes towards any kind of grant, we learn that $172,500 of that will actually go towards “finding a cure.”
And as a side note, let’s also not forget that this program is a huge benefit for the milk processors. Compared to the 180 million dollar pricetag on the "got milk?" campaign, spending $1.5 million dollars for exposure to 1.5 million women is a veritable bargain. And remember, these 1.5 million women are a perfect target audience for the campaign’s fear-mongering implicit message, which is that if you get breast cancer it’s because you didn’t drink ENOUGH milk.
OK. So we can see here that there is a blatant relationship between Komen and the milk board. Let’s go back to the question I just asked above, and that is: why is it that Komen, who’s objective is to find a cure for breast cancer, is not promoting the research that has been published in Lancet about the dangers of IGF-1?
The answer to that lies in the concept of hegemony.
Hegemony is a term that is all too often strictly associated with things like government or political states or other obvious symbols of authoritative power. But even in its most basic definition, this context is way too constrictive. Hegemony is not about political power overtly exercising its influence over people’s lives, nor is it the subtle kind of subconscious programming that we all adhere to whenever we see a television commercial or advertising billboard.
Simply put, hegemony is a system of societal institutions whose interdependence will always lead towards influencing society in one direction.
Or, to put it another way, everyone is in bed with everyone else with each participant watching every other participants’ back. Let’s use this Komen case study as an example.
The press release announcing the campaign between the milk board and Komen stated that milk could prevent breast cancer. They also stated that this claim was backed by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Well, that being the case, then there must be some truth to the claim, right? I mean…if NCI is backing it, it HAS to be true!
Not necessarily. The head of the NCI is Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, who was appointed by George W. Bush as head of the institute in 2001. Dr. Andrew Eschenbach was president-elect of the American Cancer Society when he was appointed by Bush. Why is this important? Because the American Cancer Society has a history of siding with industry, including agribusiness. The National Cancer Institute has had a creepy, symbiotic relationship with the ACS that had been made even more chilling with the appointment of Dr. Eschenbach. The same people float in and out of the advisory positions for both organizations and most of them bring with them some sort of corporate bias. Some of the advisors are, in fact, people directly out of the pharmaceutical industry. But even those advisors that are supposedly esteemed members of a university faculty bring corporate interests with them simply because corporations fund a majority of university research a la the "land grant" college system. (Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times: The Failure of the Land Grant College, Jim Hightower).
Yes, that's right. Our tax dollars that pay for the land grant college system actually pay for corporations to use our universities to perform research on their behalf. The corporations walk away with little money spent out of their pocket for the research yet hold all of the patent rights on the chemicals that are developed.
But more importantly, the funding arm of the land grant college system is comprised of agribusiness and pharmabusiness industry executives. Each year, the executives meet and decide which universities are going to get funding dollars out of the land grant slush fund (which is furnished by our tax dollars). This is a major conflict of interest. Let me put it this way: XYZ corporation is using ABC University to research a new product. ABC finds something unfavorable in the product and makes this information public, thus preventing XYZ from being able to market the item and gain profits from its sale. Now...do you think that ABC University is going to get money from the land grant college system in the following year when Bob Johnson of XYZ Corporation is on the executive board that is directing the funds?
The unspoken answer to that question is “no” and Universities know this, which is why universities have a strong incentive to push their research into areas that are pleasing to corporations. In fact, some universities have outright LIED about research. In fact, UC Davis did just such a thing involving a product for Shell Chemical Company. In the 1940's, Dr. Charles Hine was a lead researcher at UC Davis who also did some independent consulting work for Shell Chemical Company. In 1977, Hines revealed that he had failed to disclose results of his university testing of one of Shell's pesticides (called DCBP) on rats. The reason he did not make this public are twofold: a) he claimed that he was afraid Shell would begin withholding research funds for his lab at UC Davis and b) he claimed that he had informed Shell privately about the results. Meanwhile, men who had been exposed to the chemical--which was on the market now for over 30 years--became completely sterile and could no longer have children. (Altered Harvest, Jack Doyle).
So, yes. It HAPPENS. Universities are in bed with agri-pharma-business. Universities and agri-pharmabusiness are in bed with two of our major cancer organizations. And our major cancer organizations are providing information to other organizations such as Komen, who begins to model their message and philosopy towards this information. Komen then begins to funnel their efforts towards programs that support the current social structure. The end result is a circuitous cycle whereby all of the social institutions support one another.
The problem with a system like this is that any information that is contrary to such a system is marginalized. What, milk DOESN’T do a body good? To claim that is to attack ALL of the institutions that are involved. First, it’s an obvious attach on the milk board. But any other group or institution that has hitched their wagon to the milk board will also then come under fire. Groups like the NCI will fire back with statements supporting milk consumption, and information such as those published in Lancet will never make it to the public’s eyes.
I think many people may read what I’ve just written and write me off as some sort of hack conspiracy theorist. I can’t stop anyone from thinking what they want of my theories. But I can certainly point out to them that what I am talking about is in no way linked to conspiracy ideology. Conspiracy ideology involves images of a small handful of WASP men huddled together in some secret conference room in some underground tunnel devising new strategies to deceive the American people via advertising and propaganda. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I’m talking about. The kind of hegemony I speak of is right out there in the open. It’s the blatant interweaving of our societal institutions and how this co-dependence on one another leads to a consensus among the masses. These relationships are open and obvious and are free for anyone to deconstruct.
So, no. There is no grand puppet-master pulling strings to make the masses dance. The masses are able to dance on their own for our institutional puppet-masters because they are not given the tools (such as independent media) to question our social institutions.
What I just wrote above is precisely why walking in the popular breast cancer walks are contributing to the problem.
Whenever you give your money and your time towards an institution such as Komen or ACS, you may or may not be helping people. Perhaps that 11.5 cents for every dollar IS going to someone. Perhaps not. That’s not the question one needs to ask of themselves. The question is:
AM I EFFECTING CHANGE WITH MY ACTIONS?
The answer is a resounding no. Donating money to places like Komen or ACS simply supports the current institutional structure. 88.5 cents of every is going towards supporting all of the interdependent relationships in which Komen or the ACS is involved. The problem with this is that information and research that does NOT support this institutional network becomes marginalized and not disseminated to the masses. Independent research and objective knowledge about cancer and its causes is not viable in this system.
If someone can make a case for me that this inability to find objective, non-biased information is a good situation and shouldn’t be changed, then I’ll be the first to back off of the argument that supporting places like Komen contribute to the problem.
We’ve been told for decades now that we’re on the cusp of a cure for cancer. We are absolutely not, and never will with the current structure of institutions we have in this country. Here’s why.
Cancer care is currently in the hands of pharmaceutical companies who reap heavy profits from drugs used to treat cancer. These companies are not going to find a cure for cancer, but it’s not because the CEO has some devious strategy to try to find a way to make people live with the disease longer by using his company’s drugs. It’s not that sinister. A better example would involve, say, a tax company that sells tax services. They are really, really good at doing people’s taxes. Do you think this company, with its service business model, would ever develop a tax software that could be purchased for a dollar and would replace people’s needs to have their taxes done? Probably not, as it’s just not the business they are in. In fact, their business model prevents them from even considering the question, “Hey, why don’t we develop some software?”
It’s the same thing with pharmaceutical companies. They will continue down established lines of research, but the structure of their very institution prevents them from asking the specific questions needed to really try to find a cure (if a cure even exists) OR from researching prevention.
It’s the same reason why places like Komen can’t question things. They are not structured to have any objective inquisition. They aren’t a bad, evil institution trying to raise money to pay the half million dollar base salaries for its top two executives (go here and select "Health Charities" from the drop down box). They honestly feel as if they are helping. Everyone does. But ask yourself this:
How many women do you think might not have ever gotten breast cancer if they were told earlier in their lives about some of the dangers involved in milk laced with IGF-1?
Our problem is society itself, and I think people sense this. There’s a growing sense of futility that runs rampant, this feeling that we have no control over anything anymore. One of the ways to stem this is to funnel energy into something (i.e. cancer walks, cancer merchandise, etc.) that doesn’t really effect any change but just placates us. We obtain an illusion of control when we participate in walks and cover our property in pink ribbons. In breast cancer, everyone feels good after they walk a walk, buy a pin, or wear denim on whatever specified day in October. We are made to think that we are actually contributing by participating in what is, at best, arbitrary behavior. We lose sight of all of the forces involved in what we're doing, and in the end we are only supporting the social structures that serve to quiet independent research and lull us into the belief that the current system can be changed by working within the system.
I honestly believe that our society is beyond that point where we can enact change by following the rules of its institutions. This is especially true in the breast cancer arena, whereby untold amounts of research on carcinogenic pesticides and chemicals is overwhelmingly overshadowed by messages-often weakly supported-about early detection via mammograms. The research that tells us that IGF-1 in milk can cause breast cancer is marginalized and unheard precisely because it deviates from the structures of the institutions involved in cancer research. Yet we hear over and over again the benefit of mammograms, even though research has supported the idea that excessive radiation to the breast via mammograms can actually increase your breast cancer risk.
I don’t know what the answer necessarily is in this case. As much as I believe in the nihilistic deconstruction of our social institutions, I myself do not yet have a personal idea as to what to do to enact a change. The question isn’t a matter of HOW can we find a way to fund independent research that lies outside of corporate bias but…do we even have the ABILITY to find a way to fund independent research that lies outside of any corporate bias?
I’m not yet sure what the answer is to that. I’m not sure if there is any group or organization that has the ability to operate outside of the current social structure, free from the hegemonic influence to which so many other organizations, such as Komen and ACS, have succumbed.
In the meantime, my time and money will be focused on the individuals who actually have cancer. Help them pay their medical bills, make them meals, or just be there to listen as they talk about the side effects from supposed “miracle” drugs. My actions…will go directly to them.