Boycott the Susan G. Komen Foundation!

[Philothea53]

Yeah, I know, but it seems like the SFK foundation is more into making a name for themselves than finding a cure for BC. I mean I remember saying this when my aunt was dying of BC. SGK was everywhere but it didn’t seem like they were anywhere we needed them.

I understand. Susan Komen’s sister, who started the foundation in her sister’s memory after she died from breast cancer, strikes me as a Cindy Sheehan type of individual. Very vocal, very visible - but not very effective.

 

[KarenNC]

(Have you seen anyone with Down Syndrome? No? The March of Dimes has seen to their destruction before birth.)

Now that is just absurd. Yes, I have seen folks with Down Syndrome. Lots of them, of all ages.

ndss.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=31&id=105&Itemid=194

I see people with lots of other disabilities as well.

Do some women have an abortion because there is a diagnosed birth defect? Yes, some do but far from all.

 

[KarenNC]

I would really like to see a break down on where this money that SGK goes to.

Well their annual reports are the first place to go.
komen.org/intradoc-cgi/idc_cgi_isapi.dll?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=494

 

[KarenNC]

You are assuming we haven’t done our research. You are also assuming we don’t try to boycott those businesses that support and promote abortion. This isn’t just a knee-jerk response.

I think it is pretty obvious that there are at least some on this board who have not done their research if they are advocating supporting other organizations that espouse the same things that lead them to call for a boycott of the initial organization.

I am saying that it is a very good idea to consider why and what you are choosing to boycott and that you aren’t blindly going to someone else who is doing the same thing or possibly worse. I am saying that it is a more intellectually defensible position to make an accurately informed decision than just jump on the bandwagon of the group that is currently yelling the loudest. This is true for supporting a cause as well as boycotting one.

You are welcome to boycott or support anyone that you so choose. If you are currently doing so based on careful research and consideration, then I see no reason to get bent out of shape when someone suggests that others do their own research as well rather than simply trust the word of someone they do not know. I would think you would welcome and encourage such advice.

 

[KarenNC]

And supporting those organizations that scream the loudest without fully checking out the facts and ignoring the evidence when it smacks you right in the face is morally reprehensible.

You have no idea who I support and who I do not. All you know is that I evidently do not jump on the bandwagon and start joining in the yelling when anyone on a forum or the internet or any other venue says I should without checking things out for myself and coming to my own conclusion. To do otherwise is gullible and naive at best, irresponsible at worst.

 

[Jennifer123]

I don’t support any of the Komen activities or buy anything that supports it as well. Until they acknowledge the research that shows evidence of how ABC and abortion cause breast cancer then IMHO they are a part of the problem.

 

[KarenNC]

I don’t support any of the Komen activities or buy anything that supports it as well. Until they acknowledge the research that shows evidence of how ABC and abortion cause breast cancer then IMHO they are a part of the problem.

On the use of oral contraceptives and breast cancer

cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives

and
komen.org/stellent/groups/harvard_group/@dallas/documents/-komen_site_documents/rfaphormones.pdf

on abortion and breast cancer
cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

and

cms.komen.org/Komen/AboutBreastCancer/BreastCancerResearch/3-8-1-19

The two would seem to be in line.

 

[Jennifer123]

On the use of oral contraceptives and breast cancer

cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives

and
komen.org/stellent/groups/harvard_group/@dallas/documents/-komen_site_documents/rfaphormones.pdf

on abortion and breast cancer
cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

and

cms.komen.org/Komen/AboutBreastCancer/BreastCancerResearch/3-8-1-19

The two would seem to be in line.

Oral Contraceptives:

abortionbreastcancer.com/abc.html

Dear Friends:

"The World Health Organization (WHO) reported in its July 29, 2005 press release that a team of scientists has determined that combined oral contraceptives (estrogen plus progestogen) and combined menopausal therapy are “carcinogenic to humans.” Menopausal therapy was formerly classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” It has been upgraded to a Group 1 classification, “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.” Oral contraceptives received the same classification.

This provides additional biological support for a link between abortion and increased breast cancer risk. All three risks involve estrogen overexposure."

noroomforcontraception.com/Articles/Contraception-Breast-Cancer.htm
“Over the past two decades, multiple analyses and studies have provided convincing evidence that using oral contraceptives increases the risk of breast cancer. (See “For Further Reading” below.) The evidence keeps mounting – separate studies published in the January 2006 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine,[2] the October 2006 edition of Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention,[3] and the October 2006 edition of Mayo Clinic Proceedings [4] confirm the increased risk.”

"The evidence puts contraception advocates in an awkward position of having to admit that the pill isn’t as safe as it presumed to be. Yet they cannot ignore the published evidence and maintain credibility, so they simply minimize the cancer risk by making it sound insignificant."

 

[Jennifer123]

On the use of oral contraceptives and breast cancer

cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives

and
komen.org/stellent/groups/harvard_group/@dallas/documents/-komen_site_documents/rfaphormones.pdf

on abortion and breast cancer
cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

and

cms.komen.org/Komen/AboutBreastCancer/BreastCancerResearch/3-8-1-19

The two would seem to be in line.

Abortion and Breast Cancer:

abortionbreastcancer.com/start/

"New Study Shows ‘Best Predictor of Breast Cancer’

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published a study yesterday entitled, “The Breast Cancer Epidemic.” It showed that, among seven risk factors, abortion is the “best predictor of breast cancer,” and fertility is also a useful predictor. [1]"

"If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated – and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells – than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy. "

"Dr. Lanfranchi declared under oath in a California lawsuit that “Over the past three or four years, I have spoken with many authorities and people in a position to be well-informed. **Some have been straightforward and said that they know it is a risk factor but felt it was ‘too political’ to speak about.” **She explained that she’d discussed the research with many physicians and encouraged them to get reproductive histories from their patients. Among those who have, they’ve “found as I did that … cases of breast cancer in young women are associated with an abortion history.” [Agnes Bernardo, Pamela Colip, and Saundra Duffy-Hawkins v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties; Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, August 15, 2001] "

The parts I bolded in the quotes of the two posts center around the same thing - the abortion/ABC link to breast cancer is too political to be acknowledged. We are being lied to and falling ill because the ideology of the COD ranks higher than women’s care and health. That is a terrible tragedy.

 

[urban-hermit]

Now that is just absurd. Yes, I have seen folks with Down Syndrome. Lots of them, of all ages.

ndss.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=31&id=105&Itemid=194

I see people with lots of other disabilities as well.

Do some women have an abortion because there is a diagnosed birth defect? Yes, some do but far from all.

About 90 percent of pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion.

SOURCE: nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html

 

[urban-hermit]

Want to support productive research? Here are some ideas about where you can send those hard-earned dollars that the Susan G. Komen Foundation does not deserve:

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
bcpinstitute.org/

Polycarp Research Institute
polycarp.org/

Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer
abortionbreastcancer.com/abc.html

 

[TraditionalCath]

let me ask this,

in canada, we also have those pink ribbon thingies on our products in the store as well. are these also related to the susan komen foundation? or is ours something else? oh, and just so you know, since i found out about this pink ribbon thingy from another thread here, i haven’t bought any pink ribbon products at all. i didn’t even know where the money was going until i saw it here. so is this pink ribbon thingy in canada going to that foundation too?

 

[KarenNC]

Want to support productive research? Here are some ideas about where you can send those hard-earned dollars that the Susan G. Komen Foundation does not deserve:

Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
bcpinstitute.org/

Well, their homepage says that breast cancer is increasing, the CDC says it’s decreasing…

“Over the last thirty years, while most major cancers have started to decline, breast cancer incidence in the US has increased by an alarming 40%…”

cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5622a1.htm

“Age-adjusted annual incidence rates for invasive breast cancer decreased each year from 1999 to 2003, with the greatest decrease in rates occurring from 2002 to 2003 (Table). The rate from 2002 to 2003 decreased 6.1%, with a significant decrease occurring for all women aged >50 years. The largest decrease (9.1%) occurred among women aged 60–69 years. For in situ cancers, rates increased each year from 1999 to 2002 and then decreased from 2002 to 2003, although the percentage decrease (2.7%) was smaller than that for invasive cancers (6.1%). Women aged 50–79 years experienced a significant decrease in incidence rates of in situ breast cancer from 2002 to 2003.”

This sort of thing makes me very skeptical of the spin they may choose to put on other information.

I have read the material from these groups and the biggest piece of information that I get from them is that early pregnancy is something greatly to be desired, as early as possible, preferably as a teenager, so that you reduce your risk of breast cancer. Given all the other issues involved with teen pregnancy, out of wedlock childbearing and the age at which most Americans marry (25 for women), I am not sure that is the best message to be putting out there and emphasizing.

 

[TraditionalCath]

i phoned our local breast cancer foundation here, and apparently, none of the profits here bought by products in the stores are going to the susan g komen foundation. ours are strictly going to the canadian breast cancer foundation, not the susan g komen foundation. so that is a huge relief!

 

[Bennie_P]

i phoned our local breast cancer foundation here, and apparently, none of the profits here bought by products in the stores are going to the susan g komen foundation. ours are strictly going to the canadian breast cancer foundation, not the susan g komen foundation. so that is a huge relief!

What you did is part of the purpose of this thread is to get people to think and research what they choose to support. Our society is full of contradictions and half truths. Komen foundation is a good example on how a family tried to do something good and it turns out they may be contributing to the enemy in which they oppose. Those which are intrinsically evil, such as Planned Parenthood, attempt to cover up their evil by tying in with what appears to be good, such as the Komen foundation. Our job is to search for the truth, spread the truth and find alternatives which do good without compromise.
And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light. 2Co 11:14

 

[MHalsey]

Well, their homepage says that breast cancer is increasing, the CDC says it’s decreasing…

“Over the last thirty years, while most major cancers have started to decline, breast cancer incidence in the US has increased by an alarming 40%…”

cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5622a1.htm

“Age-adjusted annual incidence rates for invasive breast cancer decreased each year from 1999 to 2003, with the greatest decrease in rates occurring from 2002 to 2003 (Table). The rate from 2002 to 2003 decreased 6.1%, with a significant decrease occurring for all women aged >50 years. The largest decrease (9.1%) occurred among women aged 60–69 years. For in situ cancers, rates increased each year from 1999 to 2002 and then decreased from 2002 to 2003, although the percentage decrease (2.7%) was smaller than that for invasive cancers (6.1%). Women aged 50–79 years experienced a significant decrease in incidence rates of in situ breast cancer from 2002 to 2003.”

This sort of thing makes me very skeptical of the spin they may choose to put on other information.

I have read the material from these groups and the biggest piece of information that I get from them is that early pregnancy is something greatly to be desired, as early as possible, preferably as a teenager, so that you reduce your risk of breast cancer. Given all the other issues involved with teen pregnancy, out of wedlock childbearing and the age at which most Americans marry (25 for women), I am not sure that is the best message to be putting out there and emphasizing.

Not to poke holes or anything, but comparing statistics covering 30 years to statistics from the last 8 years can be misleading. All this proves to me is that there have been some great leaps in cancer research over the last decade. One does not disprove the other.

 

[Klydewannab]

I think what bothers me most about the “pink ribbon thingys” you see everywhere is that they are nearly impossible to avoid. If I want to give to the American Cancer Society, the Polycarp Institute, or some other charity, I can write a check.

Now, I try to avoid anything with a pink ribbon, but not all pink ribbon products are connected to SGK. But, I don’t have time to research every one. Plus, my choice of products keeps getting more and more narrow. And, there are a lot of people donating by purchasing those products, who, if they were informed, would choose not to.

I just think all these pink products are an unjust way of trying to earn money for a charity.

 

[KarenNC]

Not to poke holes or anything, but comparing statistics covering 30 years to statistics from the last 8 years can be misleading. All this proves to me is that there have been some great leaps in cancer research over the last decade. One does not disprove the other.

Ignoring the statistics from the last 8 years for one group while including them for others is also misleading. If it were the case that other cancers had been declining for 30 years, that would be a different matter. That is not the case.

cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r990420.htm

What I was seeing is that they were pretty definitely not including breast cancer in that “starting to decline” group because it did not suit their goals of making the problem look as bad as possible, when the statistics support the opposite. I felt the presentation was very misleading.

pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1251638 is a quite interesting paper by a medical historian on the course of this

“Breast Cancer and the Politics of Abortion in the United States”

 

[KarenNC]

I think what bothers me most about the “pink ribbon thingys” you see everywhere is that they are nearly impossible to avoid. If I want to give to the American Cancer Society, the Polycarp Institute, or some other charity, I can write a check.

Now, I try to avoid anything with a pink ribbon, but not all pink ribbon products are connected to SGK. But, I don’t have time to research every one. Plus, my choice of products keeps getting more and more narrow. And, there are a lot of people donating by purchasing those products, who, if they were informed, would choose not to.

I just think all these pink products are an unjust way of trying to earn money for a charity.

Interesting. I have not noticed any lack of products in every category I can think of that do not include the pink ribbon. All the products I have seen offered with the pink ribbon or in a pink edition are simply different packagings of products that are also still available in their regular format. The vast majority of the products that are in the pink ribbon/pink packaging that I have seen are also not things that I would normally consider to be so essential to be purchased immediately that I must buy whatever brand is available without the ability to look elsewhere if I considered the pink products a problem.

For instance, I have not shopped with any particular attention to intentionally either buying or avoiding things with the pink ribbon connection this month. I think I might have ended up with one can of soup that happened to have the pink label and perhaps a couple of cups of yogurt, and there were certainly readily available alternatives to those located on the same shelf (often at a lower price).

Which particular products have you come across for which an alternative (particularly of the same product by the same manufacturer) was not readily available?

thinkbeforeyoupink.org/Pages/ParadeOfPink.html gives a list of some of the items and the particular breast cancer group that receives the proceeds from that particular item, if that helps you.

 

[KarenNC]

i phoned our local breast cancer foundation here, and apparently, none of the profits here bought by products in the stores are going to the susan g komen foundation. ours are strictly going to the canadian breast cancer foundation, not the susan g komen foundation. so that is a huge relief!

Kudos to you for checking. Now, did you also check that you are in agreement with the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation? Their website (cbcf.org/breastcancer/bc_risk_er.html) gives a link to the Canadian Cancer Encyclopedia page listing known risk factors associated with increased risk of breast cancer as well as several factors that are known not to increase risk. Abortion is listed on the “known not to increase risk” list.
info.cancer.ca/E/CCE/CCEDetails.asp?redirect=1&id=185&site=Breast%20Cancer&lang=E&name=/CIS/E/CCE/HTML/10_185.html

I will leave it up to others to determine if this group has funded any activities or groups that are considered inappropriate or controversial.