those uk cancer research ads piss me off

has anyone seen them? they're in the tube all the time and they've been on tv. all these people who used to have cancer, with watery eyes, saying, "i shouldn't be here" over and over -- the point being, because of research in the last 10 years, people who used to die are now living.

the point is though, they SHOULD be here BECAUSE of the research in the last 10 years. if they shouldn't be here, given the increase in research, then what is that saying? the research is actually rather **** and they're just 'lucky'? or they've come through a 'miracle'?? they SHOULD be saying, "if i had lived 10-20 years ago, or if i was born a generation or two earlier, i wouldn't be here". but they weren't, thus they should be here.

that is all.

 

lol



I'm not a fan of most adverts like that simply because of the huge amount of guilt they try and load onto you.


Whilst I'm sympathetic and do donate to charadeee mate! I don't like the constant guilting they throw at you.

 

Yes they annoy me too.
"I shouldn't be here." Why? Did you you get treatment that was rightfully someone elses?
Then no, you shouldn't be here.

Have you seen the one that starts out like a guilt trippy charity ad and has vegetables in it and is actually for knorr?
That cracks me up.

 

Yeah I love them.

Surprised that they haven't been banned yet what with the PC brigade.

 

I'm not a fan of those Knorr adverts. I'd support the banning

 

why?

 

Because I don't agree with the premise. Without wanting to go into "freedom of speech" territory (save that for the other thread), I think it's wrong to make light of famine-stricken lands, especially in a food advert. Original? Yes. Funny? Possibly to some. Appropriate? Absolutely not.

But it's their choice. I'm known to boycott products if I find the adverts inappropraite (Shreddies, Iceland, and now Knorr). Of course one person boycotting won't make a difference, but it suits me

 

Fair enough.

Why do you boycott Shreddies and Iceland? (just curious)

 

As a person who had a friend die of cancer, these ads make me cringe. By all means try and get money for charity, but don't try and make us feel guilty. We would have done anything to keep her around, so to make us try and feel guilty makes me, quite frankly, sick.

 

Shreddies - they had an ad campaign for Chocolate Shreddies with the slogan "Too chocolatey for geeks". I felt it portrayed kids who work hard at school in a bad light, and advocated bullying. I even wrote in to complain, and got a good letter back saying they had spoken to various headteachers etc who expressed no similar concerns. Strange though, that their latest campaign for "regular" shreddies says that Shreddies are good "brain food". I like to think I have a part in that

Iceland - I HATE Kerry Katona. She is supposedly "Celebrity mum of the year" 2 years running, yet missed her child's first 2 birthdays - one of which was so she could go on "I'm a celebrity". I understand people have to work, but this doesn't make her a great mother. I can't fathom how a parent would miss their child's first birthday to go on "I'm a celebrity". That's putting your work before your family, and does not make you the best "celebrity parent" by any stretch of the imagination. Iceland's campaign uses her as an example of a great and wonderful mother. Not for me, ta.

 

Not to get all high-and-mighty, but the research work done at Cancer Research UK is basically a waste of time. I know several people who have worked there, and they've said charity money is wasted and no real progress is made.

Furthermore they are not in the position to progress any genuinely useful findings they make because they are not in the financial position to do so.

I'd be much happier if Cancer charities stuck to supporting families of suffers, or taking sick kids to DisneyLand, while leaving big Pharma to do the drug discovery work.

 

QFT


and I don't need a reason she just irritates hell out of me.

 

Please read here first
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/31/nhs131.xml
and then below.

I bet the pharmacuetical industry would thank you for that comment. They would love to hear that. Lets take an ad hoc example....

Pfizer

Pfizer's first-quarter net income in 2004 was $2.33 billion, or 30 cents a share. Revenues for the first quarter of 2005 grew 5% to $13.1 billion, compared to the first quarter of 2004. The company said it expects 2005 income to be approximately $14.7 billion and reported diluted earnings per share of around $1.04 per share.

Do you really think that if they found a cure for cancer they would tell us? Perhaps they already have...but why 'cure' one of the biggest killers on the earth if they can profit from placebos and sidelines. Unless the pharmacuetical industry was brought under some kind of democratic control, why should they bother? Access in the UK for people to top quality drugs is controlled by their ability to pay for them frequently. So lets face it, if you are rich you have a chance. If not, then I will still contribute to charities.

 

To be honest Hedge I think that a pharmacuetical company would tell us if it discovered the Cure for Cancer or the common cold for the simple fact that if they did their shares would sky rocket, they'd hold a monopoly on the market, they would make a fortune out of treatment as well for the simple fact that they would be the only people who could sell it and even if it was licenced out they would still make a fortune as they would get a percentage of all the sales.


So whilst I agree that they're in this for the money and they make a lot at the moment by selling treatments, they can certainly make more selling the cure as I doubt you can make a vaccine considering the many differing styles and causes of cancer so there would always be a need for the cure.

 

The adverts i really hate at the moment are the 'sorry emma' ads on all the billboards.

Emma is the name of the girl im trying to get back together with, and now everywhere i go i see her name in big letters!!!


Its like one of those bad romantic films/songs where the person sees the person he/she misses everywhere! its like a bad dream!

 

...I take it that you read the article then MFB? They certainly are reaping it in already...

 

Agreed about the Iceland ads.
Plus my missus reckons it is terrible to say 'Cos mums are heros' or whatever because what about kids who only have a father? Do they not think it would upset them?

 

Exactly what I thought when I first saw one of those ads.

 

Agreed

But having a cure means an instant monopoly = more money

 

I can see your point here guys but I'd like you all to think about the difference research like this can make to peoples lives. To put a human face to this my mother developed cancer in her early 50's and died 6 years later (three years ago), without the treatments and drugs that have been developed through this research she wouldn't have had those 6 extra years. There are elements of all ad campaigns that either provoke thought or discussion, this thread is a classic example and it's raised awareness in areas that this subject wouldn't normally be talked about.

 

I shouldn't be here.

I should be starting my coursework. So bye. *waves*

 

If I was to give my money to anyone it would be to Christie's Hospital. The nursing staff where wonderful when my dad was in there.

 

Do you honestly believe the crap you are posting ? That big Pharma are sitting on a cure for cancer ?

Given the furious competition between Pfizer, AZ and GSK any of them would kill to be the first to market a genuine 100% effective cancer cure. Depending on when they filed the patent they could have as many as 10 years in the monopoly position before generic copies were available.

Considering that one in three suffers from cancer, and cancer is the second biggest killer in the world, have you *any* idea how much money an effective cancer cure would make?

Furthermore, the drug company that lauched the first cancer cure would be heralded a hero company, and sales of their other drugs would increase too.





Your final point is complete nonsense. Even if you did contribute to charity, and they did make some sort of breakthrough that would lead to a wonder drug, they don't have the capabilities to take the drug to market. They'd have to get into bed with a big Pharma to run the clinical trials, mass production, marketing and sales required to lauch the drug.

 

thanks Malkie - that was really constructive in a discussion about such a sensitive subject

 

I take it from your cop out response that you've got nothing.

I didn't think so.