to think Cancer Research should rethink some of their marketing?

[MrsCarriePooter]

This is a fairly mild AIBU but interested in what you think.

We were in our local Cancer Research shop this morning and in the window they had a big poster of a woman who had survived breast cancer, but the wording was something about "Vanessa wasn't going to let cancer beat her". I said to the volunteer insider when I was paying that I thought that was a bit offensive, as though those who die from cancer just had decided to roll over and "let cancer beat" them. Was I just being overtouchy? Having had relatives die of cancer I know I could be. The volunteer said "she'd pass my views" on to the area manager.

amberlight

you rock!
That is nearly exactly waht I was thinking, where is the money going?
Now if some of it is going to provide good hospice care , and support great but where exacly is all this money we are giving going?

I sent a link to this thread to the Press Office at CRUK on Tuesday. The silence their end is deafening

We have donated directly to CRUK for years (even before I was diagnosed) and made a point of travelling a very long way to donate our unwanted goods to their charity shop.
On my last visit to the shop I was told they were probably going to close down and she was knocking stuff out at jumble sale prices.
I donated quite valuable items to them and I was sickened to see really good quality stuff being flogged off for 10p.
We actively chose other charity christmas cards this year because we are pissed off at CRUK. If enough people boycott for a while maybe they'll get the picture and sort themselves out.
Haven't Tesco withdrawn support for Race For Life?

I really would encourage everyone to read The Emperor Of All Maladies - it is a stunning book. You get to understand how so many of our current treatments were discovered by accident rather than design.
We have all of these cancer organisations being given billions of £ & $ worldwide and where are we?
Still dying.

Its terrible that such a thing has been put through 'marketing' but thats whats happened in order to make it more palatable, money generating etc.

Always irritates me when I see the posters/adverts.

I sat through a presentation from CRUK last year, pre-diagnosis and they said very soon they would release figures showing cancer rates will be going up to 1:2. I found this shocking at the time, little did I know what was in store for me.

I know there must be research behind the marketing campaign. I understand the reasons for the positive slant, people don't want to be depressed by the harsh truth. I would respect them more and donate if future campaigns were along the lines of 'shit, half of us are going to get cancer at some point in our life, let's all come together and find out why'. I know that will never happen though as it is too frightening. If a cure is so bloody elusive then research the reason why cancer rates have gone up so dramatically in the post war period, even allowing for an ageing population. It is a lot more complicated than eating some carrots and going for a run.

Esta3GG, have heard good things about that book, am going to order it today.

Agree with everyone else.

Also, re the 'healthy lifestyle' guilt-tripping, it feels very victim-blaming to focus on individual people's choices, rather than at the social/environmental factors that result in poor diets and lack of exercise.

Why can't they campaign for the government to regulate the food industry better, rather than hectoring people to eat carrots?

I am sure you will enjoy it Del - it is a fascinating read. He is very compelling on the issue of why cancer rates appear to have gone up.

What I would like to know is why some people DON'T get cancers when they appear to do everything "wrong". Surely these are the people that need to be investigated.
My uncle smoked 60-80 untipped ciggies pretty much all of his life and was never ill - not a cough, cold and certainly not emphysema or cancer. He lived till he was 89. If something is as carcinogenic as fag smoke then why do some people appear to have an ability to withstand the carcinogens? Do they have a natural 'immunity'?

Esta, I truly believe that is where research should be focused and could be key to fighting cancer in the future. I read somewhere it is to do with liver enzymes, the people who appear to be immune process the toxins better, but why is this area not been studied?

Also, because most people know somebody who did all the wrong things and never got cancer then that can be used as an excuse by some not to be healthy. This 'eat healthy and you'll never get cancer' will largely fall on deaf ears until they find out why some appear to be immune and others more susceptible, despite doing all the right things.

Lottie although I hadn't posted on this thread before, I also alerted them to its existence (which really their PR people should have known about). No acknowledgement from them to me either.

What a shame, and a missed opportunity, to come and engage with the very people they claim to support.

D

Something that really struck me when my brother was diagnosed was just how little the doctors seemed to actually know about his cancer. The responses to all our questions were so often 'we don't know', or something along those lines. I was shocked. Up until then I honestly believed that you got cancer and they treated it, just like any other illness. Then the treatment either worked or it didn't. I didn't realise that actually there is no actual 'cure', that every treatment is individual, and that the doctors know so little about it, even now. I think the whole 'cure for cancer' message needs to be addressed as well - it's just not that simple.

MissM, yup. Not only is little known about cancer, but little is known about the side effects of treatment too, in a lot of cases. Or what to do about them. "Oh, no-one's ever done research on whether you get the feeling back in your hands and feet after chemotherapy or not, really", etc. What the...!

Yes, so many primary school kids fantasise about finding "a cure for cancer", as the best thing they could do for humanity and the whole world.

We all give tons and tons of money, yet with little apparent result.

I think the comment made by the mother of the boy with Tourettes on 'My child is not perfect' this week says so much about how little is understood about cancer treatment.

'Sometimes I wish he had Brain Tumour because then they could just zap it and cut it out'

Because that is what happens isnt it?

MissM how I agree. Every visit to the hospital we get "don't know" as a response to any question (or else "that's normal"). My hands and feet are really numb nearly 4 months after chemo but they can't tell me whether they'll get better. When I said that actually during the chemo they were fine and have got worse since they just looked .

I read the article yesterday about how cancer is down to lifestyle. In my case, apparently the biggest cause is meat. I've been vegetarian for over 30 years. I have never smoked, have no more than one or two alcoholic drinks a year, eat loads of fruit and veg and plenty of fibre, used to exercise (until the cancer treatment put a stop to that). The only thing on the list that applies is that I'm overweight.

Both my grandfathers smoked, and one also drank like a fish and ate loads of sweets. He lived to 84 and the other one to 92. No cancer. Isn't it time they could tell us why some people get it and some don't?

My dear friend died of breast cancer last year.
She was a semi-pro sportswoman. Fit as you could possibly be.
She didn't tick any of the boxes on their list of risk factors.
More than that she was the only person on both sides of the family to ever have cancer.
Her grandmother is still alive at 101. Her mum's in her 80s.
Yet she's gone at 46 while her siblings continue to thrive.
I wonder if there could be some truth to the theory of viral infection.
We now accept the role that HPV plays in cervical cancer - so what about viral involvement in other cancers too?

BTW I am sorry for anyone suffering with chemo-induced peripheral neuropathy. It is very uncomfortable and like most of the fallout from cancer treatment (e.g. lymphoedema) they really don't seem to give a damn.

Tallulah, me too re the peripheral neuropathy - seems worse 4 mths after chemo than at the time, though I'm on Herceptin as well now. No-one has a clue.

My DD was 14. She didnt have any time to do anything 'wrong'

My finger tips and toes aare still numb nearly 5 years post chemo-I guess its permanent now.I would still have had the chemo even if I'd been warned...but I wasn't.

Funnily enough I have just received the latest marketing mailshot from Clic Sargent. It draws attention to the plight of one poor child suffering from cancer, the donations Clic have made to help his family cope with additional expenses - which don't get me wrong is bloody brilliant - but then goes on and on about how expensive it can be for families when their child is being treated for cancer. I know because we've been through it, and they took DS on an adventure holiday a few months after his treatment - which is why we donate to that charity! Which is also probably why most people donate to Clic Sargent. Chances are they've been affected by a child they know having cancer.

Nowhere at all is there any acknowledgement that we might actually know or have have been affected by it ourselves. Not one sentence. It is patronising in the extreme and I am even more pissed off with them than I was when I wrote my earlier post! How dare they assume I am utterly ignorant about stuff like this? Would it be so hard to include a couple of lines to reflect they understand that some supporters have been there themselves?

And don't get me started on that sodding news report about 'preventable' cancers. What with that and the possibility of work focused interviews for people having chemo it can't be long before cancer sufferers will be viewed as having brought it on themselves. It makes me so fecking angry!

I'm so sorry Mrs DV

One of DD's favourite jokes was scaring the crap out of the new SHOs (are they still called that?) when they would do her obs.

They would get the hammer out and tap her knees - nothing. They would look a bit puzzled and try again, then they would get a bit panicky but try and look calm. They would say 'I am just going to speak to .....' and dash off because this child had no reflexes at all.

Me and DD would be peeing ourselves laughing. The vincristine had buggered her reflexes, she didnt have any.

Well you have to get your laughs were you can.

WHERE

That sounds like a great memory of your dd, Mrs DV - I'm sure one amongst a thousand others x

Don't know if people have seen this about peripheral neuropathy?

I've had a response to me email to CRUK (it has taken them a week to get back to me though!):

Dear XXXX,

Thank you for your e-mail, which was received on 5th December 2011. Firstly, I am very sorry to read of the passing of your husband, please accept my sincere condolences for your loss.

Thank you for drawing our attention to the comment thread on Mumsnet regarding the posters in our shops. This poster campaign aims to be upbeat and positive, highlighting the link between our fundraising, our research and the impact this has on real people. The campaign features real people and we used their personal thoughts and comments in the captions.

We appreciate that in this instance, the message on our posters may have been misinterpreted. We would never suggest that people who have sadly lost their lives to cancer have not fought hard enough.

Our mission statement is Together we will beat cancer and, through our work into the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer, we look forward to a future that is free of this disease. While progress has been made, there is still a long way to go before we reach this goal.

On behalf of Cancer Research UK, please accept my sincere apologies for the offence that has been caused to you. Should you have any further questions or concerns then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind Regards,
Paul McManus
Complaints Coordinator

I'm not overly impressed by the response. I feel like he's saying "Sorry we offended you, but others aren't offended, so we won't change anything"