There is no need for Susan G. Komen to devote as much time and effort as it does into fluffing itself up and peddling pink ribbons. Why should a charity organization be so dedicated to protecting its brand? Komen has no reason, in fact, they have no right, to use funds donated to help people to try to prevent other charities from helping victims of breast cancer. Until Susan G.
Komen makes a change, if it ever does, there are several organizations that people would be better off donating their time and money to.
Charity Watch, an organization founded by the American Institute of Philanthropy, created a list of the top ten charities dedicated to fighting cancer. Other charities that should be donated to, based on the ranking of Charity Navigator, are the National Breast Cancer Foundation, the Dr. All of these organizations were given at least a score of Komen only received an They waste too much of the money that they have been entrusted to protecting and perpetuating their brand as opposed to putting the money where it needs to go.
At the end of the day, there are far better organizations for people to donate their money to, and it is highly recommended that people do. Which, by the way, end up in meat and eggs of chickens who consume it.
I emailed the pink chicken feed company about whether or not they included GM grains in their product. Organic chicken feed is not available from any of the ag retailers in my rural area.
Can you imagine what it would cost to ship even one 50lb bag of chicken feed? We try to reduce the effect of the GM components of the commercial feed by allowing our chickens to roam and by feeding a lot of vegetable scraps. Oh my gosh! I am in the same situation with not having organic feed available for my animals.
Any good links for that? Thanks, Cheryl! So on to more interesting stuff… about the worms. You can get worm farms from several garden supply places. As you continue to add scraps and the worms make more soil, they will also reproduce and you add layers to the farm. The bottom layers consisting mostly of soil, middle ones being where the worms live and make their babies and the top ones where the parent worms go out to eat. The simplest thing ever. We use a plastic habitat from the pet store, but if you wanted to work with a really large you could go with a larger bucket.
I started with meal worms, and I probably have at least that many, possibly many times that now. They really like corn stuff, like corm meal, masa and polenta, and wheat germ. In 6 months, my little box of has gone through about lbs of mixed meals. I read about meal worms, but decided against them when I read that their diet was corn, and as you know, most corn is GM.
Right now, I am feeding my chickens lentils, wheat, oats, black oil sunflower seeds, alfalfa pellets, diatomaceous earth, powdered milk unfortunately conventional , and redmond real salt. I am also letting them out to wander the neighborhood in the afternoon. I hope to replace the milk with fish meal real soon now.
I have heard that alfalfa was recently approved to be GM, so I will have to do something about that once I use up this bag. I do know about using oyster shell or egg shell, but I understand that should be separate from the feed anyway.
There are a number of feed recipes floating around the internet. I saved them on my other computer, but I think they would be too difficult for me to find right now. I think my chickens are healthier than I am. Hopefully next time I reformulate my recipe, I will have more information on the vitamin and mineral requirements of chickens instead of humans.
I think when I buy the fish meal I am going to ask them if they know. I should note that you BB have been keeping chickens longer than I have, since I just got mine at the beginning of August.
What about breastfeeding? Why is SGK not screaming from the roof tops to nurse your babies? Why not educate young women about the benefits of breastfeeding and cancer risk reduction? Why not promote healthy attitudes toward nursing and provide support and education for new moms to be able to breastfeed? SGK could make a real difference toward making breastfeeding the norm, culturally accepted and supported. What an excellent point. A simple way to take steps toward preventing illness in both mother and baby.
I think it would make sense to use their financial power to lobby ick to get known carcinogens out of our food chain, personal care products, home environment, and larger environment. Nice try, but this is not well researched at all. There are several misleading or all together untrue things here. I would call that progress. Komen has spread the message about early detection, which is currently the best defense women have against this disease.
However, you should also know that the chart shown is from when Hala Moddelmog was the president and CEO. She no longer works for Komen. The current president and CEO is also the founder, Nancy Brinker, and she is not compensated by the organization. Furthermore, the executive director of Charity Navigator, who is quoted, may have some explaining to do since his watchdog organization has given Komen a coveted 4 star rating for several years running. Komen has an advocacy alliance with the specific purpose of influencing policy to ensure access to quality care and adequate funding for research and programs for the under served.
My local Komen affiliate has been funding the Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program a national program funded by the federal government and the states for longer than my state has.
I have personally participated as Komen lobbied my state government to restore funding for this program so that under served women have access to care.
Good for them for realizing what works for them to further their mission. The reason it was chosen in the first place was to get educational messaging out to a specific demographic in need of education.
As far as pink products go, Komen has a rigorous process for determining who they partner with and what percentage of funds have to actually be donated from those sales. Most major companies do this. Few do so to protect donors from being duped. Finally, the you say that Komen does nothing in the way of prevention. That is an out right lie. I have seen the Komen education presentation and read the literature myself and I can assure you that there are recommendations out the wazoo for prevention.
Unfortunately for some people, not amount of prevention will save them the burden of breast cancer. Thanks to Komen and research grants it has funded, numerous advancements have been made.
There are many types, with many different treatments. There is genetic screening, individualized treatment and surgical options other than just double mastectomies now. Furthermore, only select affiliates give to PP, the national organization does not give a grant to PP. The money given is restricted funds specifically for breast health services and it is given to locations in remote areas where there is no access to mammography etc.
That should have been in reply to the whole blog, not to Kristy. A few days ago I went looking for prevention and Breastfeeding on their website. Prevention, breastfeeding, healthy eating and exercise should be in banners on their home page! This is just a blog. I read some things, formed opinions, and wrote about them. I am not convinced that the 5-year survival rate is really anything worthy of touting.
Again, the point of the entire post. That is certainly a step in the right direction toward prevention education. However, is it common knowledge that breast feeding reduces breast cancer risk? I wish they would direct the focus toward preventative measures that are truly effective such as breast feeding.
And, in my wildest of dreams, toward nutrition-based preventative measures and cures that work. I agree! Thank you for pointing out the benefits to moms for bfing. I agree, bfing benefits to mom are NOT common knowledge. At least not where I am from…. All they care about is keeping people ill and dependent on toxic drugs sold by Big Pharma. Its always the same, keep people dependent on drugs as if drugs are the only answer to are health woes.
Congratulations on being a survivor, Shirley! You are right — there are many other charities out there that run similarly to Susan G. Komen — lots of begging, not a lot of improvement in the actual cause. Why give your support to cancer? I give you a standing ovation …….. Well researched. Well stated!! An excellent read…. Planned Parenthood does a lot of good for a lot of low-income women who have no other health care provider. They diagnosed my thyroid disorder which 3 other doctors had missed.
What I find egregious are the companies that put out pink items in October and sell people on them when zero money goes toward any breast cancer related charities. Tiki, Let me point you to some updated information. A recent meta-analysis showed that since there have been 66 studies done which looked at the relation of induced abortion and breast cancer, including 53 which showed a positive correlation and 25 that were statistically significant.
There were only 13 which showed no association. The scientist who did the meta-anaylsis was Brind. Many researchers have also come forward, including those from the US govt, with their own data and studies showing a connection, and some of those researchers have said the govt is actively trying to suppress their work.
Brind is a well-known pro-life advocate. He and BCPI are the about the only group to make these claims. Can you cite a proper, peer-reviewed source please? Thanks so much for having the guts to publish this article! I live in the Peoria area, when the Susan Komen foundation started.
People are crazy here for Race for the Cure and everything pink. I was especially sickened to learn about their affiliation with Planned Parenthood. Why on earth are they giving money to an organization whose primary business is abortions? And what does that have to do with breast cancer? People need to wake up and stop drinking the pink koolaid. The word needs to get out about where the money is really going.
So sad, really. I have never had one myself, nor have I needed to, and largely because I had access to information, doctors and nurses and safe sex, abstinence and birth control as options, ALL through Planned Parenthood.
I believe the right path, particularly for young people is prevention of unwanted pregnancy, rather than elimination of fetuses. Prevention comes through education and access to birth control options, as well as good advice from medical professionals.
As an adult, I find myself on the pro- life side, but If I were young, scared and pregnant, it sure would mean a lot to know I had choices and people willing to discuss them with me. In my opinion, Planned Parenthood does far more good than bad. Obviously we are all entitled to our opinions here. I am a healthy, informed adult in part because of PP. Thank you for being brave enough to step out on this issue. Way to go! I started realizing last year that I was sick to death of SGK advertisements.
I knew there was something shady going on. Go look at their corporate payroll and where a good portion of their money goes. A small amount goes towards scholarships- atleast the teacher grant to help autistic children- required joining and paying a membership first.
Try TACA, or Generation Rescue, perhaps the Autism Research Institute, possibly a local Autism Speaks if the money could be earmarked for a specific scholarship, but as a whole organization, Autism Speaks would be at the bottom of my list. Could not agree more, Amy. I absolutely do not support Autism Speaks. Thank you so much for this post. I lost my mother to breast cancer in and very few people understand my aversion to pink ribbons and the Komen foundation.
THey especially freak out if I tell them I avoid mammograms in spite of the family history. This is excellent information, I hope a lot of people read it and open their eyes!!
Good for you, Ren. Thanks so much for your comment. Before Planned Parenthood, women of low to middle income often had trouble finding access to birth control and abortion, while wealthy women could get what they needed. I agree the salaries are far too high, and the bullying of smaller charities is sickening. I do agree with another commentator that this organization did do a great job of raising awareness. When I was a child, people NEVER talked about breast cancer, and that did lead to more women not getting help in time.
I was disappointed in all the negative planned parenthood talk as well. Planned Parenthood offers a lot more than hormonal birth control and abortion. Either way, if the majority of a providers services is going towards what is of course the better option, education and prevention etc, then why be so down on the small percentage that deals with abortion?
As distasteful as it is, sometimes it is th better option, and before you all yell at me lol what works for does not always workfor another, so maybe walk in their shoes before judging me on my opinion? Abortion is like the most of the medical industry. Taking cholesterol medication is forcing the cholesterol in your body down. But your body is making cholesterol because there is inflammation somewhere and the body is trying to help! Getting an abortion is simply killing the child, the result of a bad decision.
Abortion is sometimes the better option? Have you asked the one being killed what they think is the better option? Walk in their shoes before judging whether they should live or not. Thank you for this! I want to tell everyone I know about the terrible things SGK does! Keep up the good work! I fully agree! I appreciate this post so much and will share it.
I have also had huge issues knowing cancer has been cured with nutrition and yet everyone goes pink crazy. I saw pink football cleats at the store the other day. Do you know how much we could help individuals if we aided in them eating real food and not dead processed food instead of helping pay double for something with a pink ribbon. If you know someone fighting cancer please check out Food Matters movie and many other resources that truly want to give them a cure!
Just more food for thought I guess. Thank you, Sarah! I did see the Food Matters film, and while I thought it was a great insight into the ways in which food can heal, I did a little research after the fact to discover that the current Gerson Institute does not exactly follow in the footsteps of the doctor himself — Dr.
Quite different from the raw veganism being promoted by his daughter, Charlotte. Still, the film is a worthwhile watch. I plan on posting a review of it in the near future. It had some great information and very quotable quotes. Really not sold on that David Wolfe guy, though. Good for you for posting this. Once again, good for you! Right, Lynn. The only thing I would ask is that you do not lump all doctors and conventional medicine together. While I agree that conventional medicine does not always provide the best or clearest advice, there are many doctors who do their best to help their patients.
It is unfair to paint an entire profession of people as all being greedy and only out to line their own pockets. I speak this from experience, as my husband is a new doctor. His goal is to work for a clinic that serves under-represented peoples and to spend some of his vacation time every year traveling to other countries to do free medical clinics.
I agree that some doctors are in it just for the money I have met those people as well , but it is unfair to paint all doctors with the same brush. Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree that there are many doctors who have absolutely nothing but the best of intentions — in fact, I would say the vast majority do.
I do not at all blame the doctors for spreading the misinformation about diet, drugs, and dangerous cancer treatments, but rather, the system from which it all stems. So often, doctors are just as much of victim of the industry as their patients. I apologize if what I wrote struck you as judgmental of the medical profession as a whole.
I lost my mother four years ago to breast cancer. She battled it three times and ultimately lost her life to it the third time around. The amount of radiation that is received is negligible and frankly early detection does ensure a better outcome. I realize there is some risk involved, but my once a year risk gives me peace of mind — in addition to my monthly self checks.
Other than that — I agree whole-heartedly with your statements and appreciate your research. Right ON! Cancer is a product of industrial civilization. And here we are thinking we can fix it with more of the same. I am so sorry to hear about your mother. She had every right to be that frustrated that nothing different was being done to treat her. A medical cure has not been found because, in my opinion, medicine does not cure. It only masks symptoms. It may fix one thing, while causing illness in another.
About the mammograms, have you looked into thermography? This is a very safe alternative to mamms. But I certainly would not judge anyone for wanting to get mammograms simply because it does provide that peace of mind that is so important for someone who is said to be of higher risk such as yourself.
Thank you for your information on this. Its our food!!! And the water and the air! Your article contains a lot of dangerous, blame the patient rhetoric.
My treatment plan was an integrative one, which included radiation and chemo that I was thankful to have. I also did acupuncture and a lot of healing herbs and and in the three years that I am cancer-free, I have made nutritional changes to bring even more healing to my body. Showing courage would be sitting face to face with women like me who were diagnosed in their 20s and 30s and listening to our stories, and then sharing your perspective.
I have many friends, who like me, were living clean and eating super healthy before their diagnosis. Your rhetoric is polarizing, which can never bring healing to the world. And yes—the pink everywhere is annoying. There are lots of causes that need attention. But I am also thankful to Komen for bringing breast cancer out of the closet and into the public arena for dialogue. Reading your blog was a very painful experience for me and I speak for other women like myself.
Gabrielle, you bring up some good points. We must realize breast cancer is not a black and white thing. While some women may develop the cancer due to horrible eating habits, processed foods, smog, and the like, such is not the case for all women. Obviously her breast cancer was not a result of horrible, scientifically-altered American food, smog, etc.
She was a healthy woman as healthy as one could be years ago , but she developed cancer. I do believe that if she had back then the treatment plans we have available today, she would not have died. Now, women can go get checked for breast cancer without the shame that used to hang over it. That being said, the author did bring up some good points about the shortcomings of the program.
As often happens, once a charity becomes very well known, it can be taken over by self-interested administrators, and the mission of the charity can get a little warped. It is an unfortunate affect of human nature. However, that does not negate the fact that Komen has been, is, and will probably be for some time to come a helpful organization. It is unfortunate the manner in which some of their money is spent, and if some people decide not to give their money to Komen, it makes sense.
They should acknowledge, though, that Komen is very helpful to thousands or even millions others, and they might want to rethink looking the gift horse in the mouth.
If one does not want to support Komen for X, Y, and Z reasons, that is quite alright. One should be gracious enough to allow someone else to support Komen for A, B, and C reasons, though. I am curious to know if Abigail Adams breastfed her children. It was common during that time to use a wetnurse for breastfeeding. Since not breastfeeding is an established breast cancer risk it is likely that was the cause regardless of the pre-industrialized diet. My point was that it had been stated here that scientifically altered food is the cause of breast cancer.
I pointed out Nabby could not have had such a diet, so obviously we cannot simply blame our warped food for breast cancer. Science tells us breastfeeding lowers the chances of breast cancer. Also, mothers who have breastfed and eat healthy still get breast cancer. Fact is, any of us could get breast cancer hypothetically , and so we all need to be educated on how to lower our chances, get checked out if we notice something off, and select whatever recovery plan we think is best if we do develop breast cancer.
That may mean the whole healthy eating stuff route, or that may mean the hospital and doctors route. Or maybe even a combination of the two. I do not think that scientifically-altered food is the sole cause of breast cancer. I think it plays a major role in its prevalence today, however. Definitely agree that we all need to become more educated, and think about what recovery plan we feel is best for ourselves, ideally before we are faced with the decision.
Thank you for your comments, Holly. Gabrielle, As I would hope one would assume by reading this post, it was absolutely not my intention to bring about pain, upset, or otherwise offend anyone, particularly those who have personally faced this disease such as yourself.
Actually, I plan on doing just that interviewing a cancer survivor. I thought I made it clear that I blame the cancer industry, not patients. Eating a healthy diet is not a guarantee against cancer, I understand that. Unfortunately, there is a virtually insurmountable amount of misinformation permeating our culture regarding nutrition and what exactly a healthy diet is. Many, many people assume they are eating a proper diet with their improperly prepared whole grains, their dangerous and toxic low-fat foods, their avoidance of whatever the current trend is for the substance blamed on ill health gluten, etc.
The primary purpose of this site is to do whatever small part I can in helping to educate others on the truth about nutrition, as I continue to learn it myself. Thank you for your comment, and I hope and pray that you will continue to remain healthy and cancer-free. You make many excellent points about the SGK and the way in which they spend their funds — as well as how the corporations who flaunt pink trick people into believing they are supporting SGK when in fact ony a fraction of the price of the goods people buy are actually even going to SGK — and may even not be going there at all.
So there I have one thing to say: Remember Steve Jobs. He thought that was the better way to go and died as a result. Early detection has saved millions of women from advanced breast cancer — and now increased awareness may even save the lives of men. Susan Love has said that some breast cancers there are several types are being treated as chronic conditions — something people can live with for many years — rather than an immediate death threat, Of course any metastatic cancer is more curable prior to metastases, so earlier detection has produced a greater 5-year survival rate.
Well, yes, they do contain radiation, but if you discovered a lump in your breast would you refuse to have one? Would you just increase your intake of Vit. I do agree with your jabs at the drug industry. They were called out by experts in the British Medical Journal for spreading a highly misleading statistic that claimed women who got mammograms were vastly more likely to survive their cancer than women who did not. When Komen was originally founded in the s, mammograms were touted as being the best tool to help women find tumors earlier and therefore to save lives.
Women who get mammograms in their 40s and 50s decrease their chance of dying from breast cancer by tiny fractions of a percent. The problem with mammograms is that they detect a lot of potentially problematic spots that might never actually become problems.
Some cancers are so slow-growing that old age will kill you first, others might not grow at all, and still more might go away on their own. And yet despite all the evidence , Susan G. Komen continues to spend many millions of dollars spreading the word that women need to be getting mammograms early and often. Early stage breast cancer is highly survivable. As a high profile disease, breast cancer has plenty of organizations that you can support in good conscience.
Here are just a few:. Goal Type: Focus on core programs to achieve mission and scale back on programs not seen as core. Goal Two: Through the Komen Patient Care Center, make it possible for the people across the country to gain the knowledge, support, and access they need for their breast cancer journey.
Goal Three: Mobilizing the voice of everyone affected by breast cancer to achieve lasting change through sounds public policy and advocacy. Goal Type: This goal reflects our commitment to further our advocacy work for our organization and or cause area. We have invested in Accountability Builder training across our organization as a required training course which instills a framework for increasing accountability. Additionally, all first level leaders complete "The 6 Critical Practices for Leading a Team" course to equip them with the essential skills and tools to get work done with and through other people.
Plus, all staff are able to enroll in "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" course along with access to an entire catalog of training programs available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in our Komen University online training database.
The nonprofit provides evidence of leadership through focusing externally and mobilizing resources for the mission. We hosted the Breast Cancer Disparities Summit which brings together nearly experts, advocates, and emerging leaders and industry leaders in the field of disparities to identify solutions to advance health equity. Facebook groups provide online support. The nonprofit has an opportunity to tell the story of how the organization adapted to tremendous external changes in the last year.
Komen moved quickly during to transform how we do business and how we deliver on our mission to ensure we are best positioned to support the entire breast cancer community now and long into the future.
Our mission to save lives from breast cancer has not changed but how we accomplish it has. Over the past year, we have transitioned from a federated business model of independent Affiliates to a single, united entity enabling streamlined and more efficient operational processes and increasing collaboration. We have transitioned from supporting patients via grants to local third party clinics and providers to supporting patients directly from a growing national set of patient care services that are available no matter where a person lives.
The past year also put a spotlight on the tragic racial disparities in care that exist in communities across the country as we continue our focus on working to address inequities and close the gaps in breast cancer outcomes.
This score provides an assessment of the organization's engagement with the constituents it serves, a practice we term Constituent Feedback. When organizations listen to constituents, they are able to better deliver on programs and meet the needs of stakeholders. A future version of this Beacon will also assess an organization's people operations and its Diversity, Equity and Inclusion DEI metrics.
Nonprofit organizations are encouraged to fill out the How We Listen section of their Candid profile. Constituent Feedback and Listening Practice data are not available for this organization. Charity Navigator believes nonprofit organizations that engage in inclusive practices, such as collecting feedback from the people and communities they serve, may be more effective. We award every nonprofit that completes the Candid survey full credit for this Beacon, in recognition of their willingness to publicly share this information with the nonprofit and philanthropic communities.
Although the data is not evaluated for quality at this time, future iterations of this Beacon will include third party or other data that will serve to validate the information provided by the nonprofit. Our partnership with Feedback Labs and Guidestar by Candid , and other partners including Fund for Shared Insight, GlobalGiving, and Keystone Accountability, enables us to launch the first version of this beacon with Constituent Feedback information collected on Candid's site.
Feedback practices have been shown to support better Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion outcomes, an essential area of assessment that we intend to further expand and develop in the future. Feedback Labs has documented several studies which indicate that beyond achieving organizational goals, nonprofits that are attentive and responsive to concerns and ideas raised by beneficiaries establish stronger relationships with the people they serve, promote greater equity, and empower constituents in ways that can help to ensure better long-term outcomes.
You can find resources to help nonprofits improve their feedback practices here. The Giving Basket had an issue with your donation. Please try again. If the problem persists contact us and include your Cart ID: Unknown. Komen for the Cure.
Less Susan G. Box Dallas TX You are viewing this organization's new Charity Navigator profile page. To view the legacy version, click here. Star Rated Report. Financial Performance Metrics. Fundraising Expenses. Fundraising Efficiency. Working Capital Ratio. Program Expense Growth. Liabilities to Assets. Program Expense. Program Expense Ratio Administrative Expenses 9. Fundraising Expenses Liabilities to Assets Ratio Working Capital Ratio 0. Program Expense Growth Governance Charity Navigator looks to confirm on the Form that the organization has these governance practices in place.
More The presence of an independent governing body is strongly recommended by many industry professionals to allow for full deliberation and diversity of thinking on governance and other organizational matters. Our analysts check the Form to determine if the independent Board members are a voting majority and also at least five in number.
Less No Material Diversion of Assets More A diversion of assets — any unauthorized conversion or use of the organization's assets other than for the organization's authorized purposes, including but not limited to embezzlement or theft — can seriously call into question a charity's financial integrity.
This metric will be assigned to one of the following categories: Full Credit: There has been no diversion of assets within the last two years. Partial Credit: There has been a diversion of assets within the last two years and the charity has used Schedule O on the Form to explain: the nature of the diversion, the amount of money or property involved and the corrective action taken to address the matter.
In this situation, we deduct 7 points from the charity's Accountability and Transparency score. No Credit: There has been a diversion of assets within the last two years and the charity's explanation on Schedule O is either non-existent or not sufficient. In this case, we deduct 15 points from the charity's Accountability and Transparency score.
More Audited financial statements provide important information about financial accountability and accuracy. Partial Credit: The charity's audited financials were prepared by an independent accountant, but it did not have an audit oversight committee.
In this case, we deduct 7 points from the charity's Accountability and Transparency score.
0コメント