By Annie, Best Answer For Cancer
I ran across a very interesting piece of news recently that I want to share with you. The Susan G. Komen organization is pulling out of Arizona. Mary Budinger, an Advisory Board member who lives in Arizona, sent me two articles from the Arizona Republic newspaper which says SGK: “will close in July because of dwindling donations and event participation … 7,500 people ran in the 2016 Race for the Cure, a number significantly lower than in previous years, which at one time saw upward of 30,000 participants.” Lower participation and donations are attributed to the fact that Arizona’s weather permits many organizations to hold races and outdoor fundraising events. The executive director suggests there is simply too much competition.
Nice try, but there is much more to it than that. I’ll let Wikipedia hit some of the high points: “In 2012, Komen’s controversial attempt to withdraw funding for mammogram referrals provided by Planned Parenthood caused a significant decline in donations, event participation and public trust. The organization was further criticized for its use of donor funds, the CEO’s 64% pay raise after the significant drop in donations, its administration costs, its choice of sponsor affiliations, its role in commercial cause marketing, and its use of misleading statistics in advertising. In March 2013, Komen dropped from Charity Navigator’s highest rating of four stars down to three stars and then to two stars in 2014.”
I still remember when SGK slathered their pink on M&M candies and buckets of fried chicken—foods no cancer patient should touch—in return for sponsorship money. The organization chooses to beat the drum for annual mammograms, despite a mountain of evidence that they represent a poor early detection technology. Why not make the choice to promote some form of thermography? Why not wage a war on sugar, cancer’s favorite food? Why not come out against trans fats which we’ve known for decades to be carcinogenic? Why not give voice to the 2005 research by Environmental Working Group which detected 287 chemicals in umbilical cord blood, of which 180 are known to cause cancer in humans or animals? Or give voice to the more recent work of Dr. Thomas Seyfried? You get the idea.
Seems the American public is getting the same idea. SGK, founded in 1982, started out with a promise to find a cure for cancer. In 2016, SGK announced their “Bold Goal to reduce the current number of breast cancer deaths by 50% in the U.S. by 2026.” Given how they choose to operate, it is hard to imagine SGK could even make a small dent in the coming fatalities.
It is my opinion that so many people have had cancer now, or known family members and friends who have had cancer, that they have glimpsed the harsh realities of the cancer industry’s machinery. And SGK, advocating for the status quo, is part of that machinery. Increasingly, the public is rejecting the status quo.
So to all of you on the front lines of innovative, integrative care—keep it up. The public is waking up and rejecting the status quo. Yes, many still fall for the mainstream marketing because getting the diagnosis of cancer can scare the living daylights out you. Having some good survival statistics for alternative therapies can help people look at the options that are available.
I strongly encourage all of you to participate in one of our clinical studies to get quotable survival stats for alternative medical therapies. Write me and I’ll tell you how. I also encourage us all to amplify our messaging and let people know good options exist.
Our efforts ARE making a difference! Change IS happening!
Thank you for all you do,
Annie
