Ducati Monster Forum

Note: Cancer has effected many members of my family. My Grandma had breast cancer; the other one died of Ovarian Cancer. My Dad's first cousin died of lung cancer (he was a non-smoker, actually was a pulmonologist). My brother's best friend died of Skin Cancer at 25. One of my employees had thyroid cancer last year. One of my college roommates in college dad died of colon cancer which spread to liver cancer.

I make donations to the National Cancer Society and Hospice, which I think is one of the greatest organizations out there.

But this make the beast with two backsing Susan G Komen foundation is out of control

1. Football Players wearing pink
2. I have seen Pink port-a-johns

This organization will never find a cure because it is way too profitable.

Go to their website and check out their financials. It is astounding the money making machine this is, but yet, I couldn't find where they are sending their money.

I am not saying breast cancer is a slouchy disease, it is quite deadly, but this group is in it for the $$. I'd love to know what the CEO and the exec staff makes a year.


How about Skin Cancer Awareness Month? (number one cancer killer)

How about Prostate Cancer Month? (most common form of cancer behind skin, but most curable at 90% effective)



I am just sick of this pink organization profiting off the hard work of the particpants.

It will be a cold day in hell when they cure breast cancer. Too much money not to.

////rant off

My mom had breast cancer (in remission now for 11 years).  Funny..she just made the same comments this weekend CB!

"Susan G Komen foundation is out of control"

I saw the Ford Mustang Breast Cancer Edition on the road.  White w/ pink.  :P

Ulta hounded the s/o and I to make a $10 contribution to SGKF when she was spending $7 on makeup.

WTH..why would I give them $10 for the cause?  They make the donation in their name and get the tax break!   [roll]

I refused to support a friend who was doing the SGKF Breast Cancer walk a few years ago because NO ONE at the Foundation could answer me one question over the phone:

What percentage of funds get donated to Breast Cancer research and how much is for administrative costs?

No one.

My Mom died of cancer in 2002 that started out as Breast Cancer in 1985.  It came and went for 17 years before it finally took her.

The idea that someone is profiting from this is astounding...

I saw a Komen Edition Mustang on the road- pink stripe under the door, and a pink ribbon on the Mustang badge on the fender. Somebody is making bucks!  But it's hard to be against anything they say or do, just like M.A.D.D, because the basic premise is for the general good. I would like to see something for prostate cancer awareness as well, but it's unlikely because of the "man bad, woman good" mindset of the media, and because there are only so many "awarenesses" you can have. (Before anyone takes this the wrong way, my band did a free gig for a breast cancer awareness benefit, and I hate breast cancer as much as anybody. Did like the pink "save the ta-ta's" tee shirts, though.)

Good rant - I agree 100%.  The whole come to our store and spend X amount of money and we will donate X*.01 to the Cure is BS and taken advantage of the idea of charity. 

mitt

According to this:

https://www.cfcnca.org/donate/?results&q=susan+g+komen&s=LNI&o=0,110 (https://www.cfcnca.org/donate/?results&q=susan+g+komen&s=LNI&o=0,110)

Overhead is 13.4%

The shirt for the race here in AZ last week was.

Save Second Base!

 [laugh]

Here's a link to their financial statements...

http://ww5.komen.org/Content.aspx?id=6094 (http://ww5.komen.org/Content.aspx?id=6094)

cyrus you're a money guy...

tell us where it all goes.

Their administrative expenses last year were 19.4million or around that. I can't remember when I was reading it last night.




I was hesitant to post this rant as I thought it might offend people, but everyone seems to be in the same boat as me.


My wife and I were talking about it last night. We are sick of it.




There will never be a cure for cancer. It is too profitable NOT to cure it.

Lance Armstrong is following this same line. I still wear a Livestrong bracelet, but won't buy his overpriced clothes.

I read it last night.

I can't tell you where it goes.

It isn't broken down in to detail.

It's funny, they call themselves Komen for the Cure.


Look at the breakdown of where their money goes:



75% goes to community awareness/prevention programs
25% goes to research


hmmm..............when you are bringing in 330million a year, that is one make the beast with two backsed up proportion of donations when you are TRYING TO FIND THE CURE.


Man, that group pisses me off.

I don't agree.  Well, not completely.  Money drives everything, that's for sure.

One of my customers is working on a machine that, so far, works.  Last I heard success rate in animals was 100% and that includes cancer cells in the blood stream as well as tumors.  Human testing slated to begin in the next couple years, or maybe year.

So, tentatively, it looks like a cure is on the way.  The money will still get spent, it will just go to a different place.

To list a few:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/10/23/breastcancer/ (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/10/23/breastcancer/)

http://thebrandbuilder.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-didnt-anyone-think-of-this-before.html (http://thebrandbuilder.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-didnt-anyone-think-of-this-before.html)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/22/LVGNCLR1S81.DTL&hw=pinklash&sn=001&sc=1000 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/22/LVGNCLR1S81.DTL&hw=pinklash&sn=001&sc=1000)

It's not really about the SGK foundation, it's companies making everything pink and claiming it is going to "women's" causes. If company X makes a charity product, how much actually goes to that charity?

Example, pay $300 more to make a $80 donation:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/25/dells-xps-one-product-red-a-charitable-rip-off/ (http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/25/dells-xps-one-product-red-a-charitable-rip-off/)

To me the whole thing is a marketing scam to charge consumers more and send less to the associated charity.  I never donate over the phone to someone that calls me. Most of those donate only a small amount to the charity. If you want to donate and make it count donate directly.

Ok, I'll make it really easy to understand

On their "financials" (which I wouldn't call shit, as it is nothing like a typical S4 filing) they say 87% goes to their cause, leaving 13% unaccounted for.

Their "administrative" costs are 27mm a year.


That is pretty high considering it is a non-for profit which volunteers do all the work, right?

Kanzius?

Yeah, and what's 13% of that? That's just for administrative overhead! The military supports Combined Federal Campaign. We are advised strongly to avoid charities that have more than 10% overhead...

In my opinion, Hospice is the greatest organization.


that group allowed two of my grandparents to pass on peacefully.

What a wonderful compassionate organization.



I also like donating to Planned Parenthood, but that topic is risky since they do support abortion (choice) and that is a touchy religious, political topic.

How many charities will meet that requirement?

Yes.

Literally hundreds...

edit:

https://www.cfcnca.org/donate/?results&s=LNI&o=0,10 (https://www.cfcnca.org/donate/?results&s=LNI&o=0,10)

over 1500

I would think a lot would.


I am sure the Red Cross doesn't.

make the beast with two backs that group, I will never support them. EVER.

That's like saying the ceo of a financial shouldn't get paid because secretaries do all the "work"

so....in 2008 over 98 million in research, 134 million in education, 37 million in screening, 22 million in treatment services.  clearly they should all burn in hell.   Even if someone is living a little high on the hog to get that, how does that compare to what you have done to help ?

Administrative costs aren't secretaries, it is the cost to do business (executives, staff, office space, etc, etc)


The problem is is they sell themselves as Komen for the Cure.


Look at the numbers you wrote above and see if that makes any sense.

They donate only 25% to research.

That is bullshit.

Secretaries aren't staff?     ???

So contact them and tell them their funding priorities are wrong. That's way different than the image you're trying to portray.

BTW reaserch is a bigger cash cow than charities IMO.

No, they are. Not sure what you were saying?



I have emailed them.


They won't respond.

Let me re-phrase that...

How many high profile, well-known organizations?

And yes, there certainly is justification to support the smaller orgs. 

I've got to go catch a flight.

I don't have any problem with the SGK foundation.

It would seem they're a little bloated as an organization, but one could argue this comes from their success. So they have 3%-5% more overhead than some other charities. Does it matter if they raise 5X the amount of money for their cause?

The people running the organization should be allowed to make money...just like the people doing research.

I also don't mind seeing the pink everywhere. It's a good cause. The more it is out there, the more people will be aware. If you don't like SKG, or the pink thing, then donate elsewhere.

Regarding cure vs. treatment. Early detection is the key to surviving cancer. Until there is a cure it makes sense to support education, screening, and treatment...as well as research.

You sound like Chris Rock, who has joked for years that the treatment is too profitable for a cure. I know it looks that way, but I seriously doubt it. The fact is these are very tough diseases to cure.

I'm not sure what you're saying either.

Maybe they get more than one email a day and yours isn't on the top of the list. ;)

I need to go to a part of the house to make a couple of bucks.

No one pays me to rant on the net...I'm not that lucky. ;D

Ahh, I thought you were talking in total for CFC. Yes, a lot of them are smaller, local organizations that have submitted applications and been accepted.

Look how many people would be out of jobs if cancer was cured?


I had this conversation with Uncle who just survived a bout with Leukemia.


He thinks there is no reason to find a cure when scientists and these organizations keep generating revenue.


I'm a multi-tasking mothermake the beast with two backser!!!

Hard to say. My guess is not too many, as there are plenty of other diseases they could shift their focus to.

I just don't buy it...it's the ultimate conspiracy theory.

There is a diehard Komen person in my office.

If you don't donate.........she gets pissed at you.


Still haven't given her a dime.

That's lame. I wouldn't donate to her either.

I get hit up for donations all the time.  I tell them that I gave at the office.  






I work for the American Cancer Society.

We are pretty proud of our numbers.  We just wrapped up FY09 so I only have FY08 #'s   http://www.cancer.org/downloads/AA/ACS_Combined_Financials_FY2008.pdf (http://www.cancer.org/downloads/AA/ACS_Combined_Financials_FY2008.pdf)

A bit more information, from Charity Navigator:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4509 (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4509)

They're generally a good guide to non-profits (and I say this having worked for one a few years back that got savaged in their ratings...)

I'm going to disagree with you, Cyrus, but not with your general uneasiness with whole the pink tsunami.

I've donated minor amounts of money to SGKF through friends who've done the walks -- after looking at their financials at Charity Navigator and elsewhere -- both because I think the money is going to do what the organization says it's doing, and because the events themselves really do help a lot of breast cancer survivors and their families by giving them something constructive to do about the disease other than sitting in a hospital getting treatment -- or sitting with someone who is.

As for their overhead numbers, I don't really imagine anyone really would want a $300 million organization run entirely by volunteers (unless, maybe, you were the organization's "volunteer" accountant ...). It'd be a recipe for disaster, mismanagement and grotesque inefficiency a whole lot worse than paying professional people to do a professional job.

But I do share the unease that you and a lot of others have mentioned with the whole merchandised side of the campaign. I don't intentionally pick out the SGKF-branded merchandise in the grocery store (which feels to me more about selling corn flakes than curing breast cancer), but I can't say I intentionally avoid it either. Some of it is just nuts though -- the plastic pink ribbon air freshener I saw in the store yesterday? It would be interesting -- actually, make that depressing -- to do a cross tabulation between environmental factors & chemical substances that are currently the subjects of active research on breast cancer risk and the materials in a lot of the plastic gee-gaws and other products that currently bear a pink ribbon.

And by way of disclosure, my sister had her second run in with breast cancer in a decade last year, this time leading to a double mastectomy and lots of chemo that seems to have done what it was supposed to. Tomorrow, she goes back into the hospital for another round of reconstructive surgery after two failed attempts that led to life-threatening infections and more hospital stays -- though this time around, she's in a lot better physical health for the procedure.

My family has talked to her about it, and she doesn't feel the need to do the breast cancer walks or wear pink the way some do. But if she did, I can guarantee you we'd be out there hoofing it, wearing pink, and proudly dangling that stupid plastic pink air freshener from the rear view mirror.

And as an aside, do some of you actually, seriously think that researchers are intentionally & deliberately avoiding finding cures for various cancers??? Even if you are that cynical (and if you are, my condolences) the fact remains that finding cures is the kind of payday that individual researchers, doctors and pharmaceutical companies go to bed every night dreaming about. I was reading the other day about a $100 million donation to the Oregon Health Sciences University's cancer research center that was some serious money -- and much of it was going to the research unit whose top doc developed Gleevec, a drug that treats just one single form of leukemia (doesn't cure it, but I'd say taking a disease that was 95% fatal within a year or two and making it long-term treatable without major side effects is a win by any measure). $100 mil is a lot of money, until you realize that Gleevec ALONE makes $3.1 BILLION a year for Novartis, and they seem to think this guy & Oregon Health Sciences have a few more drugs like it in the works. Yeah, let's string along that research indefinitely, because there's no money in a cure...  [roll]

the only thing i want to say on this is a comment from my g/f

"Think of all the money they spent for all this pink shit. Why don't they donate that money instead of wasting it on cleats and gloves for football players?"

I always thought the pink stuff was donated by the company sporting it. Like pink cosmetics that give a part of the proceeds to the cause, I thought the actual cosmetics company produced special pink items and donated money, is that not the case?

No, there will never be a single cure for cancer because it is not a single disease.

It is a large group of very complex diseases that typically have both genetic and environmental contributions.

Finding a cure to one particular form will not obviate the need for oncology research.


I know a lot of people doing cancer research, and every single one would be thrilled if a cure for any form of cancer were found.  We were all very excited when Gleevec came out, even though that just targets a very small percentage of cancers.

I used to do oncology research (at privately funded companies), I was working on lung cancer at one of them.  At the same time, one of the founders of the company and a friend of mine was dying of metastatic lung cancer.  He was 50, never smoked.  It tore me apart to see him go and not be able to do anything about it. :'(

While I agree that some charities are better than others (and I'm very selective about where my donations go), saying that researchers are just in it for profit is disrespectful and offensive IMO.

You are partially correct. ;D

The researchers aren't in it for profits; they are probably not paid all that well.


These Susan G Komen groups are in it for the money.

I think that's why they only donate 25% of their $$$ to research.

Limit research funding = less chance of finding a cure.

I think you meat that skin cancer was the most common, not the most deadly:

Melanoma in the United States – 2009 Estimates
New Cases     68,720
Deaths Per Year    8,650
5-Year Localized Survival Rate*    99%
5-Year Overall Survival Rate*    91%


Compared to pancreatic cancer (http://pathology.jhu.edu/pancreas/BasicIntro.php)
Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for both men and women.
    * Pancreatic cancer is one of the most deadly of all types of cancer.
    * This year 32,000 Americans will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and about 32,000 will die from it.
    * Despite the high mortality rate, the federal government spends woefully little money on pancreatic cancer research.

Sorry about that, yeah, you are correct.

The most common, not the deadliest.


I think number 2 is prostate cancer

the number one disease that kills women is Heart Disease.

little overlooked fact.

True that.  It is interesting (OK, and probably pretty morbid) to see mortality rates for different diseases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate)

Malaria and TB are still killing more women worldwide, compared to breast cancer.

Not sure if this link works (http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5082&_sessionid=BSdL.BmOL52&_program=wisqars.leadcaus10.sas&_service=&log=1&rept=&State=00&year1=2006&year2=2006&Race=0&Ethnicty=0&Sex=2&ranking=15&PRTFMT=FRIENDLY&lcdfmt=lcd1age&category=ALL&c_age1=0&c_age2=0&_debug=0), but heart disease is the leading cause of death for women after 65 - up until then, it is cancer.  So heart disease kills an awful lot of older women - up until the age of 65, cancer kills about twice as many women as heart disease.

But they do spend money on patient services and education.

Is that not important?

I think the all around worst - as in number of cases + mortality rate is lung cancer?

"Lung cancer is the deadliest type of cancer for both men and women. Each year, more people die of lung cancer than breast, colon, and prostate cancers combined."

https://www.google.com/health/ref/Lung+cancer (https://www.google.com/health/ref/Lung+cancer)

mitt

Yes, that is correct, and it gets less funding (by far) than the other 3.

I find it ironic that the same person that posted these is complaining about other people's money being wasted.

I remembered reading it since I have a 34yo friend fighting it as we speak.

mitt

The company I work for is for profit.

We pay postage.

Non-for profits don't pay postage.

Get that straight and then we'll talk.

Their posted financial statements are a make the beast with two backsing joke.

Look at a publicaly traded company.

We'll talk then.

Try email. It's cheaper.

you have no idea how much we pay for our email infrastructure.  ;D

For the company that you work for, what is the postage bill as a percentage of the gross?

Based on your original argument about SGKF (their alleged low support to research vs. funds raised), this is a pretty weak statement since all non-profits would benefit from not having to pay postage.

Just sayin'.

As I recall, one of the reasons the Avon Walk for Breast Cancer broke away was the way that money was being spent/not spent.  Avon now does it's own event in at least 9 cities.  I believe (could be wrong) that Avon is VERY upfront about where the money is going.

www.avonwalk.org (http://)

I walked in May in Washington, DC and this weekend Zooom and I are riding to Charlotte, NC to work the motocrew there to assist the walkers.

I was all fired up...then I thought:

SGKF has had zero impact or effect on Cyrus' life.   But it's easy to sit back and trash people or things and be holier than though about who in the world is doing things wrong.    And it's been years of the same pattern...posting up what sucks and what's wrong with everything.   

Believing that there are more than a small handfull of people who want cancer to not be cured because of the current money is too sad and pathetic to spend much time on.
 

No matter who is getting fat off the money, there has been millions...hundreds of millions....put to good use.   Would it be better to shut the entire thing down?   If I am organized and clever enough to start the ball rolling and get people involved (even suckered in),  isn't the hundreds of millions spent for good causes better than zero?    You're a big proponent of people as sheep thinking....if the general public is dumb, isn't it great to fleece them into giving some money up for this cause? 

So I guess I'm asking, with all the pregnant doging and complaining....got a suggestion for a fix?   What would actually make you happy?  (other than continually pointing out flaws in the world online that is)

in the realm of improving the world for others, I still have to say SGKF as a whole is higher on my list than Cyrus.

Do something usefull and productive for your community.  At that point, and to use your phrasing,  we'll talk then.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nicely said!

You know nothing about my life and what I am involved.

Ever heard of big brother's big sisters?
How about coaching youth soccer?

Once you read about the first group and know about volunteering to coach, I'd keep your mouth shut about what I do in in my personal time.

I do plenty for my community.

wow, even your happy subject posts are full of hate.   smile, boss, you'll live longer.   

and you're absolutely right...all we know is what you post about...we do keep hearing how you're not actually like that though.

(and if you want people to keep their mouths shut, why post strong opinions and about strong topics?  I call bullshit and think you thrive on the attention)

Ok Chris.

Since Chris has turned into personally bashing me, which is against forum guidelines, I will lock this thread.


I think you should give yourself a 48hr ban for violating rules.



Sorry all, but personally bashing is not allowed and I am sick of Chris doing that to me without any repercussions.


Guess by me locking, I am striving for attention.