The American Cancer Society

Interesting.  I just got a publication from the American Cancer Society stating that they provide more money for research than any other private organization.  This is probably (sadly) true which points out how little some of the other private organizations turn over for research.  Unfortunately, the ACS could be providing even more funding than they currently do according to your findings.

 I seriously hate both organizations.  They both suck.

I have not much good to say about the ACS or Komen. The good they do is outweighed by the attitude that "cancer" or "breast cancer" are marketable concepts that they "own" - in lockstep wth polluters and others who finance them. The ACS is always a step behind the latest scientific thinking, it seems, and Komen is busying itself using people's money to sue or threaten to sue mom and pop non profits for using words like "cure" in conjunbction with cancer.

Komen "owns" a cure, it seems. Pity the rest of us don't get to share.

ACS is the largest non-profit in the world and, for many years, through the early part of the last decade, denied that the enviornment could case cancer. Even now, while the rest of the world has long acknowledged environmental factors, they say it is not known. They also tend to come out against findings that show the limited effects of screening or that would in any way upset the current economic status quo of expensive treatments. They are a corporate juggernaut and that is where their true interests lie - not with patients. The fact that they do charity work does not change that, IMO.

If a cure is found for cancer, these two organizations, which are supposed to represent the interests of cancer patients, would stand to lose. This means that their interests are no longer aligned with patients in the long run - only in short-term, day-to-day issues. 

ETA: It is a shame. For my other illness, I KNOW that the organizations which advocate on behalf of patients really do represent my interests. Same with the congenital illness I was completely cured of thanks to modern medicine - that organization is huge, well known, and very, very effective. It speaks for me (or my organ :-) ). 

The American Cancer Society:  The Official Sponsor of Really Catchy Slogans.

What I hate are threads dissing organizations that help.  I should have known before clicking.

granted.. the society may have high overhead but it is well within the 65/35% money distribution.  Large fundraising corporations are always criticized it seems. I guess if people are going to donate money, they want it to go directly to patients.. Unfortunately, doing business does cost money.  However I think it is noble that they try to save lives by helping people stay well, helping people get well, by finding cures, and fighting cancer.

I hate cancer.

I have to agree with you apple. I am so  thankful for the National Cancer Association. I was also given a wig that I actually like more than the one I paid 500 for. I attended their makeup feel good seminal, and came away with lots of free makeup.

When I had radiation therapy I received it at the hospital where I had surgery which is 2 hours away. They paid for me to stay at a local motel during that week.

The American Cancer Society issued me a check for $175 for "Transportation". For someone who was newly diagnosed, and on disability and counting on every penny to survive and support my two kids and spouse I was extremely grateful.

While nobody is questioning the good work done by the American Cancer Society, nor the fact that it has a staff of dedicated staff members working tirelessly to help cancer patients, I just don't see why their top-of-the-foodchain retired staff members should be paid this kind of money.

Wouldn't some of this money be best utilized in research? I mean: just SOME of it, and those senior executive could still spend a happy retirement on a little less (which most of us will have to do).

Questioning is important. It is the kind of stuff that make political and social changes possible throughout the world and throughout history.

As Athena said it above:

".......Without questioning, loads of ineffective studies and flawed data would not be hounded out......." 

Member:

As I said in my earlier post, they claim (in their current publication) to be the largest private donor of research money.  When I read this a couple of days ago, I thought that this could be critical since governments around the world will try to cut back research spending due to the languishing world wide economy - leaving the funding largely to private donors (hope this doesn't happen).

As an aside, their CEO (ACS) is announcing an unprecedented opportunity on the first page of the publication.  The United Nations is scheduled to hold a summit in September to address the global impact of cancer, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease and cardiovascular disease. 

According to the CEO, this is only the second time the United Nations has done anything like this - the first was for AIDS.

Here is an excerpt from an article in The Huffington Post last year by Samuel S. Epstein, admittedly a staunch critic of the ACS. Towards the end he lists the ACS's links to pollutors:

PUBLIC RELATIONS
•1998-2000: PR for the ACS was handled by Shandwick International, whose major clients included R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings.
•2000-2002: PR for the ACS was handled by Edelman Public Relations, whose major clients included Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company, and the Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris, Kraft, and fast food and soft drink beverage companies. All these companies were promptly dismissed once this information was revealed by the CPC.

INDUSTRY FUNDING
The ACS's indifference to cancer prevention reflects major industry funding. ACS has received contributions in excess of $100,000 from a wide range of "Excalibur Donors," many of whom continue to manufacture carcinogenic products. These include:

•Petrochemical companies (DuPont; BP; and Pennzoil)
•Industrial waste companies (BFI Waste Systems)
•Junk food companies (Wendy's International; McDonalds's; Unilever/Best Foods; and Coca-Cola)
•Big Pharma (AstraZenceca; Bristol Myers Squibb; GlaxoSmithKline; Merck & Company; and Novartis)
•Biotech companies (Amgen; and Genentech)
•Cosmetic companies (Christian Dior; Avon; Revlon; Elizabeth Arden; and Estee Lauder)
•Auto companies (Nissan; General Motors)

Nevertheless, in spite of this long-standing track record of flagrant conflicts of interest, as reported in the December 8, 2009 New York Times, the ACS responded that it "holds itself to the highest standards of transparency and public accountability."

LINK: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/samuel-s-epstein/the-american-cancer-socie_b_568292.html

People who spend their lives helping cancer patients are worth a lot more than somebody like Cameran Diaz, who gets millions for having long legs

or Kim the Dash who has big hips and lips.

I agree. 

the ACS is not the world or our country's largest NPO... BTW

I am starting to get jaded with information like this.  No wonder things are such a mess.  The almighty dollar rules all!

1Athena-I recently heard Dr. Epstein speak at the Health Freedom Expo. He talked about how much  of a difference the ACS could make if they would make any effort to promote prevention. They spend less than 4% of their funds on prevention. Dr. E maintains that the ACS is one of the leading causes of cancer. He showed a diagram that depicted how the incidence of cancer has gone up as the funding has gone up. He also listed other causes of cancer as the CDC, AMA, ADA, FDA, etc. As long as people are making big money in cancer, we will never be told the truth about how preventable this disease really is, and how many alternative treatments work better than the standard of care. And as long as Komen keeps raking in the bucks to support the mammo industry, we will never be given an insurance code that will make thermography a standard of care.