planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:29 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
 Post subject: Cancer awareness
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:27 pm
Posts: 1428
Location: UK
UnlikeUday wrote:
This week no purple coloured Ultrasoft tyres but Pink ones instead to support Breast Cancer Awareness:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/pirelli-pink-tyres-austin-cancer-966328/

It's a shame that litigious scumbags like Susan G Komen will fundraise off the back of this.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8742
Much like Lance Armstrongs cancer charity, it is a joke. About 20% of there donations end up going to cancer research when the cited aim of the organisation is to fund the finding of a cure.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1701
lamo wrote:
Much like Lance Armstrongs cancer charity, it is a joke. About 20% of there donations end up going to cancer research when the cited aim of the organisation is to fund the finding of a cure.


I've not did complete research, but isn't this true of almost every large charity?

The logic being that if they didn't invest in these these staff, systems and marketing they might be able to pass on 80% of donations but that would be 80% of a much smaller number. By investing in all this stuff it means they can only pass on 20%, but that 20% is a higher $ value.

ie instead of 80% of £50,000 = £40,000, they get 20% of £1,000,000 = £200,000.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4534
Ennis wrote:
lamo wrote:
Much like Lance Armstrongs cancer charity, it is a joke. About 20% of there donations end up going to cancer research when the cited aim of the organisation is to fund the finding of a cure.


I've not did complete research, but isn't this true of almost every large charity?

The logic being that if they didn't invest in these these staff, systems and marketing they might be able to pass on 80% of donations but that would be 80% of a much smaller number. By investing in all this stuff it means they can only pass on 20%, but that 20% is a higher $ value.

ie instead of 80% of £50,000 = £40,000, they get 20% of £1,000,000 = £200,000.

Don't want to go too off topic so I'll keep it short, you have to research who you donate to. Some large charities take in millions and as low as 5%-6% is given out while the board takes in $500k-$1m in salary often when they are also CEO's at large corporations.

One of the gripes with Komen in particular is that their stated mission is "finding a cure" while of the 20% that they spend only half goes to research that looks into finding a cure and the rest is spent on awareness campaigns, screening, and treatment. While there's nothing wrong with those things but there are many other charities doing the same thing and takes money away from the research that is right there in their name.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3027
Finding a cure to cancer is a misleading statement anyway. It implies cancer is like catching an infection that you can take antibodies for and it will be killed. While it may be possible to create something that does attack cancer, it's not really the same sort of thing.

Really, the "cure for cancer" is a marketing slogan more than anything. In terms of medical research, it's really divided between treatment and preventative methods / early detection.

This really is one of those things that is difficult to really discuss in a short form discussion. Ultimately, it is generating money for the illness, but with 80%
of the money seemingly going elsewhere, that's a waste level that would never be tolerated in any public service.

In terms of cost efficiency, it's clearly best to give the money directly to the research teams. But if you did that, would you be able to raise even 10% of the money that would be generated this way? It's a highly debatable issue. Clearly, if people's pockets are being lined on this, that makes them terrible people. But it's like someone saying "give me a million dollars and I'll save a child from a sinking ship and buy myself 9 Ferraris" - they are putting you in a position where opposing it focuses on the child drowning, they tie your inaction to that occurring - and while you may be able to pay someone else to go out and save the child without funding the 9 Ferraris, you have no idea whether that would be successful or not.

To be clear, I don't know that the 80% is lining the pockets of these people, although no doubt they will be making something out of it.

However, all charitable work doing by profit making companies will have some cynicism to it as you break it down - even if it's just to reduce their tax burden and gain some positive PR.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7798
I think most pharma companies dont want to find a 'cure', thats a customer lost. They want a 'controler' so they are locked in for life.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1701
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Finding a cure to cancer is a misleading statement anyway. It implies cancer is like catching an infection that you can take antibodies for and it will be killed. While it may be possible to create something that does attack cancer, it's not really the same sort of thing.

Really, the "cure for cancer" is a marketing slogan more than anything. In terms of medical research, it's really divided between treatment and preventative methods / early detection.

This really is one of those things that is difficult to really discuss in a short form discussion. Ultimately, it is generating money for the illness, but with 80%
of the money seemingly going elsewhere, that's a waste level that would never be tolerated in any public service.

In terms of cost efficiency, it's clearly best to give the money directly to the research teams. But if you did that, would you be able to raise even 10% of the money that would be generated this way? It's a highly debatable issue. Clearly, if people's pockets are being lined on this, that makes them terrible people. But it's like someone saying "give me a million dollars and I'll save a child from a sinking ship and buy myself 9 Ferraris" - they are putting you in a position where opposing it focuses on the child drowning, they tie your inaction to that occurring - and while you may be able to pay someone else to go out and save the child without funding the 9 Ferraris, you have no idea whether that would be successful or not.

To be clear, I don't know that the 80% is lining the pockets of these people, although no doubt they will be making something out of it.

However, all charitable work doing by profit making companies will have some cynicism to it as you break it down - even if it's just to reduce their tax burden and gain some positive PR.


I don't disagree with your point, but I don't think its quite as cynical as many believe.

Charities exist to generate money, which they then pass on to something. Companies exist to generate money. They are both after the same goal, so it makes sense they work in what is essentially the right way.

They need someone at the top who can really drive the strategy, create a vision, and get the right people in place to generate that revenue (I'm being simplistic, I know). Charities will look at their employees as a return on investment to some degree. Do you want the best talent out there finding you money, and generating more revenue? Well its going to cost more money to hire and retain them.

I have no doubt there are some really dirty organisations out there, but many of them with these horrible %s are just different charities operating with different 'profit margins' looking to generate as much revenue as they can to pass on to the cause - they just need to pay a bunch of people in order to do this.

moby wrote:
I think most pharma companies dont want to find a 'cure', thats a customer lost. They want a 'controler' so they are locked in for life.


I disagree with this entirely. Sometimes we see the horrible, psychopathic side of business but they're usually kept in check. Plus even looking at it coldly - the first person to get to that magic cure? Well, that's one way to give your company a use competitive edge.

The real issue is cancer is not a one size fits all fix. It's not a foreign object. It's not something which has wormed its way in. Its part of the fabric of us, and comes with a huge variety...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 1412
anything that brings up the subject and awareness of cancer is good
cancer can seem along way from you and can be something you have never considered , but if you get it , then its very frightening and real


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1629
slide wrote:
anything that brings up the subject and awareness of cancer is good
cancer can seem along way from you and can be something you have never considered , but if you get it , then its very frightening and real


Everyone's aware of cancer. It's not a new disease. But the only cancer people are ever made aware of is breast cancer. Kinda getting sick of all the pink ribbons. There're many other types of cancers too.



Mod edit


Last edited by Mod Titanium on Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.
moved to this thread


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:58 pm
Posts: 56
jeffw wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
slide wrote:
anything that brings up the subject and awareness of cancer is good
cancer can seem along way from you and can be something you have never considered , but if you get it , then its very frightening and real


Everyone's aware of cancer. It's not a new disease. But the only cancer people are ever made aware of is breast cancer. Kinda getting sick of all the pink ribbons. There're many other types of cancers too.



make no mistake it's quite painful for the family (my brother induced thank to the US government)... but the machine is all about $$.




Mod edit; moved to this thread


Last edited by Mod Titanium on Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:19 pm, edited 4 times in total.
edited content, relocated to this thread


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cancer awareness
PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7798
Anything that does anything with research for any cancer is good. Don't look at the one thing, just what works on the tumour and side effects so much of it is transferable. My 'gripe' if you can call it that is when there are huge collections to go to people affected by the death of a famous person. Yes, its nice for them, but that money would be far better put into research to help everyone.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group