home

Komen Full Wingnut: No Funding For Embryonic Stem Cell Research

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 03:47:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Hunter, Pink became the new anti-science crazy last November PDF):

Susan G. Komen for the Cure® has never funded human embryonic stem cell research (HESCR) nor does Komen currently fund H-ESCR. Komen supports research on the isolation, derivation, production, and testing of stem cells [that . . .] are derived without creating a human embryo or destroying a human embryo.

The question is why all the prevarication on the Planned Parenthood cutoff? Komen seemed to make clear last November that it is a right wing anti-science organization. Why pretend it is not regarding PP? They should be proud of their wingnut bona fides, no?

Speaking for me only

< Would GOP Nomination Of Gingrich Trigger Trump Independent Bid? | Thursday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Komen Full Wingnut: No Funding For Embryonic Stem Cell Research | 38 comments (38 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Of all the many tragedies of the rise (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 05:24:27 PM EST
    in rampant right-wing nuttery, over the last dozen years particularly, is the denigration and politicization of science. Part and parcel of their anti-intellectualism, I suppose, but perhaps the worst part.

    All to retain (none / 0) (#28)
    by cal1942 on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 03:45:28 AM EST
    a religio-winger constituency.

    The lust for power at any price.

    Parent

    This is sad for me (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 05:30:45 PM EST
    My mom is an 18 year survivor, and we regularly attend the Philadelphia RFTC on Mother's Day Weekend.

    Mom has been involved in a lot of breast cancer charitable stuff, but never Komen. She has long suggested, but never said outright, that it isn't the best organization.

    I only hope that this terrible decision does not starve research funding too.

    Me (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 05:35:15 PM EST
    I'm very glad this debacle has happened.  It is for the best if it helps uncover and open peoples eyes about the atrocities of Komen.  Komen has been a sham organization for a long time...maybe they weren't at the beginning, but they've become so.

    Nancy Brinker was a Bush pioneer and spent much of her lifetime in far right circles.

    Komen spends millions every year suing  other charities for using pink or "for the cure".

    They use research as a fundraising tool when their research budget is somewhere between 16% and 21% of revenues and has decreased a bunch while their revenues have doubled in the last 10 years.  (see their financials)

    They lobby hard against environmental protections.  For instance they deny that BPA is harmful.

    They lobby for right wing goals, including a diluted patients bill of rights in the 2000's.

    Brinker (founder) serves on boards of pharmaceutical and device maker firms.  One example of the awfulness of this: Komen was the only foundation that tauted Tamoxifen as a preventive for people who did not have breast cancer (even with its ovarian cancer risks which are too high for women without breast cancer).  Brinker serves or served on the board at Astra-Zeneca...and BTW, Astra-Zeneca was one of the founders of the pink ribbon campaign.  The other?  Este Lauder.

    The PP issue was small time and easiest for people to recover from compared to the rest.  But sort of thankfully, it's a lightning rod, something people can really get a hold of.

    Nancy Brinker in a conference call stated that their donations are up 100%, but interestingly, she didn't give a dollar amount.  I'm hoping that this statement is just another of her lies.

    I knew (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 05:49:23 PM EST
    there was problems with SGK before all this came out. I had heard some rumblings over the years and frankly from what you've written here, I'm surprised that this hasn't gotten more press over the years.

    Parent
    it hasn't gotten more press because (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:25:54 PM EST
    the press hasn't been "the press" for at least two decades. long gone are the days of the muckraking journalists of yor, replaced by inside-the-beltway buddies of the rich and powerful. these "journalists" are, themselves, part of the rich and powerful. expecting them to truthfully report on the acts of their fellow 1%ers is asking for a miracle. ain't going to happen.

    Parent
    One of the best sources of details on this (none / 0) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 05:54:57 PM EST
    are
    Gayle Sulik:  http://gaylesulik.com/

    and
    http://komenwatch.org/

    I have more, but I'm headed out.

    Komen is quiet about these things (just like they were about the PP situation)...and bashing the pink has always been seen as sacreligous in the mainstream....until now.

     

    Parent

    Teresa, are you aware of the new movie (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 05:54:49 PM EST
    called "Pink Ribbons, Inc."?

    Indignant and subversive, "Pink Ribbons, Inc." resoundingly pops the shiny pink balloon of the breast cancer movement/industry, debunking the "comfortable lies" and corporate double-talk that permeate the massive and thus-far-ineffectual campaign against a disease that claims nearly 60,000 lives each year in North America alone. Veteran helmer Lea Pool, working from Samantha King's book, won't be making any friends with her full-frontal attack on the corporate co-option of the breast cancer cause, which could limit Stateside circulation of this Canadian production. But there are plenty of women who'll want to see it. And they'll be seeing red, not pink.

    The thrust of King's thesis is that all the pink-themed walk-a-thons, parades, singing children and rose-lit monuments (the Empire State Building, Niagara Falls), actually do more harm than good. By putting a warm and fuzzy spin on the state of breast cancer, the public is distracted from some very ugly numbers: In 1940, a woman had a one-in-22 chance of developing breast cancer; today, the number is one in eight. Only 20%-30% of women with breast cancer have high-risk factors, which means no one really knows what causes the disease. The leading foundations involved in funding cancer research are peopled by representatives of the pharmaceutical, chemical and energy industries, so their ethics are inherently compromised.

    I guess I was like a lot of people, who never looked below the surface and the optics of SGK, and what I have learned in the last day or so is just appalling.

    I truly had no idea.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 05:55:28 PM EST
    I am.... the trailer is great.  I suspect the movie will be too.

    Parent
    Not to distract or side track (none / 0) (#13)
    by BTAL on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 06:28:36 PM EST
    but that 1-in-22 jump to 1-in-8 is astonishing.

    Are there any details as to what has caused such a significant change?

    Parent

    that is the million dollar question (none / 0) (#16)
    by Baal on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 06:51:47 PM EST
    But the one thing for sure, there has been not real change in human population genetics over that period of time.

    Parent
    don't have a link right now (none / 0) (#24)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 12:45:06 AM EST
    but i think i've read that the "1 in 8" (or sometimes "1 in 9") figure is wrong & way too high

    this came up most recently because i just had a scare involving MRI & surgery for a tumor that turned out to be benign

    i've seen that a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer in the U.S. is 12 percent (1 in 8) & also that 1 in 8 lethal cases of breast cancer occur in women younger than 45 whereas 2 in 3 occur in older women

    your risk is also higher or lower depending on your race & whether a close relative has had breast cancer (mother, sister, aunt)

    somehow maybe all those numbers got added together & averaged or something

    anybody?

    Parent

    Environmental pseudo-estrogens (none / 0) (#36)
    by smott on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 11:54:14 AM EST
    Plastics, pesticides and so on.

    Responsible for other hormone-related cancers too, i.e. testicular.

    Of course, testicular if fully curable most of the time.

    As if we needed more evidence God is a man.

    However sperm counts are plummeting due to this, so the men don't get away with everything LOL!

    Parent

    Dunno I think we're being fairly harsh (none / 0) (#38)
    by smott on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 11:58:25 AM EST
    SGK is 93 million dollar org that enables early screening and mammos to millions of at-risk and low income women.  

    And brings attention to an important health threat.

    If all they do is get mammos funded, they're doing a lot of good.

    Parent

    Thing is, (none / 0) (#41)
    by sj on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 11:03:50 PM EST
    that ISN'T all they do.  Their political lobbying are actions, too.

    Parent
    Pushing tamoxifen as a preventive (none / 0) (#15)
    by Baal on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 06:49:37 PM EST
    is truly appalling.  I had not heard of that before.  As a cell biologist I can say with certainty that this is a truly awful idea.

    Parent
    Where is the link for this? (none / 0) (#37)
    by smott on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 11:55:17 AM EST
    Tamox had enormously good early results - so around late 90's it was being seen as a possible preventative for at-risk wokmen.

    Of course that proved un true.

    Do we have links to SGK touting it later than say 2000?

    Parent

    More Portland fallout for Komen. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by caseyOR on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 08:37:47 PM EST
    People here are unhappy with the Komen Foundation's decision to pull funding from Planned Parenthood. Even the local Komen chapter is protesting the move. The local chapter issued a release condemning the decision and calling on the national Komen board to reverse that decision.

    In other news, the Decemberists, one of Portland's two favorite bands ( Pink Martini is the other) announced that proceeds from the sale of Team Jenny t-shirts will no longer go to the Komen Foundation. Starting immediately 100% of the proceeds will be donated to Planned Parenthood's Breast Health fund.

    Team Jennie is named for Decemberists' band member Jenny Conlee, a breast cancer survivor.

    Just saw Bloomberg is pledging up to 250k (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by nycstray on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 09:03:35 PM EST
    towards future fundng to help make up for losses to PP. Says politics shouldn't effect healthcare and is asking people to support PP.

    Parent
    Delighted (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by womanwarrior on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:03:13 PM EST
    I personally am very happy that Planned Parenthood got the word out so well, and that a lot of people got upset.  I think this is really good for Planned Parenthood's ability to fight back against the right wing attacks, and it seems a lot of people don't think it is right to take away money to be used for health care for poor women.  Anne Richards should be smiling in heaven enjoying her daughter Cecile Richards's counter coup.  
    Maybe this is even another good sign for people standing up for each other which spreads via internet.  I know, I am a pollyanna, but we need a good day every now and then.  

    Wow, I did not know (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 12:51:54 AM EST
    that Cecile Richards was Anne Richards's daughter.  Explains a few things.  THanks for the info.

    Parent
    Missed a step in your logic (none / 0) (#1)
    by jackazz on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 04:19:26 PM EST
    The statement by Komen makes no reference to the science of embryonic stem cells.  It only says they don't fund it.  Maybe they think the embryo is a person (doesn't matter if we think it is or not - they obviously do) so maybe they think all the great things that are possible with embryonic stem cells are not worth killing a person.

    Heh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 04:42:42 PM EST
    The science was missed by me????

    Why in Gawd's name would Komen choose to fund the less promising stem cell research? The science would argue for them funding that over adult stem cell research.

    The reason is they have joined the anti-science wingnuts of the Right.

    Hence, my LOGICAL question, why the prevarication on the PP funding?

    Parent

    BTW (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 04:46:29 PM EST
    There can be reasons for being anti-science, but those reasons do not make you not anti-science.

    Parent
    Wow. Bravo (none / 0) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 12:45:39 AM EST
    Very well said.


    Parent
    I didn't say the science was wrong (none / 0) (#30)
    by jackazz on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 07:31:52 AM EST
    I just tried to point out that just because they don't fund that type of research doesn't mean they are 'anti-science.' This was based only on the excepted quote - maybe there is anti-science stuff at the link - I didn't have time last night to follow it. Personally, I think stem cell research is one of the most promising areas in science today and if I had millions to give to charity, I would send some that way.  It just seems (from your quote) that Komen starts with different moral/ethical assumptions than I do.  They might just put more value on their moral position than the science.  Different values don't automatically mean 'anti-science.'

    Parent
    They are antiscience for a reason (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 11:33:07 AM EST
    is your argument.

    I agree.

    Parent

    I think we are only quibbling over (none / 0) (#39)
    by jackazz on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 12:26:21 PM EST
    the line where the phrase "anti-science" is defined.

    To me creationists are anti-science.  They insist that no matter what science reveals,  non-science should be taught in science classes.    

    On the other hand, to me PETA is not ant-science just because they want to stop all forms of animal testing.  Their values/ethics drive them to preserve the rights of animals - despite the proven benefits of testing on animals. They would only become anti-science if they claim that there is no benefit to animal testing.

    Parent

    You're quibbling with the definition of anti- (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 12:42:41 PM EST
    I did not say they did not believe in science I said they were anti-science when ti comes to the issue of embryonic stem cell research and, I would argue, Planned Parenthood.

    Parent
    And yes (none / 0) (#31)
    by jackazz on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 07:32:37 AM EST
    They are obviously lying about why the defunded PP

    Parent
    Karen Handel (none / 0) (#34)
    by smott on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 11:51:17 AM EST
    A new VP brought in last year appears to be behind much of this.

    Ran an unsuccessful right wingnut campaign for GA senate IIRC and defunding PP was one of her goals.

    She was open about not supporting PP when joining SGK.

    IMO this is about Karen Handel and her far right leanings, and SGK apparently hoping having her would improve their funding stream from right leaning orgs and GOP states.

    teresa - do you have more info on financials? My understandig of Komen is it's still one of the few places where the max of your contribution (80% I think) actually goes to support the cause, unlike some orgs such as Avon which take a huge portion of donations for their bottom line.
    Now - whether they've backed of funding research, I've no idea. But still - if the max goes out the door, I think that's to their credit.

    Also to their credit is that they've (up til Tuesday!) been fairly non-partisan and mission-based.

    Of course they blew that out of the water. Dunno how much toothpaste they can put back in the tube but they should fire Handel and bring back Mollie Williams.

    Good recap here -
    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/02/top-susan-g-komen-official-resigned-over-planned-p arenthood-cave-in/252405/

    Parent

    this is a classic right-wing lie. (none / 0) (#22)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:29:01 PM EST
    killing a person

    the last time i checked, i hadn't seen any walking, talking, breathing blastocysts, have you?

    your nic suits your intelligence level.

    jeralyn, you really need a higher class of right-wingnut troll on this site.

    Parent

    well, he's not a troll (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 03:03:12 AM EST
    if all he did was  post a single substantive comment that everyone disagrees with. He's not a blogclogger or trying to dominate the thread. We do allow all viewpoints, so long as they are civilly expressed, don't personally insult the site or other commenters, and are not repeated over and over.  You can refute his comment, and point out its obvious inherent fallacy, but I'm not going to ban him or call him a troll at this point based on one comment.  I'd also remind you that if everyone would just refuse to engage or respond to him, he'll probably see the futility of posting such comments here and pick another site.

    Parent
    there is a difference (imo), between (none / 0) (#29)
    by cpinva on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 07:25:51 AM EST
    expressing a different viewpoint ("i don't agree with abortion."), vs telling a blatant lie ("blastocysts are human beings"). the former is an opinion, the latter a statement of fact. the latter is not substantiated by science, the former needn't be.

    a blastocyst, like an attorney, stands a million-to-one chance of ever becoming a human being.

    Parent

    I actually mentioned this about two years ago (none / 0) (#14)
    by Baal on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 06:46:57 PM EST
    ... here on Talk Left.  I got scolded by Jeralyn, who at the time, at least, was a big fan of their work.  Also, it's worth mentioning that SGK only gives out about 15% of the money they raise for actual breast cancer RESEARCH which might actually find a cure.  (According to their own financial reports).  They push screening, and in particular mammograms, really hard.  That is controversial in the field since there is little evidence that this has had more than a marginal effect on overall death rates.  If you have one of the so-called Triple-Negative forms, for example, early detection probably has little impact on whether or when it will metastasize (which is what actually causes people to die).  Those forms tend to be highly refractory to all current treatments.  In the interest of full disclosure, I very much hope they will fund the research grant I applied for (to them).  I got past the first round, so now the odds are about 1 in 5 that I get the money.  They have already ejected about 75% of the initial applications they received for this year.  

    Meanwhile, the good news re embryonic (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 12:01:20 AM EST
    stem cells and two legally blind person:UCLA  

    Komen (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 11:27:31 AM EST
    now is kind of backing down.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#35)
    by smott on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    Seems so. The last graf in the official statement is (I am hoping) an affiliate referendum on Karen Handel.

    We'll see.

    Parent

    Komen Full Wingnut: No Funding For Embryonic Stem Cell Research | 38 comments (38 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment