Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nickbat]

..that the Kanzius Cancer Research Foundation has received a $250k grant from Pepsi to continue its work.

It relies on targeting cancer cells with gold nanoparticles then using radio waves to heat them up and kill them with no damage to surrounding cells.

IMHO, the future of cancer treatment has been found and it could well be 100% effective.

http://www.refresheverything.com/kanziuscancerresearch

 

[Dishevelled Den]

Very interesting and encouraging news Nick although I would have preferred the funding to have been made by government rather than a commercial organisation such as PepsiCo. :-/ :-/

[Kevin Wood]

Very interesting and encouraging news Nick although I would have preferred the funding to have been made by government rather than a commercial organisation such as PepsiCo. :-/ :-/

Agreed. There's always strings attached to such an arrangement, meaning needy people going without, at the end of the day. :-/

Kevin

[Nickbat]

Very interesting and encouraging news Nick although I would have preferred the funding to have been made by government rather than a commercial organisation such as PepsiCo. :-/ :-/

It isn't a case of either/or, Zulu. They received a $500k state grant back in December 2009. As I understand it, the $250k from Pepsi was made as a result of people voting online for the most worthy cause, in their opinion, and the Kanzius Project came 2nd. Raises awareness and raises cash.

[Dishevelled Den]

Very interesting and encouraging news Nick although I would have preferred the funding to have been made by government rather than a commercial organisation such as PepsiCo. :-/ :-/

It isn't a case of either/or, Zulu. They received a $500k state grant back in December 2009. As I understand it, the $250k from Pepsi was made as a result of people voting online for the most worthy cause, in their opinion, and the Kanzius Project came 2nd. Raises awareness and raises cash.

I must admit it's a difficult one Nick considering the cause but the seemingly altruistic nature of the entire project is tarnished for me by the rather obvious advertisements for their products and the suggestion, that by consuming the drink, more worthy causeds would be helped.

[Nickbat]

Very interesting and encouraging news Nick although I would have preferred the funding to have been made by government rather than a commercial organisation such as PepsiCo. :-/ :-/

It isn't a case of either/or, Zulu. They received a $500k state grant back in December 2009. As I understand it, the $250k from Pepsi was made as a result of people voting online for the most worthy cause, in their opinion, and the Kanzius Project came 2nd. Raises awareness and raises cash.

I must admit it's a difficult one Nick considering the cause but the seemingly altruistic nature of the entire project is tarnished for me by the rather obvious advertisements for their products and the suggestion, that by consuming the drink, more worthy causeds would be helped.

Frankly, Zulu, that's way too cynical for me. The logical alternative from your post, of course, is that large corporations should give no money to charity, lest they be tarnished with the accusation that they are making money from the unfortunate. Is that a Good Thing? I don't think so.

Having raised money before (albeit from smaller companies) I can honestly say that, in many cases, they know they will receive no real payback from their donations, yet they still do it. Why? Because companies, even large ones, are not organic entities in themselves - a point that our friend from Scotland often overlooks. They are made up of people. Yes, they have responsibilities to boards and shareholders but even they are individuals, and thus it is likely that, as individuals, they will have experienced the untimely loss of loved ones from disease or have a genuine concern for the less fortunate.

If you were the CEO of a large corporation, would you sanction charitable payments? Probably, yes. Would you insist on anonymity? Probably, no.

And, indeed, why should you?

Nick

    

[Banjax]

Very interesting and encouraging news Nick although I would have preferred the funding to have been made by government rather than a commercial organisation such as PepsiCo. :-/ :-/

It isn't a case of either/or, Zulu. They received a $500k state grant back in December 2009. As I understand it, the $250k from Pepsi was made as a result of people voting online for the most worthy cause, in their opinion, and the Kanzius Project came 2nd. Raises awareness and raises cash.

I must admit it's a difficult one Nick considering the cause but the seemingly altruistic nature of the entire project is tarnished for me by the rather obvious advertisements for their products and the suggestion, that by consuming the drink, more worthy causeds would be helped.

Frankly, Zulu, that's way too cynical for me. The logical alternative from your post, of course, is that large corporations should give no money to charity, lest they be tarnished with the accusation that they are making money from the unfortunate. Is that a Good Thing? I don't think so.

Having raised money before (albeit from smaller companies) I can honestly say that, in many cases, they know they will receive no real payback from their donations, yet they still do it. Why? Because companies, even large ones, are not organic entities in themselves - a point that our friend from Scotland often overlooks. They are made up of people. Yes, they have responsibilities to boards and shareholders but even they are individuals, and thus it is likely that, as individuals, they will have experienced the untimely loss of loved ones from disease or have a genuine concern for the less fortunate.

If you were the CEO of a large corporation, would you sanction charitable payments? Probably, yes. Would you insist on anonymity? Probably, no.

And, indeed, why should you?

Nick

    

plus - it's tax deductable and £250k is small beer for an ad budget the size of Pepsi's (i think its around $200m a year, so thats a massive 0.125% of their ad budget and a whopping 0.0006% of their turnover....if only we were all so generous the world would surely be a better place - thats equivalent to someone earning £100k a year and giving 50p to charity )

[Dishevelled Den]

Very interesting and encouraging news Nick although I would have preferred the funding to have been made by government rather than a commercial organisation such as PepsiCo. :-/ :-/

It isn't a case of either/or, Zulu. They received a $500k state grant back in December 2009. As I understand it, the $250k from Pepsi was made as a result of people voting online for the most worthy cause, in their opinion, and the Kanzius Project came 2nd. Raises awareness and raises cash.

I must admit it's a difficult one Nick considering the cause but the seemingly altruistic nature of the entire project is tarnished for me by the rather obvious advertisements for their products and the suggestion, that by consuming the drink, more worthy causeds would be helped.

Frankly, Zulu, that's way too cynical for me. The logical alternative from your post, of course, is that large corporations should give no money to charity, lest they be tarnished with the accusation that they are making money from the unfortunate. Is that a Good Thing? I don't think so.

Having raised money before (albeit from smaller companies) I can honestly say that, in many cases, they know they will receive no real payback from their donations, yet they still do it. Why? Because companies, even large ones, are not organic entities in themselves - a point that our friend from Scotland often overlooks. They are made up of people. Yes, they have responsibilities to boards and shareholders but even they are individuals, and thus it is likely that, as individuals, they will have experienced the untimely loss of loved ones from disease or have a genuine concern for the less fortunate.

If you were the CEO of a large corporation, would you sanction charitable payments? Probably, yes. Would you insist on anonymity? Probably, no.

And, indeed, why should you?

Nick

    

I don't overly dispute your take on this Nick.

However, I don't mind being cynical on this particular occasion as I'm distrustful of large organisations such as PepsiCo in creating or participating in such initiatives as I suspect their focus is really directed towards the bottom line.

The potential sales benefit from such a modest investment (across the many causes supported) must be enormous, and that's one thing I find difficult to reconcile.

The fact that such beverages are suspected to add to the problems of obesity when consumed in quantity (which is not too difficult to do) - and the serious health implications this carries - is additionally worrying.

It seems to be a strange juxtaposition that smacks of naked marketing to me.

[cem_devecioglu]

..that the Kanzius Cancer Research Foundation has received a $250k grant from Pepsi to continue its work.

It relies on targeting cancer cells with gold nanoparticles then using radio waves to heat them up and kill them with no damage to surrounding cells.

IMHO, the future of cancer treatment has been found and it could well be 100% effective.http://www.refresheverything.com/kanziuscancerresearch

 

I wish so Nick

[cem_devecioglu]

and some info, after I give up consuming coke daily ( I drink grape-cherry juice mixture instead)

I feel better in the stomach and daily usage of renie (anti acid pills) not necessary anymore..

[Banjax]

did you know that Pepsi-Cola is an anagram of Episcopal? you do now 

and in blind tests, most people can discern no difference between coke and pepsi (even people who drink loads of one or the other........i think i could tell tho, but apparently its true)

an ad campaign in China in the 80's for Pepsi translated as "Pepsi:Will bring your relatives back from the dead", sales went up 

[jerry]

Of course such monies are  a drop in the ocean to such a corporation, of course they could have afforded more and, of course, the publicity is good. But the bottom line is that they need not have done it at all and you can be (quite rightly in my opinion )as cynical as you like about motive but sometimes the ends justify the means so well done to pepsico for putting the money to a justified cause