Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The whole world seems to have been pink washed. The city skyline is illuminated in pink
as employees wake up and forego their morning commute. At the office, John’s coworkers sport
hot pink shirts and buttons. Lunch includes much of the same as coworkers munch away on KFC
chicken, plucked out of pink buckets, and wash it down with pink labeled bottles of Pepsi. After
lunch, the boss calls a team meeting to announce a third team member, Katherine, was just
diagnosed with breast cancer. In support of her recovery, the boss encourages his employees to
bake a dozen cookies and instructs them to wear even more pink the following day. Upon
arriving at home exhausted, John turns on the television to watch his favorite football athletes
display pink articles of clothing. The pink campaign can be seen everywhere, but where does its
The pink campaign lays in the epicenter of a bad health paradigm. When people believe
the human body is created with flaws and that it is destined for suffering and cancer, then their
approach to health comes from a defensive outlook. People believing that more pink is a solution
to the cancer epidemic contributes to this flawed thinking. Pink represents all which is wrong
with allopathic western medicine. The theory that most people can do nothing to avoid cancer is
false. Yet, individuals are told to find it early, to keep their fingers crossed, and to hope for the
best.
Much of the pink movement’s money, outside of marketing and huge salaries for top
personal, goes to early detection of cancer by means of mammograms and treatment using drugs
and surgery. One of these drugs is Tamoxifen, created by AstraZeneca, in which the pink
campaign owns stock. The medicine also has a black label listing because it is known to cause
uterine cancer (Komen, “Tamoxifen”). According to Edward Hendrick, studies also show
Revision
women who receive the most mammograms have the highest incidence of breast cancer due to
the large amount of radiation concentrated directly into their breast tissue. Susan G. Komen,
head of the pink campaign, has a very close financial tie to the makers of mammography
machines. The Komen Foundation has received over a million dollars in contributions from the
makers of these machines. The money to fund such a campaign comes from corporations that
pink-up their products, such as a bucket of fried chicken from KFC or beauty products with
known carcinogens in the ingredient list. Fighting cancer with known carcinogens is insane!
However, individuals with a defensive approach to their health feel justified by believing in this
flawed health paradigm that the body is created unintelligently with flaws and is designed for
Now, at other end of the health paradigm, an offensive approach to health centers around
the belief that the human body is a self-regulating and self-healing mechanism that doesn’t need
any help to survive and thrive; rather, it simply requires no interference. These interferences in
the body’s ability to heal can include the following items: subluxations in the spine which hinder
the brain from communicating with the body, a poor diet, lack of oxygen to the cells caused by a
sedentary lifestyle, toxic buildup in cells and organs, and even a belief in the wrong health
paradigm. An offensive health model takes away the need for fear. Cancer is not caused by a
heal itself. Pink will not make anyone safer from cancer because the human body is designed for
health not disease. The offensive paradigm models a gateway to a long and fruitful life far from
the oncology ward. Society should put an end to the pink washing madness and create a
community of cancer killers. A small group of individuals can change the world!
Revision
Works Cited
<http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/Tamoxifen.html>
Hendrick, Edward R. “Radiation Doses and Cancer Risks from Breast Imaging Studies”
2017.