You are on page 1of 3


Think Pink. Think Again!

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

money go, and is there a better approach to one’s health?

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


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

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

suffering disease and cancer.

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

lack of mammograms, chemotherapy, and radiation. It is caused by a body which is unable to

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!

Works Cited

Komen, Susan G. “Tamoxifen.” Komen.


---. “Meet Partners.” Komen. <>

Hendrick, Edward R. “Radiation Doses and Cancer Risks from Breast Imaging Studies”

Department of Radiology, University of Colorado–Denver, School of Medicine. October

2010. <> Accessed 6 November