[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: Canadian Cancer Society spends more on fundraising than research: report If you’ve been making steady donations to the Canadian Cancer Society over the past ten years, less and less of your donation has been going toward research, according to a new report from the CBC show Marketplace. The CBC analyzed the charity’s financial reports and found “that each year, as the society raised more dollars, the proportion of money it spent on research dropped dramatically — from 40.3 per cent in 2000 to under 22 per cent in 2011.” While the amount of money channelled toward research has increased slightly, as part of the charity’s overall increasing budget, spending on fundraising and administration has been on the steady rise, according to the CBC. One Ontario cancer researcher said this should be a concern for those in the field: "Most scientists don’t realize that the budget has been going up and up, and donations have been growing, but the budget for research has been shrinking," Brian Lichty, a researcher at McMaster University who is looking into treating cancer with viruses that kill tumours, told the CBC. "So they are surprised and disappointed when they find out that this is the case, and the trend." These findings are the most recent to shine an uncomfortable spotlight on cancer fundraising. In April, another study pointed out that fundraising for breast cancer may be eclipsing fundraising for the most deadly cancers. A group called Charity Intelligence Canada found that many of the cancers that take the most years of life from Canadians - pancreatic, stomach, lung and colorectal cancers - account for less than two per cent of cancer charity funding, while breast cancer charities attract almost half of those funds. There have also been controversy recently about the methods some cancer charities use to raise funds, including the “booby bracelet” movement - especially among children and teens. And then, this month saw the debut of Julyna, an eyebrow-raising charity effort linking bikini waxes with cervical cancer awareness. Is it time for the cancer fundraising community to sit down and rethink a few of its priorities? Do any of these reports make you consider shifting your giving plans in any way? trampled1 It burns me up to know what a waste of resources the Cancer Society has become. It's quite obvious to anyone that been throught the loss of a loved one that there is NO intention by anyone related to the "Cancer Industry" to EVER find a cure. There are too many people making their living from this "industry" - just like any other business. I'm disgusted with these "charities" and when my mother was dying of cancer last year, we chose to give all our support to thwe front line people - hospice and palliative care workers, and nothing to pay for the big shiny cars and offices and god knows what else that the Cancer Society pays for for these "consultants" and well paid bureacrats that only care about spending more on themselves. It's disgusting and it should be illegal to call this a charity. Trampled, you are absolutely correct. There are more people working in the Cancer Industry at any given time, then people who actually have cancer. Chartered Wombat Unbelieveable. In the fiscal year ended January 31, 2011: The Canadian Cancer Society LOTTERY had revenues of $23.9m and expenses of $23.0m All that effort, and all they could raise was $881K?? Bobsays This is typical across the charity sector: rattling a cup has become more lucrative and in turn become an industry (especially as other sectors of the economy die). Decisions about where medical research dollars go should be made by scientists, not by schmaltzy charity fundraisers pushing the latest emotional pitch. Why can't there just be one single fundraising body - call it 'I Care' - which receives all donations and then a panel of scientists and researchers discuss where the funding should go based on evidence and need? This panel should be public, should meet in public and be broadcast on the web, and should then publish their conclusions on funding priorities for the year. And I am sorry, no more life-long jobs for the chicks who used to run the car wash fundraiser: they can go back to school and learn something more socially useful. an_individual This is a problem for many foundations and charities. These organizations have boards and professional fundraisers who are compensated based on the amount of money they bring in, not the amount of money that is spent on research or the cause. For example, if I'm a director looking at the available funds, it is in my interest to invest those funds in getting more funds, not to spend them on the charity's cause Sardonic.Tears If I get tons of money one day, I'm donating it to NASA. They are bound to discover the cure for cancer some day- probably by mistake- as they've pretty much invented everything else. 3 replies Report Abuse CQuil 10:57 AM on July 6, 2011 Completely off-topic, but did you know that the US has a larger budget for its military bands that its NASA budget? "Looking for places to pare back, the panel agreed to limit spending on military bands to no more than $200 million next year, compared with $320 million currently. in.reuters.com/article/20.../idINIndia-57697220110615 Raising Kane About a year ago, The Cancer Society opened a new facility in St. John’s, The Daffodil Place, where out-of-town cancer patients and a family member can stay during treatment. However, The Cancer Society never mentioned during its long, aggressive fundraising campaign that half of this facility was new office space for the society. I don’t think the public would have been so generous if they were fully aware they were funding new offices for the employees of the society. Lying by omission is just as dishonest as outright lying and fundraisers and charitable organizations that engage in it should be held accountable. I know that the front-end people who treat cancer patients in St. John’s: Doctors, nurses, technicians, etc don’t hold The Cancer Society in very high regard. Altaboy8 Excessive sugar consumption has not only been linked to obesity but also to cancer. While perusing a newletter from the Alberta Cancer Society, I found a recipe for muffins which were loaded with...sugar. David Gibson There should be a database of research facilities/projects to which one can donate directly. HooBoy Hey, great idea. I could build that database for you free of charge, but we'll need servers, a disk array, backup facilities, a secure data centre, programmers, administrators, managers, data entry personnel, phone systems, email, Internet access, a lunch room, ... Jim Jazz If you want to support cancer research, give to the Cancer Research Society. They are based in Quebec but fund research throughout the country without bias. Most of their dollars go to research. There is nothing that the CCS is doing moving forward that is worth a penny of donations. Mr Webb This is unfortunate news for those who wish to support cancer research. However one can bypass these agencies and give more directly. Here is a link to an example some important cancer research being done at Queen's University here in Canada: www.queensu.ca/news/artic...elp-prevent-spread-cancer and here is how you can donate directly to help fund such research and direct your donation to support cancer research or some other type of research: www.queensu.ca/giving/index.html Tiredofpoliticians Cynical in Toronto said "give to the Terry Fox Foundation". Agreed, the Foundation has a low admin/expense ratio but the bulk of unds araised are given directly to the Canadian Cancer Society (Google: "Terry Fox Foundation financial statements") Maybe the answer is the CRA should only grant charitable status to any not-for profit that has an admin/expense ratio of less than 25% of total revenue. Best thing is to check out the financial statement of any charity you wish to give to. Don't donate through telemarket fundraising - give directly to the charity. Let the facts speak 5:27 PM on July 6, 2011 I write as an individual who has both a parent and a sister die of cancer, a physician who has cared for many cancer patients and as a researcher who truly hopes to make a difference in this disease. I wish to offer a contrary view to so many who have responded. I believe the Canadian Cancer Society has done an outstanding job in the "fight against cancer" in the decades since it was created. New treatments for patients that improve survival derived from research it has funded are used in all our cancer centres, publication of annual cancer statistics, holding politicians toes to fire over tobacco control and other policies (including asbestos), countless "free" rides for thousands of cancer patients to get them to their appointments, increasing prevention and support programs...and much more. There are important facts for readers that were not conveyed in the article that has sparked these many comments. Firstly, the Cancer Society has posted its annual reports on its website for several years, including audited financial statements. (www.cancer.ca). It is found under "About Us-- Financial Statements". I found data going back to 2004 easily. Secondly, it was not evident from the CBC report, where the focus was on proportions of dollars spent, not on absolute dollars spent that: - There has been substantial increase in NET revenue for the Cancer Society to spend on ALL aspects of its work over the last 6-7 years ---including research -This has led to a substantial INCREASE in ABSOLUTE dollars spent in cancer research as well as increases in prevention, support, information and advocacy programs such as those noted above. This increase in spending across all these very important domains has happened, one presumes, because of a vigorous fundraising effort. Bottom line: more funds are being raised (and it costs more to do that), and more absolute dollars are being spent in activities that CCS has said it raised money to do (research, support, prevention). A change in proportions is not reflective of the whole picture. Finally: "management" costs for the CCS in 2010 were < 5% of gross revenue in audited financials Let us not assume that the presentation of a selected amount of data tells the entire story. I hope other reporters will investigate the full picture and present the public with a balanced view of facts. expatdude QUACK, QUACK..QUACK..
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
every time they ask me at the check-out if i want to donate to this or that cancer fund, i tell them no, thank you, cancer is a racket....words by the way that got steve mcqueen killed...just did a search and came up with a site i had not seen before... i'll have to check it out.
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~ Ben Franklin "For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~ Ben Franklin "For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
www.whale.to/a/kelley.html - a most interesting site.
Somewhere in Kenya, a village is still missing its idiot.
That's a great book. One update to it is that the cancer industry figured out how to expand their market and increase their cure rate in one step: simply diagnose people with cancer who don't have cancer, then operate, radiate, hit them with chemo, etc until they are "cured" or die from the treatment.
Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle
thanks, Lod. I first saw it a couple of years after my mother died of pancreatic cancer....made me a lot more negative on the "health" care industry than I was previously.
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
I remember that happened to the two-year-old of a woman I worked with over 25 years ago....treated him for leukemia for a year, and then said he never had it after all. It was said to be a "mistake"....do you have evidence that they do this deliberately and regularly? I would sure like to see it, not that I doubt it, but that I would love to have proof.
"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm
Hauptmann von Kopenick It gets even better when you realize that even those few research dollars are largely wasted: www.nytimes.com/2009/06/2...th/research/28cancer.html I have noticed that as a general trend in health research, to write a successful research grant you effectively must have done the research already to prove that it will 100% work. No risk taking! The only way forward is by cheating the system and using the grant money not on what you promised (because you already did that using unrelated funding), but secretly on novel research - innovation being an illicit activity. Illuminati We in the Illuminati don't want Cancer "cured" because we wouldn't make as much money as we do. There are cures for some cancers out there but those are "dangerous" and Illegal so they are attacked as Quackery. Little do the slaves know but for most part cancer is caused by something you are exposed to NOT something that just happens to you, this organization only attacks the problem after it happens, not the cause. This is the trick to centralized government protected medical industrial complex, try to stop it slaves. We are getting ready to cook most of you in radiation to save you against the terrorists we control so we are going to have plenty of bodies to experiment on to see if we can "cure" new and exciting forms of Cancer. We are going to have mobile scanners to see though your house (I am sure that is safe), through your car, at sporting events, brain scanners to detect evil intent towards us, buses, trains and of course the ones you know and love at the airports. You people are nothing but meat and we are about to fry you. -
I don't have much evidence of mistakes like that, but that the cancer industry is progressively moving to treating "pre-cancer" or other growths or conditions which clearly need the lifestyle, diet and other changes described in the book. The cases I know about personally were for cancers that didn't have any more chance of metastasizing than any other fast-growing cells. Then the problem is that the surgery and radiation does more harm than good, sometimes a lot more. The industry is happy to have these cases since they don't measure harm, only the "cure" rate which has the ridiculous definition of five years of "survival".
Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||