Posted by Gary Schwitzer in Business of health, Cancer
Comedian Stephen Colbert, who says he is “a huge supporter of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation,” nonetheless took a sarcastic swing at the organization this week “for spending almost a million dollars a year in donor funds to sue.. other groups” for using the phrase “for the Cure” in their promotions.
We blogged, “Who owns pink ideas or cure slogans? Welcome to the Charity Brawl” back in August after the Wall Street Journal (to our knowledge) first reported the story.
Then in December, the Huffington Post reported that “Komen has identified and filed legal trademark oppositions against more than a hundred of these Mom and Pop charities, including Kites for a Cure, Par for The Cure, Surfing for a Cure and Cupcakes for a Cure–and many of the organizations are too small and underfunded to hold their ground.”
Colbert said: “If they don’t own the phrase ‘for the Cure,’ then people might donate money thinking it’s going to an organization dedicated to curing cancer, when instead it’s wasted on organizations dedicated to curing cancer.
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Tip/Wag – Susan G. Komen Foundation & Spider-Man Musical<a> | ||||
|
||||
This isn’t about curing anything, it’s about brand bullies. http://www.getlucid.net/2012/01/branding-in-poor-taste/
Agree with previous post. Now I know why SGK is not spending money for prevention research. And we survivorss thought they cared about breast cancer research!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s difficult to do an overview of melanoma drug research in a relatively brief story. But this story did a solid job.
Better than a competing piece by Reuters but still a little short on some details about this asthma drug study.
An adequate summary of this asthma drug trial’s design doesn’t make up for the overly optimistic tone about the drug’s future. A New York Times story was better.
We will not display your name or e-mail address on the site, nor will we share youre-mail address with any third parties.
For site updates and news from Gary, find us on Twitter:
HealthNewsReview: @HealthNewsRevu
Gary Schwitzer: @garyschwitzer
Copyright © 2013 Health News Review
Alan posted on January 7, 2011 at 11:39 am
Much of what this blog rails against is wrapped up in the bandying about of the word “cure”.
For most people cure means you pop a pill or get an injection and whatever ails you is gone and you get on with your life as before. There have never been very many treatments that were able to accomplish this. The first antibiotics maybe fall into this category but its Cloud Cuckoo Land fantasy to model all our expectations for medical research on a period that’s long gone. All the low-hanging fruit have been picked. There are very unlikely to be cures for cancer, diabetes, CVD, Alzheimers, AIDS, etc. Mostly the battle against disease is a difficult and slow process. Breakthroughs that dramatically advance treatment are rare. However, “Race for therapies to better control and manage [enter disease name here]” isn’t quite as catchy and lucrative.