I Will Not Be Pinkwashed: Why I Do Not Support Susan G. Komen for the Cure


Pinkwashing America

It’s October.

And that means, it’s prime pink season. It’s national “Breast Cancer Awareness Month.”

It’s that magical time of the year when shades of pale pink are plastered onto every product, every container, every conceivable gadget or gizmo that the Susan G. Komen Foundation can get their hands on.

When that iconic symbol of overlapped ribbon is supposed to adorn every man, woman, and child who ever had a mother, grandmother, sister, daughter, niece or aunt who faced the horrifying struggle of breast cancer.

But I am not buying it.

Susan G. Komen: For Cure or Con?

Susan G. Komen for the Cure is a multi-million-dollar company with assets totaling over $390 million dollars. Only 20.9% of these funds were reportedly used in the 2009-2010 fiscal year for research, “for the cure.” Where does the rest of the money go? Let’s have a look. As you can see, the largest chunk of the pie is going toward “Public Health Education.” More on that later, but for now I’d like to take a look at the millions spent on “administrative costs.”

Show Me the Money

Here is a section from Susan G. Komen’s Form 990 from 2008 showing the salaries of some of their highest-paid employees. I’ve included the heading of the page to show what the numbers in the columns represent, but cut out the board members listed as having no salary. Er, “Reportable” salary…

Note the dates of employment for some of the lesser-paid employees. Gary Dicovitsky, VP Development, for example, was paid $95,291 (plus $2,746) only from 10/08 to 3/09.

Gary must have gotten a promotion since then, though. Because while it still lists his position as VP Development from 10/08 – 3/09, his salary from 2009 was $417,109. Oh, plus $18,091 in change.

I don’t know about you, but I would never expect directors of a charitable “non-profit” organization to have a higher salary than most doctors, lawyers, or even politicians.

Screenshot from their 2009 Form 990, straight from Komen.org:

Curiously, these were the only employees listed in this type of form, similar to the 2008 one. Other employees were not listed with their position title.

In all, about 11% of Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s annual revenue goes toward employee salaries. And that adds up to a lot of money. But what about the rest?

“Public Health Education”

Is this really making a difference?

The area in which Komen spends the highest percentage of funds is in “public health education,” in other words, bringing awareness to the population of the disease itself and the importance of screening for early detection of breast cancer. While that may be considered a worthwhile goal to some, it’s important to realize that Komen stands to profit off of spreading that message.

They admit to about 10% of funds used for “fundraising,” but let’s be honest, the pink-ribbon-plastered “awareness” and”education” campaigns are often little more than a highly effective form of advertising — which in turn, brings in Komen’s millions. In other words, a way to raise funds, for themselves, while getting a pat on the back for their efforts to “save lives.”

One thing that doesn’t quite compute with me is how Komen’s mission of finding a “cure” — after all, that is their name — is congruent with putting over half their money toward promoting awareness and screening, for early detection of breast cancer. It’s not curing breast cancer to be aware that you could get it, nor is finding out that you have cancer and treating it in the early stages in hopes of entering into remission. That’s not a cure. Yet that is Komen’s largest promoted focus.

So what do they do to accomplish their mission of finding a cure for breast cancer?

"Promise Me" perfume, plugged by Komen to fund their cause, contains known, potent carcinogens so dangerous, they are banned by the International Fragrance Association.

“Promise Me” perfume, plugged by Komen to fund their cause, contains known, potent carcinogens so dangerous, they are banned by the International Fragrance Association.

Research “for the Cure”

The first thing that pops into my mind when I think of a charity giant such as Komen funding research to prevent disease, is pouring money into Big Pharma’s pocketbook. After all, our only hope of a cure for cancer is that magical drug or vaccine that pharmaceutical corporations will one day rescue us all with, right?

Of course not.

But the reality that research in the conventional medical world is put toward, well, conventional medicine (allopathic drugs) remains. For me, this begs the question — where exactly does your research funding go, Komen?

SGK had the following to say regarding accusations that their organization funds pharmaceutical research:

“It’s been reported that Susan G. Komen for the Cure provides funding to pharmaceutical companies.  That is simply not true.  We have never funded pharmaceutical company research – our grants, totaling $450 million, have gone to research institutions in the U.S. and abroad.” – Susan G. Komen for the Cure

Ohh… okay. So you would never provide funding to pharmaceutical companies that sell disease-promoting, toxic chemical drugs to cancer patients.

But take their money? Sure!

“The Komen Foundation owns stock in General Electric, one of the largest makers of mammogram machines in the world. It also owns stock in several pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca (now AzkoNobel).

AstraZeneca has long been a Komen booster, making educational grants to Komen and having a visible presence at the Race For the Cure. At the 1998 Food and Drug Administration hearings, the Komen Foundation was the only national breast cancer group to endorse the AstraZeneca cancer treatment drug tamoxifen as a prevention device for healthy but high-risk women, despite vehement opposition by most other breast cancer groups because of its links to uterine cancer.

The organization’s biggest sponsors are — surprise! — the corporations that profit from cancer through chemotherapy and radiation. To them, Komen for the Cure isn’t really about finding a cure for cancer; it’s about promoting cancer so that they can sell more drugs and radiotherapy that keeps more patients locked into a cycle of dependence on toxic cancer treatments.” -Well put, Natural News.

(Did you catch that bit about poisoning healthy women with the carcinogenic cancer drug, Tamoxifen, as a preventative measure? Yeah. Moving on…)

Susan G. Komen does indeed provide millions of dollars to fund research — but what exactly are they researching with those grants? One blogger diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer who had serious doubts of the intentions of the Komen foundation, dug through the research grants herself, and found the following information about how Komen’s research money is spent:

Now, of those categories being researched, which sound like they are actually focused on curing breast cancer?

Early detection? No.

Prevention? No.

Treatment? No. (that would be drugs used to treat symptoms.)

The only conceivable categories related to finding a cure for the cancer being researched would be etiology (the study of causation), survivorship, model systems, and biology.

So to break it down even further, Susan G. Komen for the Cure only spends a possible 53% of it’s research funding for a cure, or — about 11% of total revenue. Donate a dollar “for the cure?” Only about a dime of that will go toward research that might actually be designed to cure cancer, through allopathic medicine that is driven by the pharmaceutical system.

Think Before You Pink” **

Incredibly, this actually happened.

Komen receives over $55 million dollars in annual revenue from corporate sponsorships, from such health-minded companies as Coca Cola, General Mills, and KFC — that’s right — the fast food joint contributing to American society with buckets of diseased and tortured birds fried in genetically modified toxins. Buy a bucket of junk food, and pretend as though you’re helping to save lives while you slowly take your own!

Pink ribbon products are everywhere. But how much good is it really doing to support the fight against breast cancer by purchasing them?

As it turns out, not much.

If only about a dime of every dollar is spent on research for a cure, then just imagine how miniscule of a contribution is being made for that cause when such a small portion of the pink proceeds go toward Komen as a whole.

“It’s rarely more than a penny on the dollar,” said Trent Stamp, executive director of Charity Navigator, a charity watchdog group. “It’s just great advertising.”

Pinkwashers are clearly not just in it for the noble cause. The companies that sell these products are well aware that promoting themselves as supporters of breast cancer awareness leads to better public perception and increased profits.

Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy  explains that, “The makers of some pink products donate proceeds only for a limited time. These products may command a higher price tag, and sometimes they will remain on sale after the donation period ends — even with the higher price.”(L.A. Times)

In addition to limiting the amount of time that portions of pinkwashed proceeds will be donated, product manufacturers also usually put a cap on the total amount of money that will be donated. If that limit has already been reached by the time you buy your pink product, your purchase isn’t contributing a thing. But the company sponsoring Komen continues to proudly sport the pink persuasion anyway, in hopes that you’ll buy into it.

**The Breast Cancer Action organization has created a project to educate consumers about the deceitfulness of pinkwashing, or cause marketing of pink ribbon products. They promote awareness of this issue with the Think Before You Pink campaign, aimed especially at highlighting the pink products which themselves are cancer-causing or dangerous to your health, such as toxic cosmetics, rBGH-laced dairy products, and air-polluting cars. The BCA is doing great work toward fighting the pinkwashing scam and is actually a breast cancer organization I believe should be supported, if any!

Bullies “For the Cure”

Did you know that Susan G. Komen for the Cure spends nearly a million dollars annually suing small charities over the use of the word “cure” in their charitable endeavors? Komen’s general counsel, Jonathan Blum, had the following to say regarding a legal battle of Komen’s which threatened to shut down a small lung cancer organization for the use of the word “cure” in their name:

“We see it as responsible stewardship of our donor’s funds.”



Cause when I donate money to a charity, I expect them to use it to dismantle other charities that don’t have millions of dollars to spend on harassing others. Thanks so much for being a good steward of my donations, SGK.

Do we really need breast cancer awareness anyway?

In my not-so-humble opinion, cancer “awareness” is a ridiculous goal invented by deceitful organizations such as SGK to profit off of the American public — make sure you’re “aware” that you could potentially get breast cancer! So that you can go and get yearly mammograms that cause cancer (and make lots of money for us!), then once you get it, you can come right back for unbelievably expensive and toxic treatments that will only keep you alive long enough to squeeze out from you every last penny that you’re worth!!

Sorry. This stuff really bothers me.

The only thing I would advocate as far as the “awareness” train goes would be the importance of self breast exams. Obviously, you should always be looking out for changes in your body that might signal illness. But if I were to discover anything suspicious, I would be very, very careful about just who I put my potentially ill body in the hands of — I certainly would not want a conventional doctor to swoop in like a vulture and push a bunch of dangerous and nonsensical “treatments” down my throat that will only make me sicker and cause me to live miserably.

STOP the lies — there already are cures for cancer.

Breast cancer, along with other cancers, are being treated and cured successfully every day with alternative therapies, and have been for quite some time. But do big corporations and organizations like Susan G. Komen stand to profit off of those treatments? Of course not. So we aren’t hearing about them!

I’ll soon be sharing some of the more successful holistic, alternative cancer treatments (hint: most of them are centered around real food NUTRITION!) that have been curing patients without a single dose of chemotherapy or radiation. Or a pinkwashed product!

But even modern advancements in safe and effective cancer cures are being found — and thwarted by the FDA and the pharmaceutical giants (in which Komen has monetary stock, remember?) which support such government agencies.

I strongly encourage everyone to watch the documentary film, Burzynski the Movie: Cancer is Serious Business, for an incredibly eye-opening look into what happens when cancer cures are actually found (their creators are faced with a prison sentence!). The film documents the work of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, a medical doctor and Ph.D. biochemist who has discovered the genetic mechanism that can cure most human cancers. For a limited time, you can actually watch the film in its entirety online for free. Do it!

Prevention is the best cure

More importantly, what the medical establishment fails to recognize is that cancer is largely preventable. And Susan G. Komen for the Cure is no exception to such ignorance. There are no mentions of eating healthy foods, getting proper levels of cancer-preventing Vitamin D, or other factors such as breastfeeding, in any of their “public health education” efforts. Even though these are scientifically proven ways to prevent cancer.

This is not the way to fight breast cancer!

No. We are simply told to accept that our likelihood of getting breast cancer amounts to little more than a genetic rolling of the dice. So we must continue to “hope” for a cure, in case the die are cast unfavorably against us.

The harsh reality is that Susan G. Komen for the Cure is a major player in the multi-billion dollar industry that is cancer. If a cure for cancer is found (or acknowledged), the industry would collapse, and those billions won’t be made anymore.

You’re free to draw your own conclusions, but as for me, I don’t believe that Susan G. Komen’s mission is truly “for the cure.”


What are your thoughts on Susan G. Komen for the Cure? How would you like to see breast cancer awareness changed in this country? What’s the message we really ought to be spreading about this deadly disease?




PAID ENDORSEMENT DISCLOSURE: I may receive monetary compensation or other types of remuneration for my endorsement, recommendation, testimonial and/or link to any products or services from this blog, including Amazon.com links. I only recommend products I genuinely love, and that I believe would be of value to my readers. Thank you for your support!

MEDICAL DISCLOSURE: Your health is between you and your health care practitioner. Nothing in this blog is intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of recommendations is at the choice and risk of the reader.

580 Responses to I Will Not Be Pinkwashed: Why I Do Not Support Susan G. Komen for the Cure
  1. Jen says:

    Great post! Kudos to you for putting it out there. I already didn’t support Komen because of their heavy donations to Planned Parenthood – which does lots of abortions and hands out contraception like candy – both of which have been shown over and over to dramatically increase the rates of breast cancer, amongst other types of cancer. That alone turned me off. Why would you say you are wanting to reduce cancer, and giving lots of donations to an organization that increases it?

    All these other details only throw further light on how distorted this organization is.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Thank you, Jen. Komen swears up and down that their funding for Planned Parenthood goes strictly toward mammograms and exams (though I have my doubts that that is the case), but even if that were true, I agree that it should not be supported by a breast cancer foundation like SGK. The relationship between the two organizations seems inappropriate overall.

      • Kara says:

        Not one Planned Parenthood actually does mammograms. They just refer out. What do thy need all that money for? They don’t. SGK is a disgusting foundation, profiting off a horrible disease. Shame on them

        • Heather says:

          Planned Parenthood also begs support as a provider of essential services for low income women. I called inquiring about an exam and they wanted $168. My regular doctor would charge me less for an out of pocket exam. Taking advantage of women who may not know any better? Probably. I can’t imagine a low income woman having a spare $168 laying around. Sgk and pp =1 partnership I will be steering clear of.

          • Rachael says:

            Planned Parenthood actually does provide low cost and free services to low income women. I got lots of free services as a teen with meager disposable income and am grateful for their assistance. Maybe you need to reexamine how much you make. If you have a regular doctor, you probably aren’t all that low income (and thus, should be getting your exams from – surprise! – your doctor).

            • Sabra says:

              I had no job and was 16 and they too charged me $168 for an exam.

            • Jane says:

              They wanted to charge me $50 for a pregnancy test without even asking about my income. I left and went to a low cost clinic that does them for free.

            • Dee says:

              I’m with you Rachael. Planned Parenthood does help low-income men and women with their health services. College students, who cannot afford birth control can get their help made affordable to them. For anyone who says they should put an aspirin between their legs, you are living in the dark ages. Nobody should be shamed for having natural feelings, and desires, but actually being responsible enough to get birth control to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. I quit donating to the SGK when they made such a big deal about PP, which is helping a lot of people. Pro-choice includes Pro-Life people. I also believe if we are to call ourselves a free country, then you have to protect freedom. You do not have to agree/like/ the freedom you are protecting. You must Protect freedom.

          • MollyT says:

            Planned Parenthood has always operated on a sliding scale fee basis. Many women receive services free or at greatly reduced cost. I have paid as little as $5.00 for a gyn exam and birth control counseling. These days if I went to PP I would expect to pay the highest rate.

            • FrugalCat says:

              Planned Parenthood recently told me their contraceptive “counseling” (no exam, I assume it was a volunteer who would tell you to take the pill at the same time every day) was on a sliding scale from $85 to $95. Not a big slide there, huh? $85 for basically nothing! Plus the cost of the cancer promoting pills. Try a county health clinic or something. Better yet, buy a box of condoms at Target or the supermarket (generally half the price of drugstores.

            • Tara says:

              I had been going to PP in Boston for a while and received both excellent care and the sliding scale for being uninsured, and let me tell you, it was great. Now, I just moved to Florida and expected the same from their Orlando office and was told that they don’t do sliding scale there… I was treated horribly, and I waited for 3 hours even when I’d made an appointment. I didn’t know how good I had it in Boston. 🙁

            • Anna says:

              Most planned parenthood places have lost their funding due to the republicans pushing there agendas and cutting back funding for it. I used to pay nothing because I am in college, only able to work part time and thus have no insurance. I had to pay around $100 for each depo shot I got.

        • Kendra says:

          They do give a breast exam with an annual exam on a sliding cost scale based on your income. I know this first hand because I have gone to them for all of my repro health needs from puberty on. Even during times when I had insurance, I have preferred to go to my local PP for annual exams. I have received great repro health care there.

        • Tera Powers says:

          This is inaccurate. Some PPs do mammograms onsite. Others refer out and pay for the procedure at the imaging center using vouchers backed by either Komen or PP funding.

      • seakat says:

        Umm, sorry, but mammograms don’t count as a cure either. Mammograms could very likely be a cause.

        • carmen says:

          Yes I’ve heard that to be true.

        • Josefina says:

          Not ‘could’ very likely be the cause, but has indeed been proven to significantly contribute to breast cancer susceptibility. Dr Gofman has some interesting data on that (suggesting that 75% of all breast cancer cases have been at least partially caused by medical x-rays). His data has not been refuted, only criticized for scaring women away from getting x-rays.

          I’ve checked current average glandular dose and it’s higher than what’s quoted in this paper which was published over 15 years ago (average of 1.73 mGy compared to 1 mGy). Shouldn’t it have decreased since these findings? I mean, if anyone was concerned about radiation/cancer causation. It just makes me sick.

          • Lauren says:

            I did a quick check of actual scientific literature (note: Beware of books. They are not peer-reviewed and therefore the author often takes more liberty with their interpretations of scientific results, which are often the research of others). I found a paper that confirms that high dose radiation (for cancer therapy, or diagnosis of TB or pneumonia) DOES raise the risk for breast cancer BUT not normal diagnostic chest X-rays.

            I was surprised because this claim sounds pretty out there to me (that breast cancer is caused by normal medical x-rays). I think with the low incidence of radiation therapy and TB, and slightly more common pneumonia makes it highly unlikely that 75% of breast cancers are caused in any part by medical x-rays. How many people do you know with breast cancer that had TB, were hospitalized for pneumonia or had radiation for a previous cancer treatment? I’ll bet not 3 out of 4.

            Source: John, E. M., Phipps, A. I., Knight, J. A., Milne, R. L., Dite, G. S., Hopper, J. L., Andrulis, I. L., Southey, M., Giles, G. G., West, D. W. and Whittemore, A. S. (2007), Medical radiation exposure and breast cancer risk: Findings from the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Int. J. Cancer, 121: 386–394. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22668

      • helsabot says:

        I heartily approve of your thorough research into the reality of Komen’s “charity” work. Outdoor Magazine did a recent similar expose on Lance Armstrong & LiveStrong, if that interests you. Both are enormously successful organizations that spend far more money on salaries and branding than research.

        However, the World Health Organization, American Cancer Society, American Medical Association, National Cancer Institute, and American (US) & Royal (UK) Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all agree that abortion does NOT cause breast cancer. It is a well-established fact supported by extensive studies spanning several continents and at least two decades. It may be a convenient reason to oppose reproductive rights, but it’s false. Please stop spreading it around.

        • Kendra says:

          Thank you for offering more information into the debate. I appreciate people who bring resources with their statements. Kudos!

        • Jeanmarie says:

          Amen on all points, helsabot!

          • Anna Gambucci says:

            Thank you for keeping the conversation medically true. I really appreciate this clarification, because this conversation was feeling stressful and confusing. Thank you again.

        • Teel says:

          I do not believe this article said that abortions cause breast cancer, it said that PP gives out birth control, which in turn has been linked to cancer. On another note, it is well known that pharmaceutical companies want to keep us sick so they make more money. All allopathic medicines are based off homeopathic medicines, we need to get back to the root and only use true homeopathic meds and knock the pharmaceutical companies out of here.

          • helsabot says:

            The blog owner said the following in her first comment on this post: ” I agree that because PP provides those things which can increase breast cancer risk, it should not be supported by a breast cancer foundation like SGK.” I was responding to that comment. To be fair, most of the organizations I listed also agree that oral contraceptives can increase breast cancer risk, though they decrease risk for ovarian cancer.

            All in all there are very convincing arguments for both sides of the debate, so it shouldn’t be necessary to misrepresent or hide facts. Overall I think ButterBeliever did a great job making clear that SGK is not what it seems to be, and that those of us concerned about breast cancer should look elsewhere for charity. “Pinkwashing” does a lot of bad things for breast cancer – another which is rarely discussed is stigmatizing and dismissing male breast cancer victims.

            • ButterBeliever says:

              I had not intended to support the abortion link with my statement. Apologies for the confusion. I think the relationship between the two organizations is inappropriate, but I don’t think it’s fair to go after PP for the supposed abortion-BC link when it’s unproven, and that was not my intention. I edited my comment for clarification.

      • Aneta says:

        I’m not a Komen supporter, and never have been. IMO, Komen uses cancer to raise money for itself and lobbying on behalf of big pharma, etc. But setting that aside, why are women who purportedly care about breast cancer (specifically) attacking Planned Parenthood? If your beef with PP is abortion, come out and say “I don’t believe cancer research or prevention money should go to pro-choice organizations or women”. That’s what Komen did when it stopped funding PP – it clearly said one of its agendas is anti-choice. PP teaches women (including myself) how to do breast exams. PP conducts breast exams. When I went to PP, I paid $30 a visit and $10 for pills. THE RISKS OF THE PILL WERE CLEARLY EXPLAINED TO ME and it was MY CHOICE TO USE THEM. I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. PP’s services (breast cancer screening, pap smears, etc) save lives. And if you think that’s not important because 3% of their services are abortion related — well, I think you’ve made your opinion known — only the lives of those that agree with you matter to you.

        • Tiffany Hardesty says:

          Aneta, you nailed it. I have always found PP a place to go when there was no money, I was too young and scared to go to my family doctor, and I needed information.

        • Jennifer says:

          PP services are minimal care……. you do not understand that you are elevating their services beyond what they actually offer, and they expect their clientele to not realize they are getting substandard care. But, you also need to realize that there are ways to get healthcare for women outside of PP. There are alternative resources available. Also, you obviously don’t realize how huge of an industry abortion is for PP… it is their chief money-maker.

          • James Floyd says:

            Will you please attach a verification from a reliable source of the information that you are posting? For example how huge is is the industry of abortion that PP provides, how many abortions are provided by PP.
            What facts can you produce to prove that PP is giving substandard care?
            Will you list the other sources of healthcare for under privileged women, that you mention in your post?
            How much money is made from abortions at PP?
            Thank You in advance for this verified Information?

          • Kaitie Falk says:

            I am not sure that the article is implying abortions causes Cancer. I read it to imply that contraceptives may be the cause. I could be wrong.

            @Jennifer. I don’t believe your statements are accurate. I looked on FactCheck.org and other places. I will provide the direct links.

            I looked and I couldn’t find any studies or surveys that show Planned parenthood gives substandard care. If you find one with numbers please respond.

            As far as other alternatives, that heavily depends on where you live and how much money you make. Here is a website that will search for more affordable women’s health services http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/Search_HCC.aspx?byCounty=0&unbrand=. The first place I searched was near where I live. The first link I chose had a lot of great options like payment plans and some sliding scale but it doesn’t quite compete with the ease and free testing and discounted visits; It also doesn’t provide inexpensive Birth Control.

            Abortion makes up only 3% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood. Not a significant portion and therefore not a huge industry. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

            Planned Parenthood isn’t really a money maker as they are non profit. 72% of their income in 2011 went to health services. It should be noted that no government funds can pay for the small percentage of abortions performed. So again it isn’t making them big money. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/shasta-pacific/images/Shasta-Pacific/PPSP_Annual_Rept._2010-2011__LR_FINAL.pdf page 10

      • CARMEL says:

        Planned Parenthood does not even do mammograms, all they do is refer patients to clinics.

    • First I have to say thank you Jen, I subscribe to “A Misplaced Trust” And I received the email to your post that linked me here. Second Emily, WOW this post is perfect. I can only imagine the work you put in to share these facts with us. I am going to join Jen and post an excerpt of this and link my readers here. I have written about alternative cancer treatments. I have gotten a little controversial mentioning the FDA and big pharma. For national breast cancer month I wrote a post on metabolic therapy and included a piece of a phone conversation that I had with abreast cancer survivor that abandoned chemo for natural treatment. She told me this was a result of her following the money. And suggested that anyone with cancer should follow the money before making any decisions. I am going to email her and let her know about this post thank you again. Everyone here that has a blog please join us in our “Alimentary Tuesdays Blog Carnival”

    • nancy drew says:

      you forget that planned parenthood has had their budget cut so dramatically they can’t even give out the non-hormonal birth control. not even so much as a free condom due to the budget cuts.

      • Gregg says:

        um, Yay!

        • nancy drew says:

          facetious yay or what? it would not be crazy to extrapolate that less condom use among the low income will lead to more abortions so i don’t get the beef with planned parenthood…

          • Heather says:

            Outfits that are fishing for more tax dollars, whether they be government agencies or “private” ones that are largely tax-supported, will ALWAYS _choose_ to make cuts in the places that will most obviously hurt the people they are supposed to be serving, rather than trimming actual fat out of administration or cutting back on waste elsewhere. Planned Parenthood could look for more private donations, reduce some 6-figure admin salaries, etc. But no longer having a free condom basket on the clinic counters will cause people to scream loudest and pressure their Congresscretins to give them more of other people’s money. By the same token, a school district that wants more money will cut the art & music programs, while all the paper pushers in the district office, many of whose positions could be eliminated without the district being any worse run, get raises. Or state governments close state parks, rather than saving millions by figuring out where they need to modernize and become more efficient & doing so. Look behind the sob story & find out what’s really going on.

          • Keri says:

            Agreed. It is unfortunate when organizations are targeted because they don’t provide the “best” options (i.e. non-hormonal birth control), but they can’t provide those options when federal and state funding sources have been cut. Planned Parenthood provides free or very cheap services to those who qualify, but they can only provide those services if they receive the necessary funding to support those services.

          • Diane says:

            Actually, increased access to birth control and condoms leads to an increase in abortions. These items that are meant to prevent unplanned pregnancies often fail (condoms break 20% of time, birth control pills that are not taken at the same time every day are much less effective). However, those who are using these methods of birth control become more sexually active. That is why PP is so generous in handing out these items, because it increases the true money making side of their business — abortion.

            • Carolina says:

              I’m going to need you to cite this from a reputable source, because it is utter manure.

              • Ally says:

                Condoms break 20% of the time? Where did you get this information? It is very important that you cite correct facts to keep the information legitimate and therefore useful. Using false information to prove a point that is influenced by personal opinion is not effective for anyone. Please be more responsible in sharing information, for the good of all the women who read this and/or who may be affected.

                • Sarah says:

                  I have no knowledge as to whether birth control or condom usage leads to high sexual encounters per say, but actually my OB once told me condoms are only 80% effective (hence break/dont work 20% of the time) granted you only have my word that my doctor told me that (and I will add she may have wanted me on bc because she probably got more money from big pharma that way-so she could have been lying) but why wouldn’t you make the number higher then? Plus jokes on her, I walked out of the office and used NFP instead-more reliable-more natural-less risk (if you do it right, of course) Sorry that I have no link, since that is important to you, but if that is a myth then it is being perpetuated by doctors and is being used to encourage hormonal bc.

            • Heidi says:

              Oh my… another case of parroting incorrect data. Please post facts not fantasy.

            • Jessica R. says:

              Not sure where the statistic of condoms being uneffective 20% of the time comes from. I used condoms as my only form of BC for 10 years and never had one break/not work.

      • Tammy nelson says:

        As they should have their budget cut. Sex is a recreational activity and if your going to participate you should pay for It yourself

    • Molly says:

      Thanks so much for this blog! I’ve been wary of the Komen foundation for a while based on its lack of focus on actually seeking a cure. Your research was very helpful and I’m so glad you shared it.

      I want to chime in about cancer screening and Planned Parenthood. I respectfully want to mention that PP does provide essential services to women such as PAP smears (cancer screening), breast exams (I’m unfamiliar w/ the mammogram controversy, but they do check for lumps as you’d expect with a health exam) and testing for sexually transmitted diseases including HPV (also related to cancer) and HIV. Birth control services include basic things like condoms and IUDs, not just the pill.

      Lastly, I was surprised to see how quickly people chimed in with the assumption that Planned Parenthood’s main function is to provide abortions. Depending on how you calculate, 3-10% of all their services are abortion-related and no federal funding can go to abortions. It makes sense to me that the Komen foundation would restrict their support to just screening and health services. I’m having trouble understanding why their funding of PP-provided screening is the first reaction out of the gate, and repeated so often in the comments. (http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/)

      • Shannon says:

        well said molly. in my opinion, you’re completely justified in your mystification. i’m not sure why PP was attacked out of the gate either…or what abortions have to with SGK or breast cancer.

        • Bethany says:

          Research has shown that having an abortion AND using the birth control pill (which is an abortificant by the way) increase the risk of breast cancer … hence the tie in!
          And the way PP can tout the 3-10% (rather large percentage span huh?) is because the morning after pill and the birth control pill aren’t considered “abortions” even though their chemical purpose is to dispose of a perfectly newly-conceived child … they just do it before anyone “knows about it” so that makes it OK … right?

          • Kirsten says:

            Perfectly well said, Bethany.

          • Susan says:

            Actually, there is no scientific proof that birth control pills “dispose of a perfectly newly-conceived child.” That is just hype.

            • Sam says:

              Actually estrogen based birth control interrupts the union of sperm and the egg, therefore
              an embryo is not made-hence no potential baby. Now progesterone based birth control does not
              stop the union of sperm and egg- so a potential baby is formed- instead it changes the lining
              of the uterus so the embryo cannot attach in the uterus to grow. So progesterone based does
              cause the embryo to die. So not all birth control is bad- a women should discuss with thier
              gynocologist if they are concerned about how birth control works.

            • Rebecca says:

              There is no proof that it doesn’t. At least, no one has provided it.

              And yes, there is research that links the two. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/medicalgroups/index.htm

          • Indie says:

            Actually, not having babies and not breastfeeding are what leave a woman at a higher risk for female cancers. The reason is that pregnancy and breastfeeding suppress certain hormones so those who do not do these things (or do them long enough) are overexposed to those hormones. So to take this to its logical end, you could say that abstinence causes breast cancer or being a nun causes breast cancer. But that would be ridiculous and counterproductive just as blaming abortion is.

          • suepur says:

            a ‘perfect’ newly conceived child…hmm.. up to 30% of conceptuses are miscarried due to genetic defects. up to 1/3 of new pregnancies are lost, most of the time BEFORE the woman knows she is pregnant. i wouldnt get too attached, until you’re 6-12wks honey.

            • athena says:

              This is a complete side step from the initial topic, but I lost a baby at 6 weeks and it was just as hard as losing a baby at 12 weeks and 22 weeks. “I wouldn’t get too attached…” wow. Desensitized much?

      • Lidia says:

        Buried in a lot of these overhead costs are costs for paid trolls to go around “astroturfing”. The oil companies use them to deny global warming in comment threads; banks and the financial industry use them to defuse the perception of a need for financial reform; politicians and the Religious Right use them to blanket message boards with their talking points.

        It’s been someone’s paid or unpaid mission in life to troll the internet and rail against PP on every breast-cancer post they can find, to put [real or fake?] “pressure” on the SGK foundation to “justify” their de-funding of PP. And whaddaya know? It worked!!

    • sarah says:

      Planned Parenthood does not perform abortions!! Where are you getting this info? They provide information on all options of preventions, adoption and yes, if asked will provide information on abortion. They do not promote it. Do you know what other services they provide? Many women who would not have access to such services to cancer screenings, sexual health, STD prevention and treatment if Planned Parenthood did not exist. At the same time, the GOP doesn’t want access to affordable healthcare. What do you see as the future for these women and their children after them?

      • Mindy Matheny says:

        They do provide abortions. At least they did a year and a half ago. But you have to pay full price for they are not part of the sliding scale fee.

      • Emama says:

        I had to go to PP for a test to show I was pregnant and they asked me 3 times if I was sure I knew about abortion and that I could get it done ect ect. I started getting really mad and said no, I want my baby! I do not trust PP one bit!

        • Carrie says:

          Oh my gosh, I thought it was just me. When I was 20 I went in for a pregnancy test. It was positive, and the lady asked me if I wanted to continue the pregnancy. I said yes, and she asked me twice if I was sure I wanted to continue the pregnancy.

        • Seda says:

          I went to planned parenthood almost 4 years ago when I found out I was pregnant with my son. I needed proof of pregnancy, and when the nurse came back to give my son’s dad and I the results, she almost started crying along with us. She said it was so nice to see a young couple who would be able to celebrate their prenancy instead of it being a problem. Plus, I paid all of $5 for that visit, and paid nothing two months after my kiddo was born when I decided to have and IUD put it. Plannned Parenthood was amazing for us, and entirely supportive of my Planned Parenting.

      • Rebecca says:

        Are you kidding me? They perform 27% of America’s abortions! And it’s increasing every year.

        • Amy says:

          IF (and that’s a big IF) this is true, then that’s because the supply of doctors who know how to do abortions is dwindling. Doctors can opt out of learning the procedure in medical schools.

    • Mel C says:

      That’s exactly what happened: SGK withdrew its funding for mammograms from Planned Parenthood. Like it or not, mammograms do detect early signs of cancer that simple self-checks cannot. You cannot say that a 35-year-old woman got cancer from a mammogram machine after the very first time she used it, so go on with that story somewhere else. Planned Parenthood, like any other not-for-profit organization, has to manage their grant money in a transparent way, so all SGK’s money was being used for mammograms and for women who could not afford to pay for one. Planned Parenthood does more for women’s care besides dole out contraception and abortions.

      Honestly, though, if a woman is part of a poor family and she and her husband cannot afford any more children, are you going to tell me that she cannot have contraception? There are many kinds of contraception that don’t involve hormones, if that’s your beef with contraception. As for abortions, that’s a personal choice that every woman has to make and should be able to make. Abortions cannot be paid for with any kind of government money, and most times the woman has to pay for the service.

      SGK hired a highly vocal pro-life Senior VP (Karen Handel), and now she’s withdrawn the grant money from, not only PP but also, Penn State. Can you honestly tell me that money will be granted to someone/something more deserving? We already know that’s not how SGK works. They seem to be as for-profit as any other corporation.

      I agree that I won’t give them my money (haven’t done so for many years), but for you to completely shut down organizations that are trying to help women and offer free or low cost health care is abhorrent and in line with what’s wrong with your overall thinking.

      • Carrie says:

        Brinker also stated in a conference call to reporters on the 2nd that they are also trying to bypass all pass-through operations. Instead of giving the funds to PP who is going to turn around and give the funds to the clinic actually doing the mammograms, Komen wanted the funds to go straight to the clinic doing the mammograms. I don’t see why it’s such a bad idea to get rid of the middle man. Why can’t the clinic actually doing the work be given the money directly?

      • Leah says:

        Planned Parenthood does profit from abortions – it is a huge money-maker for them in fact, no matter how its funded or paid for. Additionally, would-be moms who abort are something like 80-90% more likely to commit suicide than the average woman. That spells death on two counts and that is why so many people have a problem with PP. The media does not tell you these things, bit the research is there. Most women already have access to local clinics where they can get the same care without all the controversy.

    • steven says:

      Komen cut ties with PP because it was determined that the majority of the money they were donating was not being used to help young women in prevention/treatment of breast cancer but was in fact aiding them in the cost of abortion.

      • StedyRock says:

        Actually, you are 100% wrong. SKG stated they had a policy not to fund any organizations under investigation, and PP is currently under investigation by an evangelical Florida congressman who takes issue with their mission.

        They did not withdraw funding because of anything to do with abortions (officially at least)

    • Dana says:

      There isn’t any proven link between abortions and breast cancer but thanks for parroting the right wing which is in bed with the domestic adoption industry, out to sell as many babies as it possibly can. Oh wait, my bad–“accept payment for adoption services.”

      I’m not saying trot out and get an abortion every other year–I’m not saying *anything* about that, actually. Your body is not my body and you can do what you like with yours. But there are real consequences to abortion being outlawed or made inaccessible and most of them are not good.

    • Heather says:

      Umm…not sure where you are getting your research but Planned Parenthood does not use the money from Komen for “candy” or abortions. They use it for women who cannot afford health care and need services for their breast cancer.

    • Joyelle says:

      I agree. And to answer the queation of why SGK supports PP, you ought check out the book Planned Bullyhood.

    • Dayna says:

      Yes, I agree with Jen. I have been asked by grocery stores if I’d like to donate for the breast cancer cure and I ask them where it is going to and they don’t know. I also told them I would not support the organization that turns around and contributes to Planned Parenthood. I saw a program on EWTN about Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood connection was. It is very disturbing. I also watched a program on t.v. about how abortion and breast cancer have been linked together. Very sad on what is going on in our society and how women have suffered for not knowing the truth. I now think twice and check out an organization before I donate to their cause.

    • Brandi says:

      Um, a very small amount goes to abortion, besides your not getting the abortion, but others need to or want to, or sadly Have to. Mostly need, but I really dont expect you to give a crap about Other womens health rights. Contraceptive isnt candy its helpful and important, I wont take BC because I dont messing with my hormones but thats just a personal choice. What you see as candy, others see a precautionary measure. Dont support them I dont care, but dont pretend you have any idea what they do for others. Its bad enough you get it from men but I see your already nice an brainwashed.

    • Belle says:

      What in the world? I know this is an old comment, but abortions have never been shown to have any kind of a relationship with breast cancer. Regardless of what you believe as far as the rights and wrongs of abortion, let’s not go around just making things up. You sound like someone who works at one of the infamous Pregnancy Crisis Centers around the country, which are known for handing out brochures of completely falsified stats about abortion and physical and mental illness. I’m shocked that Butter Believer thanked you for this comment. I would have expected some rebuttal using science and common sense.

  2. Leslie says:

    Excellent research and excellent post. The “business” of cancer was brought to my attention a couple of years ago and I continue to be horrified by it. The idea that so many people are profiting from (as well as promoting) the sickness of others is deplorable.

  3. Angela says:

    I agree 100% Great post! =)

  4. Amy W says:

    Tough stuff to write what you believe when it’s contrary to mainstream. I have to agree with you on this one and applaud your research on backing up what you believe!

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Thank you, Amy. I had major knots in my stomach when I went to publish this. It was tough, but I am just so sickened by the cancer industry that I thought I needed to start doing my part to expose it. All the pink paraphernalia everywhere this month just put me over the edge!

      • Kristi says:

        Excellent article. Great work. Very informative. You did your homework, and it shows.

      • Jannette says:

        Thankyou for publishing this article and researching and collating it too. Great job 🙂 well done 🙂
        I have friends and clients who have been affected or afflicted with breast cancer or the cancer industry, and quite frustratingly some of them still support the pinkwashing campaign. I’ll be posting your article on my fb page and linking it in a future blogpost too. Thanks again for your hard work here and the courage to just come right out and spill the truth.

        Blessings and Beautiful Things

      • Bethany says:

        my mother died of breast cancer after being in remission from it for 6 years. It returned in her bones. She would have loved your article and agreed with her whole heart. She elected to cease Chemo in the last year of her life because the side effects of the drugs were more than she could bear … what does that tell you when a person is more willing to suffer the effects of TERMINAL cancer than deal with the drugs that are supposed to “treat” it? We’re so backwards in our treatment of disease in general, I look forward to your post about the alternative methods/cures they are finding as I’m very high risk for breast cancer and DO NOT want to deal with the mess my mother did. Thank you a million times for posting, thank you!

      • Heather says:

        It makes me cringe, too.
        My mom passed away from breast cancer 3 years ago, and I saw enough of what they put her through–and what a scam it all is. For that matter, how many women’s LIVES would we be able to save every year, if orgs like Komen did an honest job and started promoting the idea of women making sure they get enough vitamin D? One simple thing–but it’s a thing that costs very little, the fedgov won’t do an honest review of the research (they did do one several months back–and omitted EVERY study involving vitamin d in other than bone & joint health–of which there are new studies every week!), and it doesn’t make lots of $$$ for Big Pharma. I’ve told my husband that, should I happen to get cancer, I will NOT be doing conventional treatment. And I just bite my tongue when my family does all the pink ribbon stuff. It’s more education than most of them want, at this point.

        • Thank you for mentioning Vitamin D, which is so important for prevention and recovery from cancer. If only people tracked their levels and supplemented to get their levels above 50, we would all be a lot healthier.

        • Dayna says:

          Heather, years ago I did see a program on t.v. showing about curing cancer and how they injected vitamin D into cancer cells and showed that it killed off those cells. I was shocked especially since we hear in the media otherwise.

      • Carrie says:

        I admire you too! I love the planning and research that you put into this. My husband’s Grandma has breast cancer, and I too have been researching which beast cancer organization actually uses the most of their funds towards their programs. I already knew, just by checking the BBB, that it isn’t Komen. It is really hard to know who to donate to though. I am still researching and still haven’t decided who is using the money best. It is such a hard issue. Right now we are just donating straight to our local low cost/no cost clinic that does do women’s services and mammograms.

      • Rebecca says:

        Good job on the article. I appreciate your honesty & hard work.

      • julie says:

        I’ve had a problem with sjk for a long time but wasn’t sure exactly why. this article just spells it out. I get so tired of seeing their stuff. Surely everyone is aware of breast cancer unless they live in a cave. Thanks for the article.

  5. Lady says:

    They also donate DONATE (how can a charity donate their donations to another charity?!) to planned parenthood. So, they “search for a cure” to save lives while giving donations to PP who takes lives. SGK is horrible!

    • seakat says:

      What I’ve read is that only something like 3% of Planned Parenthoods services are abortions, so PP, to as horrible as you might have been lead to believe.

      • Bethany says:

        that’s the “reported” percentage, but they can get away with that because people don’t consider contraception (which makes for about 35% of their “services”) to be abortion … but it is. It’s just a chemical abortion at an early enough stage so no one knows about it and doesn’t have to feel like they just killed a baby.

        • ButterBeliever says:

          To the user who tried attacking Bethany here, your comment was deleted. Healthy debate is one thing, but I’m not going to allow for childish name-calling on this site.

        • SunDragon says:

          I for one don’t buy that “contraception is chemical abortion, only done earlier” argument. Don’t want to either. I think it’s ridiculous.

        • Dana says:

          Contraceptive pills contain progestin, which is a synthetic form of progesterone. Break down the Latin. “Pro” means “favoring”; “gest” means “pregnancy.” The Pill works by making your body think it is pregnant so it won’t ovulate. Haven’t you ever talked to anyone who’s been on the Pill and then almost as soon as they stop it, they catch? There’s a reason for that. There’s a sweet spot with progesterone blood levels where it’s too low to prevent ovulation but high enough that it’s a lot easier for a fertilized egg to implant.

          I know there are doctors who say they don’t really know how the Pill works but that’s because they slept through endocrinology–or because they’re lying sacks of you-know-what.

          I’m tired of people haranguing women who use contraception or seek an abortion. The only other option they offer is adoption–they complain bitterly about welfare and talk smack about single mothers. No one wants to be treated like a brood mare or baby factory unless they have been brainwashed into it. No little girl says, “Know what I want to be when I grow up? A BIRTHMOTHER!” If you want to see Planned Parenthood shut its doors then work for a culture in which women are not made into breeding machines for the wealthy. Then, and ONLY then, it might all stop.

        • Inger says:

          A fertilized egg is no more a baby than an egg is a chicken. A draft is not the finished product. I’d love to see this same concern with young children in peril.

          • Sarah says:

            Umm if your eating chicken eggs from the store they aren’t fertilized…just for clarification since I know I a lot of people believe that. I know this is a gross example but a chicken’s egg is like a woman’s period… However I agree with the sentiment that people should show concern for the children in peril not just for the “drafts” as you said. As I once heard someone say “Life does not begin at conception and end at birth as many would have you believe, a life occurs after birth that must be cared for as well” -granted they were pro-life but still I think its a valid point, you have to care for the children alive now not just those in the uterus and suddenly not care about them once they are born.

          • Lacey says:

            Are you seriously comparing foul to a human child?

        • Brandi says:

          Contraception is a pregnancy prevenive, it prevents sperm from implantling into the egg, i e no fertilization no pregnancy, no abortion. What you take sex ed, heath, and biology in an absinence only education state? A chemical pregnancy is when it fertalized but doesnt attatch, ive had that, its so common these days because of early detection pregnancy tests. Are you confusing it with the pill that forces a miscarriage using chemical means, because that isnt even in the same realm, you cannot do the same thing by taking BC or plan B. Figure out the difference and the come back an talk, people dont need misinformation, half truths, and outright lies. Also, Ever heard of bodily atonomy, we cant take your organs when your dead and not using them, but forcing a women to have a baby(no matter the circumstsnce, none ya’ business) which can still kill you. Funny how suddenly as a pregnant woman you have no bodily atonomy.

      • TK says:

        That depends on how you enumerate their services. The number of abortions they perform is around 300,000 per year.

    • Rebecca says:

      Foundation making grants to other organizations is extremely common and in fact legally mandated. SKG is a private foundation, which means they have a legal requirement to distribute AT LEAST 5% of their assets annually to other charitable organizations.

  6. Julie says:

    I agree with a lot of this, but I don’t see why it’s so bad to focus so much on early detection and on education. Back when Susan herself was first diagnosed, most woman who got breast cancer died because they didn’t have any idea they had it until it was too late because it just wasn’t as much in the public eye or in the doctors’ eyes. (And that’s true even more for the men that got it.) No one talked about it because it was considered an inappropriate topic, so too many women were in the dark, and those who weren’t in the dark were more or less alone in dealing with it. Now, thanks mostly to this organization, woman catch it earlier and can get much better treatment. Survival rates are up, and that is certainly a good thing.

    However, I am horrified to see those salary figures, and obviously there’s a huge problem with only 11% of your “dollar for the cure” going to research for the actual cure. (And KFC… that’s a contradiction if I’ve ever seen one.) There are certainly some things to think about here. Thanks for educating me about this issue from a different perspective!

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Thank you so much for your comment, Julie. You bring up a very good point. I do agree that SGK had a huge hand in bringing awareness to the population of this disease, and definitely in taking away the stigma of it being an “inappropriate” or taboo topic.

      I think what bothers me, though, is that Komen is still spending a majority on the mission of spreading awareness, when today, this is not nearly the issue that it once was when they first began promoting it. Our culture as a whole is well-aware of the dangers of breast cancer, the “importance” of mammograms/screening, and there isn’t even a hint of a taboo left on the subject. Actually, I would even say that breast cancer is exploited in a sexualized manner and given even more attention than it should, what with all the “I heart boobies” stuff and such.

      So, I think it’s definitely valid to give credit where it’s due — to SGK for bringing the issue into the light and making it something people are talking about. But I think it’s time to move on from the awareness campaign, and onto what matters most — preventing and curing the disease.

      Another thing to consider, is that early detection may actually not have as much of a real link to increased survival as we’re being led to believe. I came across the following bit of commentary on an article when I was researching, and I am inclined to agree with this conclusion:

      “It’s not at all clear that early detection and screening are actually effective in saving lives from cancer. Detection and screening have indeed been associated with increases in five-year survival rates, but this may be just an illusion – early detection means that the five year “clock” starts counting when the cancer is at a less advanced stage, so people will appear to survive longer even if the course of the disease (including the likelihood of eventually dying from it) hasn’t changed at all. The fact that age-adjusted cancer mortality (e.g. the fraction of the population of a certain age that dies of cancer each year) does not appear to have dropped much is very consistent with this interpretation.”

      Another good link on the subject: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/01/cancer-and-stat.html

      • Martha says:

        What about looking at early detection as a means to further understand how cancer initially forms? All cancers start off as 1 abnormal cell that has lost the ability to die/be killed. So the closer we can get to figuring out those first genetically abnormal events that happen in that very first cancer cell, the closer we can get to understanding how we can prevent cancer in the first place.

        I agree that the taboo of discussing breast cancer and mammograms has, for the most part, gone away. But early detection can still help the research cause.

        I work in clinical genetics and have had a number of women who choose to have prophylactic mastectomies to reduce their breast cancer risk and then donate their tissue to research. Often, microscopic breast cancers are found in their breast tissue which is invaluable to figuring out step #1 in breast cancer development! By the time breast cancer reaches stage 1 or 2, there are too many genetic abnormalities to properly tease out which are the beginning changes and which are the later changes. And knowing the differences between these are critical for our microbiological understanding of any cancer.

        While I understand your frustration with the way their funds are used, I must respectfully disagree with your point that early detection does not contribute to finding a cure.

        • marie says:

          Great points! Agree that this isn’t black and white as BB writes. Many double standards here regarding prevention. Points about salary are huge but let’s not throw the baby out with the dishwater. Also, what is sexualizednabout the term “boobie?”

  7. I have heard of other things about Komen that bothered me (like the fact that they used to donate to Planned Parenthood. Any besides the fact that PP is a horrible entity in and of itself, abortion is linked closely to breast cancer.

    Anyway, I will be most likely posting this on FB and sharing with a close friend who has breast cancer and has been out there supporting Komen. I am really disappointed. I agree on the non profit salary thing. I know someone who worked for a non profit and she got 23+ sick days per year and then there are other non profit scandals involving salary that I dare not mention. They make me sick and besmirch the face of charities.

    Thanks for the post.

    – Adrienne

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Thank you, Adrienne. Yes, there are even more twisted parts to the story of SGK, but I just became so overwhelmed with the subject that I put up the major things that upset me regarding this organization. I mentioned in another comment above that SGK swears they do not provide funding for anything not related to breast cancer prevention (screenings, etc) for PP, but I still think it seems like an inappropriate use of funds to be supporting them.

      Thank you so much for spreading the word. There are much better and more appropriate ways to support women with breast cancer than giving to SGK. I hope more and more people begin to see that.

    • Lauren says:

      I know this wasn’t your main point but I must correct you: Abortion does NOT increase the risk of breast cancer.

      From the abstract of a review of 53 separate studies on the link between abortion and breast cancer: “Pregnancies that end as a spontaneous or induced abortion do not increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.”

      Source: , Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer
      Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83 000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries
      The Lancet, Volume 363, Issue 9414, 27 March 2004, Pages 1007–1016

      • This was already discussed above pretty thoroughly. You probably missed it and didn’t put your comment in the appropriate message stream. You ought to do a “cut and paste” here and repost up above.

  8. Excellent research! Already sharing this on facebook etc..
    What always bothered me about the foundation was the type of products the ribbon showed up on. Just as bad as walking into my kid’s school and seeing doughnuts being on sale – by the kids – to raise money for cancer research. We still have a long way to go educating our communities about real health…

    • ButterBeliever says:

      We sure do, Lisa. Every bit helps, though. Thank you so much for sharing this, and for being another voice for real food and healthy living!

    • jaimi says:

      oh my i have had some same thoughts “when you walk in and they are giving you donuts for cancer research!! messed up!! ” give me a break right? sugar is the enemy! and yeast!! and grains!!! knowthecause.com will teach you all you need to know for a wonderful healthy life!!!

  9. naomi devlin says:

    Oh My God! Horrifying, but unfortunately not surprising. How did that simple message to eat well, express yourself creatively, live with compassion and tread lightly get so mangled into breast cancer awareness campaigns?

    Prevention is always better than cure. Sounds like a pretty carcinogenic organisation to me – time to cut off the canker.

    x x x

  10. Chaunce says:

    Although some of the activities may seem shady the fact remains that had the organization never been created millions of dollars would not have been guided for research, education, etc. I can guarantee people have been saved for their effort and god for bid someone makes a good salary for creating something. Might want to leave the Catholic guilt behind and before you cast your stone, look at the diamond on your finger. That’s a far much worst story that every female won’t admit. $390 million dollars is a large amount of money and I could only wish that amount went toward research for Schleraderma from which my mother passed away. Ten percent for administrative costs is nothing. If it were 50% I’d be alarmed. I am dissapointed for the support for PP though. I celebrate information but wouldn’t make a cause out of stopping people from donating to a foundation unless you yourself decided to create one and acknowledge the responsibilities.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      I think one of the biggest things that bother me, when I look at what the organization has done, is that 30 years of research and education later, not a lot has changed. Women are still dying at alarming rates from breast cancer and mainstream medicine is still unwilling to accept alternative treatments that work (but are not profitable). I am sure you are right, that lives have been saved by the awareness brought to the importance of early detection by SGK. I also think that the organization was probably created with nothing but the best of intentions. However, I don’t believe you can cure diseases with allopathic medicine, which is the mission of SGK, and I think the rest of their funding is largely misused today. Thank you for your comment, I really appreciate your feedback.

      • Joe says:

        I find disturbing these repeated suggestions that the medical industry is only interested in the dollars. I know a fair number of doctors and nurses and a few other people who are doing research, including cancer research. They all care about what they’re doing. They all care about their patients. The surgeons I know don’t talk about how much money they made today, they talk about the patients they helped. I have never personally dealt with anyone in the medical industry who I felt gave me anything other than the best medical advice they could provide, regardless of the dollars available to them. That being said, if you think the medical industry is so corrupt, then create your own foundation to do real research on these other non-traditional cures. But to libel the entire medical industry is irresponsible.

        • ButterBeliever says:

          Joe, please see my response to Brenna (#36) below. I absolutely believe that the vast majority of physicians and medical professionals have nothing but the best intentions. They are not who I blame.

          I don’t have to create a foundation for what I believe because it already exists — the Weston A. Price Foundation. Though, they do not make money that can allow for scientific research to prove alternative treatments for illnesses such as cancer, work. Instead, their focus is on educating the public about real health and nutrition which can prevent it.

          Thank you for your comment.

        • Heather says:

          You CANNOT “create your own foundation to do real research on these other non-traditional cures”. Our federal government, particularly the FDA, very actively persecutes those conducting research into alternative cancer therapies, usually running such people entirely out of the country, along with conducting very public smear campaigns against them. The official stance of our government is that herbs, supplements, and other alternative treatments for ANY disease are ineffective…except that they are simultaneously dangerous. Families who choose to pursue alternative cancer treatment are put through CPS Hell & the courts force the kids into conventional treatments–even when the doctors have said that the treatment will not help or will kill the kid.

          Yes, most doctors are well-meaning. Most are also poorly educated about any therapy that is not surgery or pharma drugs, and are willing to use the legal system to enforce their misconceptions. And the government works for the big drug companies and medical orgs, none of whom have anything in mind but the health of their bank accounts, no matter the human toll.

        • Jan Neff-Sinclair says:

          It is not the entire medical industry that is only interested in money. It is the medical device companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the for-profit medical organizations, and the medical insurance companies. I would also say that any non-profit medical organization that does not put most of their profits back into the organization or into research are also in it for the money. Add all those together and you have a huge sector of the industry. I don’t consider individual health care practitioners as part of the industry, but as tools used by the industry. They are their to help the corporations earn more money in a lot of cases.

  11. Joy says:

    What is your evidence that abortion increases risk if breast cancer? It appears to be right up there with vaccinations causing Autism. ( In case you missed it, that was admitted FALSIFIED research!). And how dare you tell women that mammography increased their risk?! More rumors are discovered this way, leading to early treatment and better outcome. Your ignorance may be blissful, but It’s dangerous to others!

    • ButterBeliever says:

      I’m hoping your comment isn’t directed at me, specifically, since I did not mention anything about the abortion issue in the post (though there were several commenters who did).

      Another commenter, Pamela, shared some great links showing the dangers of mammography for more information about that. I do believe in screening for early detection, but I know that mammograms are risky and thermography is a safe choice which I believe should be replacing mammography altogether.

      Thank you for your comment.

      • marie says:

        Mammography is a non ionizing form of radiation. Whileit is often associated with the more dangerous ionizing type (ct scans and fluoroscopy), the numbers I’ve seen in radiology safety literature are scant.

        • ButterBeliever says:


          In case you haven’t picked up on it, we’re not exactly too keen on the FDA around here.

          Thanks for your response.

      • princesstia says:

        so because you believe it to be true…. we should? someone else “believed” vaccines caused autism. doesnt make it so. while i may not agree with every aspect of how they distribute their fundidng, I do support SGK. The benifit outweighs the risk. The same logic I used before getting my kids vaccinated and the same logic my mother used before her mammogram, that probably saved her life {and didnt give her cancer}.

        • ButterBeliever says:

          Not quite sure how you inferred that, but no, I do not expect everyone to believe what I believe. As I have mentioned before, this is just a blog, these are just my opinions, based off what I have learned.

        • Bethany says:

          My mother had her regular mammogram for years and they MISSED her cancer … for years. Even after “beating it” for 6 years it still came back and killed her. whether they CAUSE cancer or not, the point that mammograms are not the only answer for screening and prevention is important. Just as you said, because the medical community tells us mammograms are the way to go, does that mean we should believe them? women should be their OWN AWARENESS organizations and research the preventative measures that work for them. Breast MRI’s for one – they are more conclusive, clear and I don’t have to ween my baby to get one.
          And about the abortion-cancer thing: any doctor would tell you that when you mess with ONE area, you risk messing with the other. This is why abortions and the birth control pill are linked to female cancers. When my mother had her double mastectomy the doctors told her to go ahead and get a total hysterectomy as well so she wouldn’t develop cancer there – BECAUSE THE TWO AREAS OF FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS ARE CONNECTED!

          • Keri says:

            Bethany, I understand your frustration and pain that you must have experienced and are experiencing as a result of what happened to your mother. It is unfortunate when cancer is not detected, especially if it is aggressive. Yet, regular preventive scans are important because they can detect cancerous growth. Obviously, machines and humans aren’t perfect, and it is possible to miss detecting cancer in patients. In fact, it happens alot (as in your case). As a cancer survivor, I understand this because when I began experiencing symptoms, my primary care physician did not think that I would need scans, as I was 17 and had been perfectly healthy. Yet, I listened to my body and knew something was wrong, which is what led to having scans and detecting my cancer. It is important to consider all possible avenues for preventing and detecting cancer. Eating healthy, exercising, and taking care of your body are all excellent preventive measures. Unfortunately, they don’t prevent cancer 100%. If we, as a society, focus our blame on preventive scans/machines as increasing the prevalence of cancer, then we must also focus our blame on all of the other things that lead to cancer. These would include, but are not limited to, radiation from various sources (microwaves, cell phones, etc), not eating organic and unprocessed foods (many foods are processed, filled with hormones/antibiotics), and breathing in pollution (pesticides, carcinogens, chemicals). While I think there are many parts of this original post that are true (and I too am weary of supporting large organizations such as SGK), it is important as a society to focus our energy on the positive aspects of the presence of cancer. For years, I experienced anger and pain and I focused negative energy on blaming something or someone for what I experienced. I realized that I could not spend the rest of my life trying to target others or other things for what I had experienced. No, I don’t necessarily support pharmaceutical companies for the products/marketing they produce. Yet, the chemotherapy and radiation I received helped to save my life. As a result of my illness, I spend my time educating others on my experience and how possible/common it is to develop cancer without any predisposition or determined cause. I realized that I can’t control what others do, nor can I prevent cancer from developing. Also, I don’t listen to most research studies that come out. Often times, these studies change a few years later or are updated in some way, and by reading many of these studies, I will easily lead myself down a path of anxiety by constantly worrying what I may or may not be doing to harm or help myself. What I choose to do is take care of my body in the best way possible and use common sense. Sometimes, that means taking medication. Sometimes, that means having medical scans done. Sometimes, that means using holistic medication/herbal supplements. Always, that means listening to my body and doing what’s best so that I can enjoy my life to the fullest. While I agree with you, women should be their own awareness organizations, not everyone is blessed with the knowledge and/or resources to find out information for themselves. As a result of my illness, I know my body like the back of my hand (for lack of a better phrase). I know when something’s up; many people don’t, or they choose to ignore warning signs. That’s why I spend my life educating others on how to take care of themselves and how to listen. As a society, we don’t do enough of either one of those. And last, as Armyreservewife said, every person has to do and will do what they feel God is telling them to do. You may or may not be a believer, but I believe that things happen for a reason in every person’s life, and I believe that God controls all of it. That’s why I feel blessed because I was fortunate to experience the struggle of cancer and I can share my experience to help others in any way I can.

    • bizymom says:

      The notion that vaccines causing autism has been falsified is completely false. There are over 600 studies that show a link. You can find the references to the studies on TACA and GR websites. There have also been vaccine compensation cases in this country and all over the world where the court has awarded the vaccine injured victim/family with autism. A court in Italy just ruled this year that MMR does indeed cause autism and Julie Gerberding, formerly of the CDC and now with Merck stated on national TV that a small # of cases of autism are most likely due to vaccines. One of the Dtap package inserts from a specific manufacturer states autism as a possible side effect. Just because Matt Lauer, Anderson Cooper, Nancy Snyderman & Sanjay Gupta c tell you it’s been proven does not mean it’s true.

  12. Bethany says:

    Awesome awesome post. I’ve always resisted donating to large charities myself because I know so little of the funds actually go towards what you are trying to help… but man. You did a lot of research on this and thank you for doing so! Very eye opening… and I think I’ll be watching that film tonight after the kiddos are in bed. Since I discovered “real food” I’ve had so many of my own health issues just disappear I personally take for granted that cancer will be in the same category, though obviously I can’t know that for sure. But I firmly believe that all these modern ailments – cancer, diabetes, etc. can be prevented quite easily with a diet of real food that humans were meant to eat, without all the processed junk, refined modern oils, and this tremendous dependence on grains that we have.

    I’m retweeting this one.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Thank you so much for your support, Bethany! That’s so great to hear that you’ve experienced significant healing through a real, healthful diet. I also believe that the modern diet is largely the cause of modern disease — I think it’s important to realize that most of these illnesses we all fear will strike us seemingly beyond our control were virtually nonexistent before industrialization came around and messed with our food supply. Just like you said, they are modern ailments — we’re not eating what we were meant to, and we’re suffering the consequences.

  13. Armyreservewife says:

    Interestingly enough, I just read that in the new book on Steve Jobs that he put off having surgery on his cancer to go holistic, eating a microbiotic diet. Every person has to do what they feel God is telling them to do. I think in the case of SKG if 60% of funds are not going towards “the cure” then you just don’t donate. Period.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Thank you for those links, Pamela. Some great information in them.

      • Moll says:

        You neglected to inform your readers that the website trying to link abortion with breast cancer is from a Christian site that obviously is not neutral on this issue. I shut off any “research” that does not come from objective scientfic journals. Not ones that make up “science” to lean the way your customer want it to lean. Religion needs to stay out of science and politics. BTW, heart disease kills more women each year than ALL the cancers combined. We need to discuss that more. Our American crap diet kills more women than breast cancer.

        • ButterBeliever says:

          You bring up a very good point. It’s wise to always consider the source of your information and where any bias within it might be stemming from. That said, I think that the possibility of the abortion/breast cancer link is worth looking into further, but yes, I agree that in the information presented there is too much of a bias formed from pro-life parties that may be influencing the conclusions. There isn’t enough information available form unbiased sources, which is why I didn’t make any mention of it in the post.

          And yes, absolutely — the Standard American Diet is 100% the culprit of the number one killer that is heart disease. I agree that it deserves more discussion.

          • Marcy K. says:

            Just because information is on a Christian site does not mean it is not valid. The studies themselves, from around the world, were not conducted by “Christians” they were conducted by scientists. 53 of 66 studies in 54 years show a link. http://www.bcpinstitute.org/publishedpapers.htm And it is not only abortion but the Pill that is dangerous. The World Health Organization has named the Pill as a Class 1 Carcinogen on par with asbestos and tobacco but Big Pharma does not want THAT to be publicized. It also poisons our water supply. Our hormones are delicately balanced and we should not be monkeying around with them. I think it is a combination of things in our environment that are causing all this cancer. It is difficult to escape it. And I just don’t see these things disappearing.

        • Mickey O'Brien says:

          U.S. National Cancer Institute researcher Dr. Louise Brinton, who was the chief organizer of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) workshop in 2003 that persuaded women that it was “well established” that “abortion is not associated with increased breast cancer risk,” has reversed her position and now admits that abortion and oral contraceptives raise breast cancer risks.

          An April 2009 study by Jessica Dolle et al. of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center examining the relationship between oral contraceptives (OCs) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality, in women under age 45, contained an admission from Dr. Brinton and her colleagues that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%.

          The study found that “a statistically significant 40% increased risk for women who have abortions” exists, and that a ” 270% increased risk of triple negative breast cancer (an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality) among those who used oral contraceptives while under age 18 and a 320% increased risk of triple negative breast cancer among recent users (within 1-5 years) of oral contraceptives,” also exists.

          This is not a religious concern – religion only calls attention to and reinforces the gravity of abortion and contraception. You consume a toxin to the change the course of nature, you put your body at risk at multiple levels. Anyone promoting healthy lifestyles should agree with that.

          • marie says:

            Perhaps the real issue that is distorting the statistic is that of an increased risk for women whom have never nursed. Threes are real numbers here, butmcould definitely get in the way of the pro-life connection to breast cancer

      • Jennifer says:

        I have been trying to tell people this, too.. thankful to see your detailed research and links. But, honestly, if people just looked at it logically they should at least question mammography…. radiation on the breast… compression of possible cancerous tissue… breast cancer rates climbing not decreasing… someone needs to realize that money is being made here….

  14. Amy says:

    I can’t help but regard it as a little bit smug to allege that “cancer is largely preventable” and point to “nutritious foods” as the great answer.

    When my sister was diagnosed with breast cancer, she was 32 years old. She was also well educated, physically fit, and had not only been raised on an organic, vegetable-packed, vitamin supplemented, low sugar, health food diet FROM BIRTH, starting with 2 years of breast feeding, but had continued to eat that way on her own, as an adult. She is now on her second go-round of cancer, and despite her firm belief in alternative medicines and health foods, it is in fact, the big bad pharmaceuticals that are saving her life. (Including tamoxifen)

    The research that is being done is AMAZING. Amazing. New treatments are happening all the time, and the new medications have allowed my sister to continue working full time, despite having a particularly aggressive strain of cancer. This was unthinkable a generation ago, and even a few years ago, her particular strain killed most people it affected. Now they survive, thanks to developments by scientists working for a cure.

    Some of the points you raise are certainly valid, but I would caution you to remember that plenty of “scientifically proven” things are later dis-proven. It does not pay to be smug, especially about good health. In many cases cancer IS a genetic roll of the dice, or caused by environmental factors beyond your control.

    • Kelli says:

      The point still stands that cancer is mostly created by the same science thats now looking for a cure. See, thats the way it works: there always trying to save us from science itself. They created the chemicals and other toxins.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Excellent point that cancer can be caused by environmental factors beyond our control. That is one of the saddest truths that we face today. Chemical pollution is everywhere, in things we use every day, in places we go, the water we drink, the air we breathe, everywhere. It really isn’t ever entirely avoidable.

      But I do strongly believe that a truly healthy diet can serve as highly effective protection from the onslaught of environmental toxins we are all forced to be exposed to. And unfortunately, the vast majority of our population is not well educated on what exactly a truly healthy diet is.

      I am very glad to see that your sister’s treatment is working well for her. I certainly do not judge anyone’s choices for treatment as I myself have never been faced with those decisions. I also don’t doubt that there have been major improvements in medical treatment of cancer, but I simply do not believe that medicine will ever bring about true cures for disease.

      Thank you very much for your comment. I appreciate it.

    • Tina says:

      Amy, I would love to speak with your sister if possible! I’m 27, well educated and very healthy, diagnosed with grade 3 breast cancer this year. I wholeheartedly agree with the author of the publication regarding the ‘pink scam’ – I’ve heard so much about SK and have actually been buying the pink stuff because I wanted to help women with BC- and of course as soon as I was diagnosed I went to Susan Komen website and found.. nothing! Just the information! No financial support, no free services, NOTHING! And then I went to American Cancer society website and was provided with free food, rides to the medical facilities, tons of help and support (over the phone and online), etc, etc, etc. If I were to donate, I would def donate to an organization that ACTUALLY provides help, not just blah blah

  15. Colleen says:

    OMGoodness! You ARE my new hero!!!!! I research and write about exactly this very thing and all the lies that companies perpetrate on the unknowing and unsuspecting. The real shame is that nonprofit organizations ONLY have to contribute 20% of their income to the the actual “cause” and the rest can line the pockets of those “supposedly” running the joint. SGK is a prime example of nonprofit gone bad!!!! My mother is a breast cancer survivor and I can tell you that the poison that they pumped her full of to kill the cancer nearly killed her!

    As I could not have said it better myself, I am linking your post to my blogs at http://amisplacedtrust.blogspot.com/ and http://musingsfromthemadhatter.blogspot.com/.

    Thanks for a great post!

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Thank you so much, Colleen! I really appreciate the links and the support. I’m so happy to see that the message is being spread that nonprofit organizations really are not always what they seem. As are not conventional cancer treatments. Thank God your mother is a survivor — the “treatment” they subjected her to truly is deadly. Sending out good thoughts and prayers that she will continue to win the fight!

  16. Lou Meigs says:

    I just have to say that this year I have also begun to feel the overwhelming revulsion to pink during October. It really hit when we went to our Farmer’s Exchange to pick up chicken feed and it took a few minutes to locate it; you see the 50lb bag of feed was now ALL PINK!! That made me turn to my husband and say “This has gone too far, the market is so saturated with pink that it has become like the military support magnet ribbons on cars or the rubber bracelets; it is no longer special. It is everywhere so we do not pay attention any longer.”.

    I just had to put my very minor two cents in.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      WOW. Pink chicken feed?! I have to laugh. Where does it end?

      You’re so right. It is so saturated, and it really isn’t doing any good anymore. Not that it ever really was…

      Oh and not to mention — I’m quite sure the chicken feed was loaded with carcinogenic, toxic genetically-modified SOY which even in its natural state contains carcinogenic phytoestrogens!! Which, by the way, end up in meat and eggs of chickens who consume it.

      Pinkwashing at its finest.

      • Cheryl says:

        I emailed the pink chicken feed company about whether or not they included GM grains in their product. Their response was that they didn’t know! Organic chicken feed is not available from any of the ag retailers in my rural area. It is only available by “mail” and is VERY expensive even before the shipping charges are applied. 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. I’m looking into growing my own (lots of work!)and raising worms or meal worms for protein.

        What a world we live in!

        • ButterBeliever says:

          Oh my gosh! I can’t believe that was their response… Well, I guess that’s the answer then — because we know that if you “don’t know” whether or not your corn or soy is organic or GMO-free, you can be almost totally sure that it is definitely conventional and GM, thanks to Monsanto’s dominance over those crops.

          I am in the same situation with not having organic feed available for my animals. Could you share some of the information you’ve found (maybe we could start a discussion on the FB page?) about growing your own feed, raising worms etc? Any good links for that? Thanks, Cheryl!

          • BobbieSue says:

            I don’t even want to start with the whole pinkwashing stuff. Or explain to my sister why I won’t wear the little-pink-crystal-ribbon-with-angel-wings necklace that she insist every female in our family wear since our sister died. I mean if I’m gonna bother to get dressed-up enough to put on a piece of jewelry, especially one dangling in front of my cleavage, it is not gonna be to bring attention to cancer and death. bah

            So on to more interesting stuff… about the worms. You can get worm farms from several garden supply places. I had one for a while, till a neighbor’s dog knocked it down and all of my little captives escaped; and I have yet to get new inhabitants for it. There are several designs, but basically you put the bedding in a bottom layer, add worms, then put food scraps on top, as the worms break down the food scraps they make this super rich “soil” and garden “tea”, both of which you can use in your garden. 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. Basically very simple, just make sure it isn’t in direct sun or you’ll get fried worms; also don’t let it freeze or you’ll get ice worms, and don’t let the neighbor’s dog near it.
            As far as meal worms go, well I raise those for the kid’s reptiles to eat. The simplest thing ever. Ya put some “meal” in the bottom of a straight-sided container add your meal worms and wait for them to reproduce, Adding more meal as they consume it. 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 1000 meal worms, and I probably have at least that many, possibly many times that now. I scoop out worms (and the beetles that they mature into)to feed the critters with a small metal sieve, shaking it like you were trying to sift flour through it, so that all of the meal, and the itty bitty baby worms/eggs fall back into the container. They really like corn stuff, like corm meal, masa and polenta, and wheat germ. In 6 months, my little box of 1000 has gone through about 2-3 lbs of mixed meals. And on the up side, they do not smell or make any noise, unlike the crickets we used to keep for the critters, and they’ve been sooooo much cheaper/easier since they thrive with virtually no attention from me and we haven’t had to replace them due to die off, which often happened with the crickets.

            • Channah says:

              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 used one of some university’s recipes as a base, put the ingredients I could get into nutritionData.com, and tried to balance the vitamins as though the group of chickens was a human (except that chickens don’t need vitamin C). The database was missing an important value for the sunflower seeds, and I couldn’t put in an estimate for the grass or bugs (which should give some of the ones that were short), but I got it a lot more balanced than if I hadn’t used it at all. 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.

  17. Kristy says:

    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. I think “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” I know breastfeeding won’t prevent every woman in every case from getting breast cancer, but if breastfeeding were to become the normal way of feeding babies with formula the exception, what would that do to cancer rates?

    • ButterBeliever says:

      YES. Absolutely! What an excellent point. A simple way to take steps toward preventing illness in both mother and baby.

      But nooo… we have to accept that the politically-correct notion that while “breast” may be “best,” there’s simply nothing wrong with choosing to feed toxic, powdered formula instead!


    • Melissa says:

      Thank you, thank you, thank you!! SGK fails here.

      Another complaint I’ve heard is that they fail to mention how BPA is linked to cancer.

      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. But I’m sure that would upset way too many of their sponsors. Don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you.

      • ButterBeliever says:

        Yes. SGK has outright stated that BPA is not linked to breast cancer. Very disturbing.

        Couldn’t agree more with your comment. Thank you, Melissa!

    • MoxieLady326 says:

      Nice try, but this is not well researched at all. There are several misleading or all together untrue things here. For all the “research” you did, you somehow missed the Komen mission: to save lives and end breast cancer forever by empowering people, ensuring quality care for all and energizing the science to find a cures. Right there, up front, they tell you what they are here for, so you’re argument that they are being deceitful by not giving every penny to research doesn’t hold water. You’re so focused on the fact that Komen trying to educate people about breast cancer and about advocating for people to access to quality care, that you don’t realize what a good thing this is.
      Since 1982 when Komen was founded, the 5 year survival rate for BC has risen from 76% to 98%. I would call that progress. Komen has spread the message about early detection, which is currently the best defense women have against this disease. The earlier it’s caught, the better chance women (and men) have of surviving. Also, Komen has invested more than $1.5 billion in research and education programs, which means that outside of the government, they contribute the most money to research. With that kind of work, it doesn’t bother me that their executives make $100s of thousands of dollars a year. However, you should also know that the chart shown is from 2008 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.
      Every major advancement in breast cancer research has been touched by some form of a Komen grant, so as far as I’m concerned, the “for the Cure” in their name is not misleading at all. 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. It doesn’t make much sense that he would call them out on their stewardship of funds if his own organization has given them the highest rating they give.
      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.
      The KFC Buckets for the Cure campaign lasted one season. It was not renewed this year because it wasn’t a good fit for the organization. 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. They encourage consumers to read labels on all products that claim to raise money for any cause because they don’t believe is using the pink ribbon (or any other such symbol) just to sell products and not actually make a difference. This is tied to the reason they have sued other companies for the use of “for the Cure” in their name. They are watchdogs for their brand and they have trademarked the term “for the Cure.” They do this to protect themselves and consumers from other companies capitalizing on their brand. 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. We now know that BC isn’t just one thing. There are many types, with many different treatments. There is genetic screening, individualized treatment and surgical options other than just double mastectomies now. I’m not really sure why you are so fixated on issues not germane to the science of breast cancer like the grants they give to Planned Parenthood and the fact that for some reason, you believe that breast cancer is linked to abortion, which it is NOT. No CREDIBLE scientific studies support this claim. 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. for hundreds of miles. There is an organized campaign to discredit Komen solely based on it’s minor funding of PP and I find that to be despicable. You’re entitled to support or not support any organization that you wish, but don’t think for a second that Komen isn’t making major strides in the cure for breast cancer or that trying to discredit them for the good that they do is in any way a noble cause.

      • MoxieLady326 says:

        That should have been in reply to the whole blog, not to Kristy. But, FYI Kristy, Komen does educate about breastfeed and breast cancer risk. http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/NotBreastfeeding.html

        • Colleen says:

          A few days ago I went looking for prevention and Breastfeeding on their website. It was hard to find and rather downplayed the protective affects of breastfeeding, never mind point out that normal rates of breast cancer are much lower than our society’s due to our low breastfeeding rates. Prevention, breastfeeding, healthy eating and exercise should be in banners on their home page!

      • ButterBeliever says:

        This is just a blog. I read some things, formed opinions, and wrote about them. It’s not any more intended to be a “noble cause” than you sharing yours here.

        I did not write anything about a link between breast cancer and abortion in the article.

        I am not convinced that the 5-year survival rate is really anything worthy of touting. We are indeed detecting breast cancer earlier, however, that merely sets the “clock” (as mentioned previously) back further, which accounts for the increase.

        This is a big reason why I’m also not convinced that the campaign for education of breast cancer (for the purposes of early detection) is worthy of the focus and money it’s getting.

        I find your support of Komen’s legal actions against small charities to be disturbing. The fact that you said that “most major companies” act similarly to protect their “brand” is telling — what I am getting at here in this entire post is that Komen is more of a “major company” with a “brand” to push, than a laudable charity.

        I know that Komen’s stated mission is “to save lives and end breast cancer forever.” I don’t believe they are doing that by peddling pink products and promoting awareness and education, for reasons I have already stated. Again, the point of the entire post.

        I am very, very pleased to see your link below regarding Komen’s stance on breast feeding, and that they do indeed promote that, if only on a page on their website. 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 don’t believe so. Is it common knowledge that women over 40 “should” get mammograms every year? Yes. SGK’s awareness campaigns work. 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.

        Thank you for sharing your feedback.

        • Sarah says:

          I agree! Thank you for pointing out the benefits to moms for bfing. I was raised knowing the benefits to baby, but it wasn’t until my midwife gave me info on bfing that I found out the benefits to myself. I agree, bfing benefits (to mom) are NOT common knowledge. At least not where I am from…

    • km says:

      yay! yay! yay! thank you for bringing this up! my mom’s a lactation consultant, so i’ve been hearing this my entire life, but so many people haven’t! thank you for calling this to people’s attention 🙂

  18. jaimi says:

    i’m so excited to see some of your titles like stop there are cures for cancer…don’t support this cancer research and butter is good…you may love this website knowthecause.com like I do..!!! the host of the tv show doug kaufman would agree that butter is good for you, prevention is key, he teaches that a certain germ/parasite is the cause of disease and it’s totally overooked!!!! it’s a must see!!

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Interesting! I’ll definitely have a look at that site, I wasn’t already familiar with it. Thanks for your comment, Jaimi — I’m glad you liked the post and the titles, hehe. 🙂

  19. Kelli says:

    I’ve always believed (and know) that cancer is caused by environmental toxins and bad diet. Never given any money to those cancer charities as they don’t care about researching alternative, non-invasive treatments for cancer. 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.

  20. this gives me great sadness – but let’s not pick on Susan G Komen and breast cancer research and cures – how about other charities that do the same thing!?! I am a TWO TIME BREAST CANCER SURVIVOR, my two material aunts had breast cancer (one back in the late 60s and she passed away) and my mother had ovarian cancer and died this February; needless to say – I HATE CANCER!! I have always wondered about these charities that ‘beg’ for money and we see no improvement in research and cures … well … let’s stop giving to them then! And the ‘pink ribbon’ foods and clothes, ETC. are not a product of SGK – they just started it – and the whole world thought it a good idea to cash in – well – don’t buy their products – who says you are forced to by those pink cupcakes?! think about it!!

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Congratulations on being a survivor, Shirley! I’m very sorry to hear about those you have lost. 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. And lots, and lots, of “cashing in.” Thanks so much for your comment!

  21. sharon says:

    Bravo! Drives me bonkers when folks ask me to donate or support something because ‘it’s for breast cancer’. Ugh! I’ve been saying for years that “I don’t support breast cancer.” Seriously, words have power. Why give your support to cancer?

  22. Tracie says:

    I give you a standing ovation ……..applause….applause !!!!!!!!!!!!
    Well researched. Well stated !!

  23. Tracie says:

    An excellent read…. Breast Cancer
    Its link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill
    By Chris Kahlenborn,MD

  24. Tiki says:

    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.

    There is NO link between abortion and breast cancer. That’s a myth.

    I wouldn’t focus on the Komen Foundation if you are concerned about pink-washing. 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. Or ones where there’s a limit on the donation (in tiny print of course).

    • Tracie says:

      Do some research BEFORE you make such a blanket statement.

    • KerryAnn says:

      Tiki, Let me point you to some updated information. A recent meta-analysis showed that since 1957 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.

      • Bink says:

        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?

  25. Kim says:

    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 used to be as well, but I was absolutely sickened to learn that so much of the money they bring in doesn’t go to fighting breast cancer at all. 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. I’m sure it’s just one example in a whole sea of “good causes” gone wild. So sad, really.

    • Kendra says:

      Why do people keep saying planned parenthood’s mission is to provide abortions!?! 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.

  26. Thank you for being brave enough to step out on this issue.
    It’s time for us to be bold.

  27. cheyanne says:

    Way to go! I started realizing last year that I was sick to death of SGK advertisements. I try to raise funds for Autism Speaks and it is so hard to out shine that stupid race and all it’s noise. I knew there was something shady going on.

    • Amy says:

      As a parent of a child with autism, I don’t feel Autism Speaks is much better! 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. If you need a scholarship in the first place, chances are you can’t pay the fee to join for a chance at some help, especially if most of it is going to overhead. 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.

      • ButterBeliever says:

        Could not agree more, Amy. I actually have a half-written post about this exact topic, but I don’t know how soon I will publish it, given the similarity to this one, and how overwhelmed I am with the response this is getting. I absolutely do not support Autism Speaks. (and I am a former ABA therapist.)

  28. Ren says:

    Thank you so much for this post. I lost my mother to breast cancer in 2001 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!!

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Good for you, Ren. I’m so very sorry to hear about your mother, but I am glad to see that you understand the truth about this issue. Thanks so much for your comment.

  29. Janet says:

    Planned Parenthood is not a “horrible organization.” Endless pregnancies and too frequent childbirths are a far greater risk to a woman’s health than birth control and yes, abortion when needed. 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.

    • Leah says:

      thank you for saying this. I was disappointed in all the negative planned parenthood talk as well. Planned Parenthood offers a lot more than hormonal birth control and abortion.

    • Mickey O'Brien says:

      “More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.”
      Margaret Sanger, Founder Planned Parenthood

      • Lisa says:

        I understand what ppl r saying about a link between abortion and cancer, but where education regarding unsafe sex etc fails, doesn’t planned parenthood provide an alternative? I am also pro-life, however in this day and age where babies are having babies, and then needing to live off welfare, especially in cases where it is the ‘norm’ (i.e mum has daughter at say 14, lives off welfare, then the daughter falls pregnant at a similar age, and goes straight onto welfare as well, and the cycle continues)I just beleive that abortion as an option (certainly not the only one) goes towards breaking such cycles and helps prevent society from creating a race that is eventually unable to sustain ittself. I know most don’t agree, but in Australia, (where I am)there are numerous babies having babies that then goe on to live off the system, and teach their kids to do the same. For me, even pro-life, I would much rather not bring a child into the world that I couldn’t look after, or afford, (because the only 100% birth control is abstinence and lets face the facts, none of us are nuns/priests)than have the baby, not be able to support it and rely on the government to pay my and my babies way. 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? After all the stigma of being an unmarried single mother is still around, and the detrimental effects of said stigma I think was the reason abortion was ‘legalized’ in a backhanded (I know its not ‘legal’ but allowed to occur if the woman meets certain criteria) way in the first place- to prevent what people were doing to themselves and others in the situation of an unwanted prgnancy? 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?

        • Heidi says:

          Lisa, I agree, “walk in their shoes.” Is this what mothers are doing when ending the life of their child, walking in their child’s shoes before deciding that their life isn’t worth the money and struggle? Abortion is like the most of the medical industry. It’s dealing with the symptom instead of the core issue. 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. Killing the child doesn’t mean that the girl isn’t going to keep having unprotected and dangerous sex. It actually gives her more freedom to CONTINUE that behavior. 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.

  30. Sasha says:

    Thank you for this! I was unaware of the “underbelly” of this organization! I want to tell everyone I know about the terrible things SGK does! Keep up the good work!

  31. Sarah says:

    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! By the way…how on earth did SGK come to trademark the term cure when they don’t even have one? Just more food for thought I guess.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Thank you, Sarah! I believe you’re so right — the message being spread needs to be about real treatments that actually do cure, such as nutritional therapies.

      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. Gerson originally did not advocate a diet absent of animal proteins, but included plentiful amounts of raw dairy and liver into his patients’ diet (inspired by the work of Dr. Price). 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.

      • ButterBeliever says:

        Ack! I’m sorry. I just realized I was confusing “Food Matters” with “A Beautiful Truth.” Although, I believe I remember Food Matters covering the Gerson therapy as well — I think Charlotte was interviewed. I’ll have to watch it again. It had some great information and very quotable quotes. Really not sold on that David Wolfe guy, though.

  32. Lynn Grant says:

    Good for you for posting this. These people make big profits from all this and don’t ever want a cure to be found – they’d lose money on that deal. Natural cures aren’t acceptable because they can’t be sythesized; people discovering them have been warned against speaking about them -some, in fact, were threatened with their lives. There’s a lot of hype and a lot of help that’s NOT getting where it needs to go. Once again, good for you!

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Right, Lynn. There’s no money in the treatments that actually cure. I don’t believe medicine really ever cures disease.

      I’m a little worried myself about threats for speaking out on this issue — I keep checking my inbox with a little pang of fear that people are going to write me something awful, but thousands of visits to this post later, and the response has been overwhelmingly positive.

      Thanks so much for your support. 🙂

  33. Brenna Round says:

    I found this blog to be incredibly enlightening and it will probably take me awhile to digest.

    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.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Thank you very much for your thoughtful and gracious feedback, Brenna.

      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 applaud your husband’s efforts to be an outstanding example of what the field ought to be about — devoting one’s life to the betterment of others, and being a provider of care to all who need it.

  34. Annie says:

    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. I remember saying after her second diagnosis – 17 years after her first that she couldn’t believe that after all that time and millions of dollars poured into the system that they were using the same (excuse my language) shitty drugs they did the first go round. It floors me with our technology that a better solution hasn’t been found and that groups like SGK don’t push for that solution. I’ve long stopped endorsing most of the conventional cancer groups because I don’t believe they are in it for a cure- because where would they be if there were no cancer? I’ve seen the documentary you’ve mentioned and I think there are better solutions out there – I think that with better diet we can reset our DNA and live healthier. People just didn’t die in staggering numbers from diseases like this when food was real. Sure people still had illnesses and death – that is a part of life, but we weren’t pumping our bodies full of crap and then wondering why we’re fat, diabetic, sick and miserable. Sorry I don’t mean to go on, but cancer causes obviously are close to my heart. I’m considered high risk and am doing everything in my power to make sure that I don’t become another family member to face this disease.
    I will say that one thing I don’t agree on is the mammograms/ultrasounds. 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. I wear pink in October, but it’s just because I like PINK! ;o)

    • ButterBeliever says:

      “People just didn’t die in staggering numbers from diseases like this when food was real.”

      Right ON! This is at the heart of what I’m saying here. 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.

      Thanks so much for your comment, Annie. And I won’t judge you for wearing pink, either. 😉

      • pam says:

        Thank you for your information on this. I’ve been saying to people who ask where does cancer come from?. Its our food!!! And the water and the air! Pollution,preservatives,pesticides!

  35. Gabrielle Kaplan-Mayer says:

    Your article contains a lot of dangerous, blame the patient rhetoric. While i respect your critique of Komen and for bringing this issue to light, I think you missed the mark by generalizing about women who have/had breast cancer. i was 37 years old when I was diagnosed with stage 2 and a mammogram saved my life. I had been on/have been on a very clean diet–sugar free, gluten and dairy free for years before my diagnosis. 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.
    I don’t think you’re courageous at all to post this blog. 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. I invite you to share some humility and recognize that you have missed the mark about many women’s breast cancer experience.
    And yes–the pink everywhere is annoying. I agree. 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.

    • Hollie says:

      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.

      I am reminded of President John Adams’ only daughter, Abigail, who developed breast cancer and eventually died from it in the early 19th century. 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 200 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.

      You also bring up a good point in saying it is a good thing Komen brought breast cancer out into the open, because society wasn’t always as willing to talk about it. It used to be something women didn’t want to admit to having, or that they didn’t want to get tested for because it was such a personal and embarrassing matter. 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.

      • Jenna says:

        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.

        • Hollie says:

          It’s possible not breastfeeding could have been the cause of breast cancer, but I do not know whether Nabby breastfed her children or not (though I am guessing she probably did breastfeed them).

          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.

          I wouldn’t go so far as to lay the blame of breast cancer solely on not breast feeding, though. Science tells us breastfeeding lowers the chances of breast cancer. It doesn’t tell us that not breastfeeding means you will get 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.

          • ButterBeliever says:

            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.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      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.

      I would gladly sit down with victims of breast cancer and discuss the issue, share my thoughts as to how dangerous conventional treatments are and why I don’t believe in supporting the industry which perpetuates them. Actually, I plan on doing just that (interviewing a cancer survivor).

      I don’t believe I have generalized anyone here. 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. But it’s the best preventative and protective measure we have against everything else that can lead to the disease.

      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.

  36. Karen Spencer says:

    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. However, I have one thing to say about your contention that if we all ate an organic, whole food diet (ok, you didn’t quite phrase it like that) and took supplements (an idea that, in itself, is disputed by many people who feel that all nutrition should be obtained through diet) we’d all avoid cancer without need for screenings or toxic drugs. 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. Now I’m sure he wasn’t going the whole, natural, organic food route from childhood – so I guess you can blame his parents for his ever getting cancer in the first place.

    Early detection has saved millions of women from advanced breast cancer – and now increased awareness may even save the lives of men. Dr. 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. But you are sneering at mammograms as “causing” cancer. 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. D? broccoli? what??? That’s called the “ostrich” response.

    I do agree with your jabs at the drug industry. They are only there to make big bucks (or Euros or Swiss Francs). Our health care system is geared toward giving them ever-larger profits, and insurance companies – especially Medicare – are funnelling ever-increasing percentages of $s towards them. At the same time, the drug companies, in order to increase profits even more, are cutting back or stopping production of drugs that they perceive are not producing enough profits thus cutting patients off from drugs that may be the standard treatment for their disease. Oh – I forgot – drugs aren’t “natural” and they “kill” people. Well of course it would be nice if we could find ways of preventing cancer in the first place – but go tell that to the chemical industries, oil and mining industries and the atomic energy companies: they are all busy telling us that they “provide jobs”, so it’s ok to poison our environment permanently and to kill our grandchildren all for the sake of “jobs now” (even if it were really true). So, no, I don’t go out and fundraise, buy products, wear t-shirts, scarves, hats that support SGK. Instead, I give my $s to my local cancer center to help support cancer care and research.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      A couple points about Steve.

      He survived for years with a cancer by (initially) avoiding conventional treatments, utilizing alternative treatments and a whole-food-based diet.


      He followed the advice of Dr. Dean Ornish, who is a proponent of a low-fat, NO saturated fat, vegetarian, high-carbohydrate, and soy-rich diet. All of these things are extremely unhealthy and dangerous to a cancer patient (with the exception of vegetarianism — it is possible to have a healthy vegetarian, not vegan, diet). But, being that it excludes many aspects of the Standard American Diet, a diet such as this would lead to an initial healthy response, just as a vegan diet (which is cleansing and not at all nourishing) will illicit a similar, superficial benefit to one’s health.

      The other major part of this story is that Steve had a liver transplant, and had to take immuno-suppressing drugs as a result. Try fighting cancer with a suppressed immune system.

      I’m actually in the middle of writing up a post about Steve Jobs’ death, so I’ll stop here. As for your question about what I would do if I discovered a lump in my breast, I also have a post written to answer that, which I will be publishing soon. I didn’t see the need to distract from the focus of this post by expounding on that issue in it.

      Couldn’t agree more with your points about the pharmaceutical and health care industry being entirely profit-driven. As well as the industries which are poisoning our environment. I think you also make a great point that donating money directly to those who use it is always better than buying products or indirectly supporting huge organizations like SGK.

      Thanks very much for your comment, Karen.

      • Heather says:

        As i understand things, it is less the radiation of mammograms that is seen as contributing to cancer as it is the procedure itself. The extreme mashing around of the breasts can cause a small patch of abnormal cells that might otherwise resolve itself, to spread an be more likely to develop into cancer. Remember, our bodies make abnormal cells often enough…and they are usually cleared and disposed of without a hitch. It’s when the body is overwhelmed with abnormal cells that we call it cancer.

  37. Michelle Heasley says:

    Great article with wonderful points. Can you please do an article on the Red Cross.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Oh gosh, I could write a whole series on the insidious, crooked behaviors of all the other major charities like the Red Cross. And the American Cancer Society. That’s a big one, and I had already started writing it, but I think I’ll hold off for a while before posting. The response to this post has been so overwhelming. Thanks for your comment, Michelle.

  38. Andrea says:

    I am proud of you for publishing this article! I wish more people would open their eyes and realize that they are being snowballed by the organization. While it is a noble cause they are really abusing their priveleges and I applaud you for saying the facts cleary and purely as can be! I saw these things happening and stopped being involved with their movement and hope that more read and open their eyes! Thank you once again!

  39. Joni says:

    Very nice! The only problem I have I personally had with SGK is the way they run the 3day walks, did you know that you if do not raise the required $2300 the 30 days after the walk you are obligated to pay the difference! And if you don’t pay the difference you can not opt out to do the deferred payments the following the year, you have to have the whole amount the next year before the walk or they will not you complete the registration! In these hard economic times people just don’t have the extra money to donate. So they pretty much are punishing you for not meeting their requirements. Kinda disgust me.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      WOW. I came across some troubling things about the walks/races, but that truly is disgusting. Why can’t they just expect people to do the best they can? Unbelievable. Thank you, Joni.

  40. KerryAnn says:

    I recently saw that 17.3% of our GDP in 2009 was based on healthcare. I’m sure it’s even higher now due to the cost of healthcare and insurance far outpacing inflation.

    In other words, if people get well, our national economy would collapse. I am SURE the government and these non-profits are not interested in seeing any cures come to light. Money doesn’t flow in when people are well. They need you sick to get your money.

    I watched Burzynski this weekend on Netflix streaming and I was totally disgusted.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      That is absolutely the sad truth we face. Our economy thrives off keeping people sick.

      Thanks for stopping by, KerryAnn.

  41. Samantha says:

    What bothers me the most about SGK is that you would have to be living under a rock if you weren’t aware of breast cancer nowadays. So now that we’re all aware, why not shift the focus to prevention. I’m not talking breast exams either. I’m talking healthy food like organic vegetables and pastured organic meats and keeping a optimum vitamin D level. But of course that won’t bring in the big bucks. SGK is just another partner in the big business that is cancer. It’s sickening.

  42. Krista says:

    Thank you for posting this!! I get so tired of seeing PINK everywhere and SGK taking over. People see pink and automatically know it is for breast cancer.. However, do people even realize that gold is for childhood cancer? The number one disease killer amongst children in the U.S? Everyone is so pinkwashed they fail to acknowledge there are OTHER cancers out there killing people everyday! My 5 year old son has stage 4 neuroblastoma (childhood cancer). It is very frustrating to see absolutely NO awareness hardly for the kids who do not even have breasts yet and have not even had a chance to life life yet! They receive less than 3% total government funding..Why? They are our future! Wear gold in September for Childhood cancer awareness! Maybe one day the whitehouse will be gold like it is pink.

    • Kate Marie says:

      Krista – I will keep your son in my prayers. I hope his doctors are able to find an effective treatment very soon. Children ARE our future. I’ve never understood why so many seem to overlook this fact and “throw” them by the wayside. I’m going into pediatrics when I finish medical school to do my best to reverse this in anyway I possibly can. I will make sure I display a gold ribbon next September for your little boy.

      I feel the same way, except its purple and for Pancreatic Cancer. I lost my dad when I was 15. It has a 20% one-yr survival rate and about a 5% five-yr survival rate. There is no early detection – most are found at Stage IV and some cases, like my dad, are only discovered less than 2 months before death. In 2009 (the most recent tax form on their website), Pancreatic Cancer Action Network didn’t receive a dime from the government. November is Pancreatic Cancer Awareness month.

      The only time I have ever donned a pink ribbon was right after Kay Yow lost her 22 year battle (I graduated from NC State) and it was upside down to look like a Y. I usually feel horrible for being as angry as I am about the “breast cancer culture”; I’m glad to know I’m not the only one anymore. Everyone should look up “Welcome to Cancerland” by Barbara Ehrenreich – not only talks about the misuse of funds but also about the pink “culture” and how it psychologically negatively affects those with breast cancer. I’d say its probably the impetus to my growing hatred of pink (read it in a sociology class in 2007).

      God bless your family and your little boy, Krista.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Krista, big, huge prayers for you and your precious boy.

      That is very disturbing that childhood cancer research is receiving so little attention and funding. All lives are valuable, but to me, it is a much greater tragedy to see the life of a child taken by cancer, than someone who has already gotten to live life into their adulthood. Children are indeed our future.

      Have you seen the film, “Cut, Poison, Burn?” Thomas, the little boy featured in it, was killed by conventional cancer “treatments,” after Dr. Burzynski’s therapy had cured him of his cancer. He would have survived if the FDA would allow patients to seek Burzynski’s treatment BEFORE their bodies are thrashed by chemo and radiation — but they only allow him to treat patients for which those treatments have failed, such as with Thomas. It absolutely infuriates me that children such as your son are being denied this treatment that WORKS.

      I pray for a revolution against this murderous and convoluted industry that is cancer. God bless you, Krista.

  43. Mario says:

    Thank you for the article- and for being brave enough to post. One thing that may be missing from the article is the answer to where those advertising dollars are going. You showed that a larger percentage of their money raised goes toward public health education. Who is receiving those contracts to perform that work?

    I once worked for a “non-profit” leadership education program. Parents feel much better about sending their kids to such a program if it is non-profit. However, all of the work for the program was contracted out. While I was told that I was going to work for a non-profit, I actually was working for a contractor that contracted with the non-profit front group. This contractor never had to bid against other contractors for the work. They got it every time, and made all of the profit. Parents who weren’t rich were out fundraising thousands of dollars to send their kids to this program that their child had been “selected” for, and this insider contractor was making all the profit.

    I see large salaries from the Susan B Komen for the Cure board. How do we know that those salaries are not supplemented on the side with kickbacks from a close friend with a PR firm that is guaranteed contracts? Some of the board members could even be the contractors themselves. It would be like when Joe Trippi served as Howard Dean’s campaign manager for Dean’s presidential campaign when Trippi hired his own advertising firm to handle all of their media work. I’m not saying this is necessarily the case with Susan B Komen for the Cure, but this issue should be looked into.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Excellent question, Mario. It was all but impossible for me to find specific examples of who exactly is receiving the education contracts and what they are doing with them. All I could really find was that the recipients of the education funds are determined and directed by the regional Komen chapters, and really no information about what it is they do to “educate.”

      Your experience from an insider’s perspective of what really goes on behind the scenes of nonprofit companies is telling. They really are so often not what they seem.

      I also have my suspicions of kickbacks which are unaccounted for, similarly to your experience with the nonprofit. It definitely should be looked into. Thanks so much for your comment.

  44. Mickey O'Brien says:

    Wow, you have done your homework! This confirms what I have been saying for a number of years: find out where the money goes! I applaud organizations that sincerely want to make a difference in the human condition, but I abhor those that deceptively advetise, pull on our heartstrings to solicit donations, seek to amass a large organization and then push their own agenda for what they believe people should want. Hell-o – it’s about curing breast cancer, remember? And then spend millions in lawsuits because they deem to have hijacked the word “cure” and seek to prevent others that truly are seeking a cure from using it in their promotions? Hogwash! Thank you for casting a spotlight on this as well!

    The compensation part I am admittedly uncertain about. I realize that to have a truly functional organization you have to attract good people and pull them from the businesses they are in to get them to apply their business acumen to charitable work. I could not say whther they are top heavy in that regard – there are plenty of people running large non-profits that pull in hefty incomes, so the business side of charitable work cannot be ignored nor minimized. And if memory serves me correctly, administrative costs for organizations such as the Red Cross are a higher percentage than Komen’s. Getting the attention of organizations such as the NFL demands contacts and influence – those people unfortunately don’t do this sort of work for free.

    As for pharmaceutical research, Big Pharma is not about cures – there is no money in that. Big Pharma loves chronic use – that means Big Money. Not enough money in cures – once you are cured, you no longer need their product. Lifestyle drugs make big money because of regular, repeated use. SGK is smart to align with Big Pharma – they have deep pockets and public recognition. That’s a reality that struggling biotechs cannot compete with. We don’t have to like it, but we should acknowledge the realities.

    Great, great piece. What message should we be sending about breast cancer? Greater attention to regular mammograms, greater education on who needs to have them and at what age they should begin. Let SGK spend more money to ensure that people in impoverished areas have access to such procedures, and let them partner with physicians and clinics to ensure that they have the latest mammography technology. I’ve not done the Avon Walk and I have no interest in that organization, but I did research them a few years back – the money they raise tends to go more toward more practical measures such as increased access to mammograms. And none of their money has gone to Planned Parenthood.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Thank you so much, Mickey, for your very insightful comment. I very much agree. I do, however, have my reservations about the safety of mammography, but I agree that the money could be used in more practical ways as you said.

  45. Jessica says:

    I believe the very same to be true of Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation who claims to be looking for a cure for Type 1 Diabetes. Are you kidding me?? Diabetes is a major source of income for a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Look at their list of sponsors – those very same pharmaceutical companies. Makes me nauseous. 🙁

  46. Aimee says:

    THANK YOU for such an insightful article! You go girl! I too see so many pink articles around me this month, and see so many people fall into buying something to support the “cause” because they think they are doing good or want to be part of the “club”. Education and nutrition go so much further than that cute pink little bennie baby you can put on your shelf!!!

  47. Tammy says:

    Hmm…interesting. If you are so passionate about breast cancer, I am interested on your take on immunizations which also contain cancer causing agents. Why inject nurotoxins and other toxic stuff and cancer causeing stuff to prevent disease to later get cancer and the like? Simmilar subject to this in many ways. Anyway thank you for your bravery and calling it out.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Oh boy, Tammy. I don’t know if I’m ready to handle the onslaught of pro-vax’ers quite yet, but I’ll give you a hint — I agree with you. 😉

  48. Charlotte Moore says:

    WOW!!! What an eye opener! This is all news to me. I had no idea this was the case. I have wondered why there is nothing much about children’s research. You just do not see much GOLD in September.

    Very interesting article.

  49. Sandra says:

    AMEN, sister! I’ve never, and will never, support many profiteering not for profit corporations including the one you mentioned and United Way. Until recently, I didn’t know UW directors had the leeway to NOT pass along donated funds to organizations they didn’t like, had political problems with, etc.
    Extortion to an NFP I don’t agree with is stealing, imho!

  50. starramber says:

    Thank you for this amazing article. I’ve had my suspicions over the taste, and you validated my feelings that groups like this are merely another big business, looking to line their pockets by exploiting a horrible disease. I was diagnosed with ovarian cancer at 16, and it was a horrible, scary time, to say the least. I am now 31, but that time is still fresh in my mind. Several years ago, I started to notice the blatant sexualization of breast cancer from the “i heart boobies” campaign, to “save second base, I am personally offended that breast cancer had been made into a trendy joke. People have given REALLY angry at me for pointing out the sexual marketing of breast cancer awareness, like I’m a monster for not slapping a “feel your ta-tas” sticker on my car. Cancer is not a joke. My aunt slowly and painfully withered and died from cancer in 2005. Just because I don’t buy pink sugar-Laden cupcakes doesn’t mean that I don’t support breast cancer awareness. I would just prefer to use my money for something other than lining the pockets of a greedy corporation. I heard a quote once that is very fitting here: “The money is not in the cure. The money is in helping people LIVE with s**t.”. Sorry to ramble, but this I’d something that I’ve taken a lot of flack for, especially in the last 5 years, when breast cancer became “trendy”. It is nice to know that others have these feelings as well. Thanks again!

    • starramber says:

      Please excuse any misspellings… I wrote this from my phone and predictive text can be a real pain 🙂

    • Don’t apologize for rambling. It is a surprise how willing people (myself included) are to take information with out analyzing the source. When information is given so freely wrapped in a beautiful campaign by an organization that handles a boat load of money how can it be untainted?!? Micky Mouse, McDonald and Coca Cola get colorful warm ad campaigns breast cancer should not!

    • ButterBeliever says:

      YES, a trendy joke, indeed. It is disgusting.

      Could NOT agree more with your quote!!

      Praying that you remain healthy and never have to face the horror of cancer again. Thank you so much for your comment!

  51. Cherie says:

    When I read the title, I had to check out your article and blog. I LOVE Kerrygold Butter and Ghee!!

    Thank you so much for posting this and I couldn’t agree more!! I would like to contribute a couple of links to check out. I worked for an MD that practiced Alternative Medicine and who did not believe in mammograms (as well as a few other doctors I know), but prefered Thermography as a much safer and earlier form of detection. The first link is http://naturalhealthcenter.mercola.com/services/Thermography.aspx and the second link is http://www.iact-org.org/links.html. I hope you find them helpfull!

  52. Nancy says:

    Is there any good research on whether or not leaking silicone breast implants could cause breast cancer?

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Good question, Nancy. I have not researched it myself, but I would highly doubt that breast implants would have no effect on the development of cancer or other illness. A foreign object permanently placed in the body, especially one not used to assist critical organs, can never be a good thing.

  53. Robyn says:

    Great informative post until you got to the part about CURES and PREVENTION. I have not watched the video you site, but I can assure you that currently THERE IS NO CURE FOR BREAST CANCER.There are ways to live with it and there are treatment options that reduce the possibility of a re-occurrence. But that is not a cure. A cure means you don’t; have to worry about it coming back. But since we don’t know why cancer occurs, we cannot prevent it. It is difficult to identify why cancer occurs because each cancer adapts to its host, and each behaves slightly different making it difficult to pinpoint how to treat it. Even “simple cancers” do not respond the same to treatments between people.

    I was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 39. I was a thin, fit professional athlete. I ate organic and largely macrobiotic for 20 years. I had no family history, didn’t use drugs (prescription or otherwise), didn’t smoke, and had breast fed two kids. I only saw naturopathic doctors. I did everything right. I didn’t have a lump. My cancer was found on a mammogram that I had because I got injured at work. The cancer I had was rare. I had a mastectomy and did not have reconstruction.I am healthy and happy but suffer long term side effects from treatment.

    Komen’s misuse of funding seriously impacts organizations that are legitimately looking for cures and less harmful treatments. Their exaggerations and self-promoting propaganda has gotten in the way of the needs of patients.

    However, stating that cancer is “largely preventable” is a misstatement of epic proportions which you cannot back up with the same facts that you use to prove Komen’s financial mis-management. There is much you can do to reduce your risk – but again, this is not PREVENTION – it is hoping for the best and minimizing your risk factors. We need to fund organizations that hiring up and coming researchers with new ways of looking at disease.Only when we have more knowledge about cancer can we actively work on prevention.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      I strongly encourage you to watch the Burzynski film.

      The reason why there are not nearly as many “facts” with which I can use to back up my stance that cancer is preventable, is because there is no money in researching food. Especially when it’s curing cancer. No one who stands to lose money off of it wants that dirty little secret to be spread.

      I absolutely agree that we cannot always prevent cancer or other illness. Unfortunately, the world in which we live in is so highly toxic and polluted with dangerous chemicals and radiation that we cannot ever fully escape it.

      However, this does not negate the truth that cancer prevention is possible.

      I am so glad that you are winning your fight and continue to live a healthy lifestyle. I wish you all the best. Thanks for reading and for your comment.

      • Amanda says:

        Hey, Butter, do you have any citations or references about the nutrition and cancer? I believe there is a link between environmental toxins and cancer, but I’d like more information and so far haven’t found much on this topic.

        And if anyone else believes toxins are contributing to high cancer rates (and not just breast cancer), I encourage you to research the corporation Mansanto…it is eye-opening!!

  54. Missy says:

    “I simply do not believe that medicine will ever bring about true cures for disease.” -Butterbeliever (post 17.2)

    Please look into the eradication of smallpox. I do not know if you think that total elimination of a disease is a cure, but it is certainly attributable to “standard” western scientifically based medicine.


    The only place smallpox still exists is in a few labs – to be managed for further research.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Really did not want to spark a vaccination debate — Lord knows this post has stirred up enough drama already — but…

      I do not attribute the eradication of smallpox or other epidemics to vaccinations. Here’s a great article one of my favorite bloggers wrote that explains my reasonings: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/2011/01/why-vaccines-are-scientific-fraud/

      • Missy says:

        Followed link, read it. We have different opinions, let’s leave it at that. Due almost entirely to your hostile stance on science, I will not be following your blog, although I’m sure you won’t miss me (this was the first time I read your blog, and it will be the last).

        • ButterBeliever says:

          That’s quite alright, Missy. I’d say with over 5,000 Facebook users who “liked” and shared this post, I’m in good enough company.

  55. Denise :) says:

    Fascinating article – well-written and researched. I’m glad you wrote it and glad a dear family member posted the link to it on her Facebook. I had no idea; now I’m off to do some legwork of my own. Thanks for being the catalyst I needed here! 🙂

  56. Angela says:

    If they find a cure, they’re all out of high paying jobs.

  57. Marcie says:

    I bet Susan Komen is rolling in her grave. May God have mercy on her sister’s soul.

  58. […] Susan G. Komen: For Cure or Con? Susan G. Komen for the Cure is a multi-million-dollar company with assets totaling over $390 million dollars. Only 20.9% of these funds were reportedly used in the 2009-2010 fiscal year for research, “for the cure.” Where does the rest of the money go? Let’s have a look. Read the rest of the article here […]

  59. Cate says:

    This article provided for a lot of discussion last night between myself and my mother, a breast cancer survivor. You’ll have to forgive me if some of this has already been stated in the above comments, as I did not have a chance to read through them all. My mother was slightly upset that someone who (I assume) has never had breast cancer, would portray this foundation in such a poor light.

    When she was diagnosed 18 years ago, breast cancer was not something that was discussed, and through the majority of her treatment, she found herself wanting it to be over and done with and behind her. No one knew how to be supportive about such a sensitive issue. She never wanted to be a poster child, or wear her survival like a badge, but having someone to talk about it with would have helped her a great deal.

    Now, almost two decades later, the Susan G. Komen foundation is a mammoth non-profit agency that has helped spread awareness so that people who were once uncomfortable or ashamed no longer feel they have to hide their illness. I understand that you may not believe this is necessary anymore, and that people are already “aware” and that this may be an advertising ploy to gain more money for the company. I’m not sure I understand what the problem is with this either. Komen is the largest and best funded cancer research foundation in the world, even if 11% of their expenditures are administrative, they are still giving a much larger dollar amount to research, detection and treatment than any other foundation.

    As far as the administrative costs go, I don’t see the salaries paid as a huge red flag or even a cause for concern. The data displayed in your article is from 2008. That CEO moved on to another company late in 2009, and Nancy Goodman Brinker (Susan G. Komen’s sister) is now the CEO (she is also the founder). Last year, Komen took in over 170 million dollars. Brinker did not take a salary. The highest paid officer in the company is the VP of Research and Scientific affairs, who made $240,000. This is miniscule compared to for profit agencies of the same size. In addition to that, other positions, such as the CFO (who made $205,000) are incredibly critical part of a charitable organization, as they are in the business of collecting and distributing money. To ensure that the company has an superior officer, you must offer a superior salary. That’s business.

    You can find Komen’s current 990 here (http://ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/Content/AboutUs/Financial/FINAL%20PDC%2012%2022%2010%20FILED.pdf)

    As far as research money being misdirected, I don’t believe it’s fair to say that the money being spent on early detection and treatment is a negative thing at all. In fact, you said it yourself. A cure is already out there in most cases, and it exists in early detection and the correct treatment. That is what saved my mother and what has saved countless lives since. Promoting self exams, symptom awareness and beneficial treatments is not a negative aspect to any foundation.

    I too believe in a healthy, nutritious and active lifestyle. My mother does as well, but breast cancer is different. It’s hereditary, and in most cases like this, not preventable. There is a great chance that my sister or I will get the disease through no fault of our own, just our genes. I thank God that there are organizations who donate the amount of money that they do towards early detection and treatment, so that maybe I too will live to see a day without breast cancer.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Hi, Cate. As I’m sure you can assume, it was not at all my intention to upset or offend anyone, especially survivors of breast cancer such as your mother. That is wonderful that she has been winning her fight for such a long time.

      I do understand that any large company must spend a sizable portion of expenditures on salaries, and that while 11% of $390 million dollars is a lot, it’s still within what would be normal for a large company such as Komen (that’s one of my main gripes about it — a nonprofit charity shouldn’t equate with major corporations standing to profit millions of dollars). However, as I stated, it appears that Komen is spending only about 11% on research for a cure as well. As for detection and treatment, I explained why i don’t believe the allopathic treatments and dangerous methods of detection are what’s needed to fix this this deadly epidemic.

      The form you linked to shows on page 13 — Hala Moddelmog, CEO & President as having a salary of $456,437, plus $11,818 from “related organizations.” There are several other employees listed as having very high 6-figure incomes.

      I’m glad that you see the importance in healthy living and nutrition. And I do understand that there are genetic links reported to increase breast cancer risk. However, even Komen admits that only 5 to 10 percent of cases are attributed to genetic mutations.

      I hope and pray that you and your family remain healthy and never have to face this disease. Thanks very much for your comment.

      • Cate says:

        Thanks for resonding, I really do appreciate it. I believe that we both have good points about that salaries of employees. In an ideal world, no, non-profit agencies would not be compared to the larger for-profit companies of the world because they are two very distinct and different entities. However, if you do a web search for Hala Moddelmog (the CEO you are referring to making over 450k) you will see that she left Komen in 2009 to work for Arby’s, a company that is clearly for-profit and very differet from Komen. Looking at an article dated 5/12/2010, Moddelmog’s salary jumped to $600,000 per year. Even though she holds a lower positon within the company (president vs. president AND CEO), she is paid substantially more. Good CEOs and presidents can be bought, as unsettling as it may be. If a company wants strong leadership, they have to be willing to pay for it. All this shows is how Komen must remain competitive in a business environment, even if it may not seem to make sense.

        In addition, the new CEO (also the founder and board member) does not take a salary. Looking at Komen’s most recent 990, the employees you reference making “high six figure” salaries appear to have left the company in either 2009 or 2010. Even if their former employees pay still affects Komen’s financial statements, it does appear that they are rethinking their executive compensation scheme.

        We will have to agree to disagree about the current treatment and detection methods. Maybe I am not the best person to discuss it because it has and continues to affect me on a very personal level. If companies like Komen were not advocating for these treatments and methods, I would most likely not have a mother or grandmother today, as well as possibly losing several other family members, or friends. There may be research linking mammograms or other detection methods to possible side effects, but it is my belief that the number of people saved by these techniques is far greater than any number who have been hurt (again, I do not know this to be a fact).

        It was not my intent to say that all breast cancer is hereditary, I was talking about my situation specifically and I apolgize if that was unclear. What I meant was that early detection and treatment are especially important in positions like mine because the likelihood of getting the disease increases subsantially if there is a direct genetic link (and if the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes are present).

        I applaud you for doing the amount of research that you did. I have seen several articles that were no where near as well constructed and influential, and there are certainly some things that made me think. I think we have fundamental differences and mentalities when it comes to this, but it does not mean I didn’t appreciate and learn from your post. Thanks!

  60. Lynn Nystrom says:

    I have heard some of this before, and agree. My only comment is that the script font is terribly hard to read!

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Oh, dear! Haha, yes the site is in need of a makeover (that I can’t afford). The theme I’m using doesn’t allow for very many modifications to be made, but I’ll see what I can do! Thanks, Lynn!

  61. Morgan says:

    I hope those that disagree with SGK would consider donating elsewhere. Here is a link to some of the current complimentary and alternative therapy studies being conducted. I hope one, if not more, piques your interest and you’d considering contributing. Another way to contribute is to specifically donate to the charities that cover other care cost such as housing, transportation, etc.


    Here’s a link to give those wanting to research CAM a good jumping off point,


    And I’m a bit biased because I’ve been fortunate enough to work with three of these lovely individuals for a few years (Standish, Sweet, and Seet), but trust me when I say that they’re completely vested in making a difference and saving lives! And if any of you are in the PNW and looking for cancer care-I HIGHLY recommended Bastyr.


  62. Tara says:

    Thank you for putting this out there!! Ask cancer patients and their families what THEY actually get from the SGK foundation. I say, instead of giving money to SGK for anything, go help a family who has someone going through these horrible treatments. Help them pay their bills or make some meals for them if you really want to help. They don’t get anything from SGK. It’s sad that charities like SGK get so much attention and make so much money while people who are actually suffering from the disease are barely able to afford the treatments and medications. They will NEVER find a cure because there is no money to be made in a cure.

  63. Yolanda says:

    I am so grateful for your research. This is something I’ve wondered about for some time. When “everybody and his uncle” is collecting money, and I never hear about any real advances in treatment and curing breast cancer… it just all seemed pretty suspicious to me. Like “Locks of Love.” They take your beautiful long hair and sell it and make their wigs out of synthetics, which are much more suitable anyway, but just saying…

  64. treatlisa says:

    Good for you! I totally agree with you and I have never supported this campaign because of our understanding of other ways to treat cancer as well as a healthy dose of dis-trust of big pharma and the whole misguided system where incentives are in all the wrong places.

    I would not be brave enough to post this – I admire your courage so much. I am working on being braver – it’s going to be important for us to stand up for what we believe in. Thank you for setting such a great example. I’m with ya on the saturated fat thing too! I never bought into that low-fat baloney – real fats or nothing as far as I’m concerned.

  65. debbie m says:

    and do I feel under-noticed with my recurring endometrial cancer…and what about the ovarian ladies, we are drwoning in pink and it’s NOT our color! How about all female cancers getting together.
    I hate Big Business Fund Raising…don’t even get me started on the Red Cross!

  66. Lila Solnick says:

    Wow! Tremendous article! You’ve really covered the bases and having given impeccable reasons for not supporting Susan G Komen or indeed any cancer or disease related “charity”.
    I will be sharing this one, you can be certain!

  67. jill says:

    Thanks for linking your great post to FAT TUESDAY. This was very interesting! Hope to see you next week!

    Be sure to visit RealFoodForager.com on Sunday for Sunday Snippets – your post from Fat Tuesday may be featured there!


    If you have grain-free recipes please visit my Grain-Free Linky Carnival in support of my 28 day grain-free challenge! It will be open until November 2.


  68. Hollie says:

    I responded to a response on here, but I thought I should actually give my own opinion of this article.

    I thought it was very educational and a brave effort to spread awareness of Susan g. Komen for the Cure. Most people are completely unwilling to say anything against the breast cancer awareness movement, because it makes them seem insensitive, even if that was not their intent. I can see the intent of this article was not to hurt anyone or downsize the seriousness of breast cancer.

    However, there was a downside to this article, and that is that, even though it was not intended, it did cause hurt to some who have been affected by breast cancer. The reason is that the article did not acknowledge that Susan G. Komen for the Cure can be helpful, and has been helpful, to thousands of women. Even though I find the information in this article very compelling, I find that in controversial issues, it is helpful at times to concede points to the opposing side in order to come across as more understanding. The point that could have been conceded here is that Susan G. Komen is helpful, despite its alleged corruption.

    Now, the first half of the article was very eye-opening, to see that an organization with “for the cure” in the title spends a relatively small amount of its money on researching the cure. That is quite ridiculous, and if I did have money to give as donations to non-profit organizations, I probably would not be donating to Komen for that reason. However, I am still left wondering if the benefits Komen has provided to the spread of awareness and research for breast cancer outweighs the negative affect of them spending so little money on research.

    The most controversial parts of the article in my opinion was not the beginning half, but the end half: “Do we really need breast cancer awareness anyway?”,”Stop the lies –there are already cures for cancer,” and “Prevention is the best cure.”

    “Do we really need breast cancer awareness anyway?” is actually a question my mom and I asked my sister this month. My mom and I thought breast cancer awareness month was a silly thing to say, since everyone and their grandma is “aware” of breast cancer. My sister went into this explanation of how breast cancer awareness month is about educating women on preventing breast cancer, dealing with breast cancer, etc. Which left me wondering “Why not call it ‘breast cancer education month’ instead?” because “Breast cancer awareness” is a misnomer.

    Now on the science of mammograms causing cancer, I have no comment. I have never researched the issue, and so I am quite unqualified to weigh in on the issue one way or the other. I do imagine that is quite a controversial claim, though. Kudos for taking a stance on it, regardless.

    “Stop the lies –there are already cures for cancer.” I remember my dad talking about some plant in Latin America that can cure cancer that was denied access or something into the US by FDA, because they can’t patent plants (it was some sort of conspiracy conversation). I don’t know if his information on the topic was accurate, but it seems probable. In a completely free market economy, it would be quite easy for any sort of cure for cancer to enter the market, because that would be quite lucrative business for whoever had the cure. However, this American “free market economy” is controlled by the government. They say they want fair trade, but fair trade isn’t exactly beneficial for the government and for the medicine companies that fund their political campaigns. As a result, beneficial cures for diseases can often be held out of this “free market economy.”

    So, I don’t know if there really are cures for breast cancer, and I imagine it is quite a controversial claim to make, but I do imagine you are most probably correct in saying there are cures for cancer, or at least helps in preventing it.

    “Prevention is the best cure” is the most controversial claim, in my estimation. While it is true, preventative measures can be taken to reduce one’s chances of developing breast cancer, it cannot be said that any sort of preventative measure will serve to completely guarantee a person will not get breast cancer.

    It does seem this claim was the most controversial even in these responses, and left a few women feeling vilified. Even though it does not seem the aim of the author was to claim preventative measures can completely bar against developing cancer(though some of the subsequent responses seemed to be claiming such), it is how some women seemed to have taken it.

    It is a mathematical improbability that cancer can be prevented simply by leading a healthy lifestyle. If cancer is genetic in some instances, then no matter how healthy a person is, they still have the chance of developing cancer. Personally, I don’t lead a healthy life style (by that I mean I eat processed foods and don’t work out), and so I know my chances of developing breast cancer are higher than a woman that does lead a healthy life style. However, even if I was the poster child of health, my grandmother is a breast cancer survivor, and that means there is a mathematical chance (due to genetics), however slim, that I may develop breast cancer.

    That being said, I do agree that more information should be shared about how one can vastly reduce their risk of developing breast cancer through healthy lifestyles. I do imagine such information would cause quite a few women to change how they live in order to reduce their risk of developing breast cancer. It is unfortunate Komen does not see fit to spread such information.

  69. Bethany says:

    Thank you!! this article was wonderful and exactly how I’ve been feeling about SGK ever since my mother was first diagnosed with breast cancer. She fought, treated (according to doctor’s orders) and was in remission for 6 years. Then it reappeared in her bones … terminal. During remission she changed her lifestyle, adhering to a more natural diet, like you’ve mentioned. She still died, but she LIVED well every moment until her last. And I don’t mean that others who have died didn’t live well, I mean she FELT WELL and was all around healthy (besides the cancer, that is) up until about two months before she died. She had bone cancer, but no pain and no broken bones. Another thing to mention is that she electively QUIT chemo about a year before she died because of the side effects. Maybe her lifestyle change came too late, but I believe that it (along with the Grace of God) afforded her a health-filled life before her passing. My mother would have agreed with you completely!

    At the beginning of the month I posted on fb a very SMALL version of your article, although mine was much more conjecture without the research support (great job on that by the way!). I also thought I would offend more people but was surprised by how many people agreed with me. Thank you, again!!

  70. jill says:

    This great post is featured at Sunday Snippets this week! Thanks for sharing! Come and check it out!


  71. claudia says:

    Very nice to see this article; thank you for having the courage to say what is in your heart and for speaking your truth. I have worked in a health food store for 37 years and my husband and I have owned our own for 21 of those years. I have been very blessed to witness many people heal themselves of cancer, including breast, all through natural and safe means. It’s shameful and tragic that millions of people are being made to feel totally helpless and victimized by this disease. The idea that only chemotherapy and mammograms can “help fight” cancer is ridiculous; it is not based on any truth or good sense…it’s simply an idea that has been propagated by big corporate interest making billions of dollars promoting lies that are harming people all over this country. Daily I hear from customers that know the political and econmic truth about the SGK organization and many express how tired they are of seeing pink stuff everywhere…all the while cancer rates continue to be on the rise.
    Being in a health food store and working with thousands of people on a day to day basis, I have witnessed miracles that the nightly news will never talk about. The only thing that the media is doing is helping to misinform people and participate in slandering safe and effective vitamins, minerals and herbal therapies; some of which have been documented for thousands of years for their healing properties.
    The SGK foundation could be doing great things with integrity, but instead all they’re pushing is mammograms, tamoxifen and early detection. The only message they’re sending is “find it early.” Tamoxifen was linked to cancer years ago and mammograms have clearly been proven to increase the risk factor for breast cancer. Along with the compression of the tissue, they cause unneccessary trauma and discomfort.
    If we really want to empower everyone in this country, let’s start speaking truth and using good sense. Every woman needs to learn about thermagraphy, a heat scan that is far more accurate than mammograms and causes no harm or discomfort. And of course eating food without pesticides and growth hormones is important…pesticides and growth hormones have all been linked to cancer! At our store, I am proud of the fact that we actively educate our customers about enviromental and food toxins and specifically xenohormones…man-made chemicals, all from petroleum that are permeating our enviroment, our food supply and our bodies. Xenohormones mimmick human estrogens and they are causing total havoc with our hormones.
    Teaching the public truthful and quality information is how individuals learn to make positive choices right in their own home with cleaner food and safe home and body care products. Teaching people to give their hard-earned dollars to themselves and their loved ones to support wellness, instead of creating more money for drug companies that participate in disease is the right way to go.
    Thanks for writing a great article with such an important subject matter.

    Firt we need positive and intelligent information so people education that really empowers people then all it takes is for everyone to care enough to make better choices for they food they eat, health and wellness by changing the food we eat, the products we use in our homes and on our bodies.
    Thank you for your article.

  72. Andrea says:

    Great job and kudos to you for putting yourself out there on this controversial subject! I totally agree with everything you say in this post!

  73. Amanda Roggow says:

    This was a very important post. Thank you.

  74. Joy says:

    Thank you so much for an excellent, well-documented article. I have done research in the past and found much of this on my own. Kudos to you for making this public.

  75. Eileen says:

    Great post, I am a OR nurse and I live with cancer everyday at work. The surgeons I work with have stated we will never find a ‘ cure ‘ for cancer because it is now ” BIG BUSINESS”….too much money to be made by keeping women scared and believing we are all going to die from breast cancer. Heck breast cancer is not even the #1 killer for women….. Lung cancer and heart disease….
    I have never supported Komen she is just playing on people’s emotions. Shame on her.

  76. Jen says:

    I love that you have so much info here! Thanks for posting this (and researching, oh my!) I recently was called by one of these cancer fundraisers and I told her I didn’t believe in what they did and would not contribute. . . there was dead silence on the other end. It was as if had spoken blasphemy. . . Ha, Ha! I proceeded to explain that I believed that “real food heals and prevents” I would no longer be giving money to organizations that only use drugs to cure. Now with your post I have ammunition for the next call! 🙂

  77. Lee Hager says:

    Thank you for your courage. I have MS and cringe every time I see the MS sufferers and their families out walking to raise money for MS. As an earlier commenter pointed out, most people think you’re a blasphemer if you speak out about these organizations, but the truth behind the facade is that they are often in business for themselves and the pharmaceutical companies. Their medications nearly killed me, but simple nutrition allowed me to get past all the drugs, out of the wheelchair and still very healthy over 30 years later. Thank you again for exposing this fraud. Will you take on MS next?

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Lee, thank you so very much for sharing your experience! I do plan on writing about using diet to heal from MS. It infuriates me how very little is being done to educate the public about simple nutritional healing, as you mentioned, instead of resorting to pharmaceuticals and the medical industry. I think we’re all going to be better off if we can start speaking out against all this. Thank you again for joining in the conversation.

  78. Thank you for your diligence and intellect. You have given real information for all who dare to read. the amazing thing? When I clicked on your blog, the top banner ad was for Bank of America advertising their new VISA card with the pink ribbon emblazoned on it…

  79. Matt says:

    Let’s get real here. “For the cure” needs to be “for the treatment.” A “cure” for cancer of any kind is a pipe dream. And even if there is a cure, it’s not going to spring up overnight just because we pump some magic number of money into it; it would take time, decades, even centuries, to find any chemical that gets rid of all cancer in an instant. (That’s what a cure is, after all. Something that, once used, completely fixes a problem). While we’re throwing millions of dollars into this pipe dream, there are millions of women, men, and children suffering from cancers of all kinds who need treatment now. Guess what? That treatment exists! Chemo and radiation paired with regular and early screenings get rid of a lot of cancer. How about instead of pumping money and pinkness into a cure that will never happen, we put that money to use in the real, non-pink, world helping individual people pay for treatment that insurance and not-so-deep family budgets won’t pay for? Get this cloud-nine “cure” delusion out of your heads and start working for now!

  80. Adrienne says:

    I am so glad that I found your blog. I was just mentioning to a friend that I receive marketing material from Komen on a WEEKLY basis – is that where my donations are going? Where is the advertising and marketing budget mentioned?

  81. Debbie from Philly says:

    Thanks so very much for this truthful & well researched article! What a breath of fresh air! Finally someone else besides me “gets it”! Amen!

  82. Jillian says:

    Breastfeeding is one of the BEST ways to prevent breast cancer ! Why doesn’t anyone talk about that ?

  83. Alice says:

    Amen ! Thank You for being so bold and researched . I’ve felt this way for a long time

  84. […] for “illegally” providing his lifesaving treatment to his patients. As I mentioned in a previous post, I strongly encourage everyone to find out more about this story by watching the documentary […]

  85. Leslie says:

    Thank You for your in-depth article on SGK. I found your blog by accident, and was refreshed to see the real stats. I have had my suyspicions about several of these “cancer-cure non-profits”, ever since Relay for Life would not enroll my daughter’s Girl Scout Troop for a ‘Relay for Life’ event without a $100 entry fee,PER GIRL, for the privilege of walking & soliciting donations from others at their all night event. There’s no way working families could find in their budget $100 for their girls to be part of it all. The other thing that makes me crazy about all this SGK business, is that there ARE holistic therapies that work for many with hormonal cancers, such as Ojibwa Tea, aka ‘Essiac’, from the Ontario Region, where many Ojibwa Indians reside in Canada. i worked with a gal when she 1st brought it to S. Fla 15 years ago. She had used it on her mother’s advice to heal her own Ovarian cancer after radiation therapy did not work. During my time working for her, i saw cases of cervical, pancreatic, prostate, thyroid, & even my own dog’s brain tumor healed with it’s use. (Google: Ojibwa Tea, Essiac, History of Rene Caisse, or Sandy Mckelvey with Herbs for Life (NOT Herbalife!) names for more info & history). It is insane that research is not done with treatments like these. In Sarasota, all the oncologists know about it, and some give permission to their patients to use in conjunction with their standard pharma treatments.Note: Sadly, i have never seen it cure bone cancers though. Lost 2 good friends to that one. anyhow Ms. Butterbeliever, Thank You for your solid research & courage to bring this to light. P.s. I am a supporter of PP.

  86. Ellis says:

    I am so relieved to finally see someone put into words what my gut has been telling me! All this pink rah-rah asking us to think about cancer all day every day gives me the heebie jeebies! The cancer hospitals in my town advertise all the time on the radio, which also seems like misplaced money. Something is way out of balance. Wouldn’t you know that $$$$ is at the bottom!

  87. […] this article from Butter Believer: I Will Not Be Pinkwashed: Why I Do Not Support Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Emily really researched this and put a lot of time and effort in this […]

  88. E. says:

    THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GETTING THIS INFO OUT TO OTHERS!!! I work at a hospital and I have just been appalled by the futility of traditional cancer treatments and then by the “pinkwashing” everywhere! My 16 yr old daughter did a research paper last year and to our horror, found out the Susan G. gives a tremendous amount of money to the Planned Parenthood clinics which perform abortions and this has been linked to future breast cancers! Sorry, but that ought not to be! I really appreciate that you don’t mind to speak the truth; I have been grieved terribly for so many women suffering and I have lost some of my own family members to cancer. The research is there for so many things that have been proven to fight cancer and they are not tied to drugs, surgery or radiation. Everyone should LOOK before they go the traditional route. God bless and keep telling it!

    • Martha Burke says:

      You are absolutely WRONG in regard to Planned Parenthood . . . Get your FACTS Straight, Planned Parenthood is THE ONLY non profit organization that provides VALUABLE healthcare services to women who would not otherwise have any. THEY ARE NOT ABORTION PROVIDERS . . . so sick of you idiots out there defaming Planned Parenthood, shame on you!

  89. Rebecca says:

    I know I am late to this but I completely agree. There is something twisted and disturbing about SGK. It’s also sad to see so much money directed toward an organization whose very existence depends upon cancer continuing to be a threat to women.

  90. I truly appreciate this blog.Thanks Again. Awesome.

  91. Tami Lewis says:

    i am late to the party but i must add my 2 cents- AMEN , FANTASTIC POST and i totally agree with you!! Komen is a business and profit is the goal. as long as there is still cancer there will still be a need for companies like this so cure and prevention are not really high on their to-do list. but advertising is. anyone who disagrees needs to study who funds these studies . again- great post!


    Thank you for your statistics. The research is quite disturbing and along the lines of today’s trend of corruption and greed. I am quite bothered by simple fact that a person who raises ANY MONEY BELOW REQUIRED $2300 for the 3 day walk cannot walk. $2300 is a lot of money and not every demographic area can raise that much per person. It is a shame that cap like this is imposed in a charitable event. It simply suggests that profit is the only driving force for such events. I have done many walks/runs for the pink and I am tired of junk mail that comes from many organisations asking for donations. It become a hype trend that puts dent on a real important issue. I visit NIH at times and I am broken by children who come there for treatment. As I understand they receive government grants to continue treatment. I also understand that many cancer organisations receive similar grants for their research.
    I have raised in 6-7 years over $10000 for different charities. I have never received any thanks for that. I do receive about 5 brochures monthly asking for money. I believe my data has been shared when I did run for the cure for a large organisation. Thank you for the numbers. Thank you for your courage.

  93. Oh sista, I love you more every time I read your posts.

  94. Martha Burke says:

    THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU . . . for writing this article, I am so grateful too you, have always said they were a fraud, took a lot of flack for it . . . Thank you for putting the truth out there!

  95. Elizabeth says:

    Thank you for sharing this. I found it because a friend of mine sent it to me in light of SGK cutting the grants to Planned Parenthood. I have interned with, utilized services at, and continue to believe in the mission of Planned Parenthood, but have been concerned about the pink washing campaigns for several years now and actively avoided products that have been pinked. Thank you for information that supports my concerns.

  96. […] maybe the worst aspect of Komen’s pinkwashing is that many of their pink products contain carcinogens.  I guess that’s one way to keep your organization in business, […]

  97. […] maybe the worst aspect of Komen’s pinkwashing is that many of their pink products contain carcinogens.  I guess that’s one way to keep your organization in business, […]

  98. JohnFx says:

    But….But…But… Boobs.

    Colon Cancer, ick, but who wouldn’t support a charity that protects women’s glorious boobs?

  99. […] 24 hours in, the question is whether Komen for the Cure has irreparably damaged their brand, or will rethink and find a way to resolve their mounting PR crisis. It would now require fixing their Planned Parenthood relationship and addressing concerns about their leadership, mission and use of donor funds. […]

  100. I didn’t read the whole article because you had me at “But, I am not buying it!” I will read now but, I already envision that I’ll raise my hand in support! I don’t buy it either!

  101. Anna says:

    I just stumbled on your blog today. What an great post. I’ve been thinking this for years (not just about this organization, but about many others like it as well.) Do you know they make pink horse clippers and feed bags?!? It’s insane. I’ve taken to refusing to purchase anything pink (at least if it has a reference to “the cure.”) Keep up the good work!!! (btw, I LOVE butter too! 🙂

  102. Sarah says:

    Totally agree and so glad someone is speaking out! I have family members that had breast cancer (on my husband’s side) and so I try to not say much but… kudos. It’s time we stop buying into the lies and funding Pharma and start eating right to give ourselves the best shot at staying healthy!

  103. Stephanie says:

    I enjoyed reading your view, but I have some questions.
    1. Have you ever researched other charities? I think you will find that they are all about the same and in fact in comparison you might actually find that those salaries are not huge. Most of the money we donate does not go to what we think it will.
    2. How do you raise funds without huge marketing costs
    I’m happy to admit that some organisations manage it but not many.
    Do you put your hand in your pocket for causes that aren’t well advertised?
    So I’m thinking better the devil you know.

    • Katherine says:

      You asked:”1. Have you ever researched other charities? I think you will find that they are all about the same and in fact in comparison you might actually find that those salaries are not huge. Most of the money we donate does not go to what we think it will.”
      I’ve been a professional fundraiser for over 20 years. Trust me, those salaries ARE huge.

      “2. How do you raise funds without huge marketing costs
      I’m happy to admit that some organisations manage it but not many.”
      On the contrary, the most successful fundraising is from direct donations from individuals, not events fundraising and cause-related marketing, which is what SGK specializes in. Events fundraising in particular is *the* most expensive way to raise a dollar. Cause-related marketing is great for raising brand awareness, but as Emily’s article points out, only a small fraction of what you spend on a pink product goes to research. 21% for administrative costs is actually a bit on the high side.

      • Rebecca says:

        Actually, no, those salaries are not huge relative to other organizations. For a national nonprofit with assets that size? The CEO’s salary, for example, is fairly conservative. The salaries are objectively large, but for that, blame the American culture of over-compensating the executive class. The whole point of listing those salaries on the 990 is that it is illegal for a 501c3 to pay executives or board members more than a going market rate for that position in that size organization.

        You may not LIKE how much executives get paid, but the reality at the moment is that a qualified executive expects a 6-figure salary. It’s extremely naive to think that someone who could easily make $400k+ at any job they were offered would, out of the goodness of their heart, work for $40k instead.

        For example, the internet meme celebrating Costco’s CEO for taking a smaller-than-average salary is celebrating the fact that the man’s base salary is $350k (his total compensation however is $2m+). Yes, that’s a for-profit company, but my point is that we have come to see it as a big deal when a CEO makes less than half a million in salary. That means the market rate for executive compensation is very high, which means that nonprofits must offer what are still very high salaries by the average person’s perspective in order to compete for qualified candidates.

  104. Harriet says:

    Wonder what the real Susan G. Komen wanted? Check this from her sister, Nancy Brinker. Is this what the foundation is doing? I think not!


    “Susan G. Komen fought breast cancer with her heart, body and soul. Throughout her diagnosis, treatments, and endless days in the hospital, she spent her time thinking of ways to make life better for other women battling breast cancer instead of worrying about her own situation. That concern for others continued even as Susan neared the end of her fight. Moved by Susan’s compassion for others and committed to making a difference, Nancy G. Brinker promised her sister that she would do everything in her power to end breast cancer forever.”

    • ButterBeliever says:

      It’s truly sad to think about how far removed the organization is from that purported goal, and from what Susan herself was dedicated to. Thank you very much for pointing this out, Harriet.

  105. Jeanmarie says:

    Terrific post, thanks very much. I wish I’d seen it sooner, when I was being hit up by Facebook friends to “like” the latest SGK
    campaign. I just ignored it. Next time, I’ll have something to send them to get them thinking, I hope.

  106. tikvah says:

    Thank you so much for posting this! It’s so guilt-removing to know that others have thought along the same lines. A while ago I started answering that I already donate elsewhere when I’m asked to donate to cancer organizations. I figure the money I spend on organic, local foods, essential oils, herbs, and research is keeping the companies alive that truly do combat cancer, and that is my constant contribution to the fight.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      What a great perspective! That is very much a worthy contribution toward fighting cancer. Thanks for sharing!

  107. Eva says:

    Double Kudos to you for putting in the time and effort to put this information out there…my grandmother told me once that she NEVER had a mammogram and didn’t believe in them. She said your breasts are the most vulnerable part of your body and squeezing them in that contraption not only causes bruising but it exposes that part of your body to the radiation of the machine, it was her contention that this in itself could cause cancer of the breasts…interesting when I see the info you have listed here between the Komen org and GE the company that makes these machines, wouldn’t it be awful if my grandmother was right and these people have been lining their pockets with greenbacks at the expense of millions of women, the mutilations and death from breast cancer that might be being caused by the very machines that we are told are designed to detect the disease…NO I don’t have mammograms thank you very much, like you I just don’t buy into the hype…

  108. Annie says:

    If you research any major charitable organization you will find numbers that swallow these stats whole. 21% for admin expenses is far below the average, and actually is an amazing accomplishment for such a HUGE venture. Everything else goes toward what they say it does; public education, treatment, screening and research, to the tune of 79%. So nearly 80% is going directly towards services that improve womens health. How about taking a few hits at one of the other HUGE charities like RED CROSS…examine thier numbers, THEN tell me Susan G Komen isn’t kicking ass at what they do.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      If you read the post, you’ll see that I don’t believe their dollars spent on public education, treatment, screening and research are spent wisely.

      Mega-charities are all guilty of misusing funds. This is just one example.

      So, I agree. Komen is indeed “kicking ass” at what they do — taking people’s money and spending far too much of it for their own benefit.

      • Jeanmarie says:

        I thought it was interesting how *every senior employee* listed (except one part-timer) worked an average of 55 hours a week. Maybe. For those kinds of salaries, a lot should be expected.

  109. […] that still doesn’t offer decent health care for all people. I’m posting links to interesting articles on my Facebook page if you’d like more information. Also, I will no longer be running any […]

  110. Lidia says:

    Wow, this is a post about the Komen foundation scamsters, but I see the anti-woman anti-Planned-Parenthood trolls are out in force. You can tell these are the same bullies who laid the groundwork for SGK to pull funding from PP, which is GREAT because it brought their evilness to my attention, and to a lot of other women’s attention.

    Like Sarah Palin charging rape victims for forensic evidence kits, this is going to backfire on these harpies and bring IN money for Planned Parenthood. I just sent them $100 in Karen Handel’s name!

    In the end, SGK only spends 10% on anything but THEMSELVES so average women like us can EASILY make up whatever shortfall PP experiences by this dastardly act on the part of SGK.

  111. Lidia says:

    P.S. Butterbeliever, you have a great blog here. I do believe that fake/bad food and industrial chemicals are behind many modern-day diseases, and I am on board with the Weston Price folks.

    I have my dog on a raw meat/organs/bones diet. The meat is not organic (hardly any meat available here is) BUT I know that, out of his litter of 10, my dog is still jumping around like a pup while his littermates (fed the expensive “breeder-approved” kibble) have all been dead for two years!

    We need to get Back to Basics: whole healthful foods, no chemicals, no plastics. At the supermarket, I looked at the conveyor belt and realized there was not one single food that was not wrapped in plastic, and that’s shopping the outer aisles of the place. I am lucky to have access to a fresh vegetable market (just distributors, no farmers) and a butcher, so I can avoid most packaging, but with the EU (I live in Italy) now all our beef comes from France and our pork probably from Eastern Europe!

    Though the EU has banned some OGM foods, not only do we not have wide access to organic foods or to raw milk, but our rustic landscape has become virtually animal-free. A woman we know who runs an agriturismo told us that she got rid of her chickens because she had to bring each one to the local health board to get registered with a health certificate! So she has a farm with no farm animals, not even a single chicken.

    I think a most of these governmental regulations are to protect agribusiness, not to protect the average milk/egg consumer or livestock raiser.

  112. Sandee says:

    Your post was sited in the SF Chronicle. Great post, very informative and reminder for all of us to actually check out who donate to regularly. And we use butter too!

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Really? I’d love to check that out if you have a link. Thank you very much, Sandee. Keep eating your butter. 🙂

  113. Dr. Rhea says:

    Thank you for the courage to post this article!

  114. Wendy Shirmedov says:

    I’ve worked in and around the OB/GYN field for 10 years and have never heard this kind of information. Two years ago I developed facial numbness and twitching, signs of neurological problems. Like this article points out, I was directed to more testing and drug treatments. I was introduced to a Food Science company, that manufactures and produces optimal nutrition. Skeptically, I tried it and to my amazement, all symptoms were decreasing after a month and are now kept at bay with no medication. In my journey, I’ve met many with cancer, as your article indicates, that have beat cancer without traditional treatments. It’s true! Well written article!

  115. Excellent post. Thank you for doing your research and putting thought into what you wrote. You can agree or disagree with SGK’s decision to yank funding from Planned Parenthood, but everyone who supports or is thinking about supporting SGK needs to read this post to make sure they understand exactly what they’re supporting … because it’s a far cry from what SGK claims is its mission.

  116. Larry Magnuson says:

    Fine, in depth. I hope everyone here helps bring this article into more general circulation.
    Please help everyone out by passing this on and up. Thanks

  117. Sonia says:

    I have been saying it for a long time now – most “find the cure” organizations are making money hand over fist by tugging our heart strings and propping up survivors and their families and friends who love them on tv and in ads that proclaim “We’re all in this together!”
    It’s all BS and has never been the case, because we don’t get a cure. I’ve known that the cure is out there and is being suppressed because the REAL money is in treatment, not the cure. And in this heartless capitalist driven economy, if you want to join a race to be healthy and prevent cancer in your own body, you have to raise money for their stupid profit-driven disease “research”.
    I’m SO fed up! I tried doing a triathlon a couple years ago and was low income. “See Jane Run” – a sporting company focused on women, mind you- had no alternatives to offer me, a low-income breast cancer survivor, a way to train and participate in the triathlon.

    I want to start a triathlon for fun friendly competition, for women. No raising money for anything, just participants contributing energy to making the course come to fruition. Any Takers? I’m thinking Hawaii would be a great place for such a race….

  118. cancer “awareness” is a ridiculous goal

    I just roll my eyes at all the pink crap. Because until SGK, I had never heard of cancer before.

  119. […] This post by Emily of Butter Believer was written back in October – Breast Cancer Awareness Month – but packs just as much of a punch right now, as the spotlight is on the Susan G Komen Foundation. […]

  120. Kay says:

    I’m so glad you had the courage to post this, but I must point out one thing:
    Abortion is not linked to breast cancer. Period. I hate to see someone who otherwise has wonderful things to say spread such misinformation- I get that you don’t agree with abortion, and I’m not trying to change your mind about it (not my job nor is it appropriate) but please, please do some real research before you say things like that. Otherwise, I loved the article and the discussions it inspired.

    Just a quick read from the NIH and the National Cancer Institute:

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Hi, Kay. Thank you so much for the kind words and your comment. I simply don’t trust what major players in the cancer industry and government websites have to say regarding the issue. From the research I have seen, I do think there could be a link. I’m not making any sort of an effort to spread that information or my opinion on it — that is why I left the issue out of the post entirely. I’m also not at all interested in siding with pro-lifers on political issues like reproductive choice. But when readers commented on the health impacts of it, I felt inclined to state my opinion.

      Thank you again for taking the time to comment and amicably offering your perspective. I appreciate it.

      • Kay says:

        And thank you for not being offended by my $.02! I really did love what you had to say and agree with every word of it.

  121. Donna Mollaun says:

    How timely that was (October) — considering the flack Komen is getting right now for defunding Planned Parenthood.

  122. Happycat says:

    Prevention and finding out the causes. When will that happen. Hopefully the SGK debacle will help bring more progressive organizations to the forefront.

  123. Christana DeGange says:

    Thank you for being so brave and writing this! I wish more people (including myself) had the balls to do so. You’re a warrior!

  124. Cheryl Starry says:

    I get infusions of Avastin every 3 weeks. My Cancer was stage 3 Nov. 2007. After chemo, a mastectomy,radiation, it came back under my sternum. Oral chemo (no hair loss)was all during the summer of 2009. Scans showed the 2 lymph nodes that were involved had turned into 4. Back to chemo. After that a scan showed no more cancer anywhere. The oncologist recommended Avastin. Now I am still getting that drug and it is 2012. I am worried about how the FDA is refusing to continue supporting this drug and I don’t trust it but it “seems” to be keeping the bad cells away. I won’t know until I get another scan.

  125. PollyinAK says:

    About 20 years ago I told my boyfriend that I thought using underarm deodorant attributed to cancer 1.) the aluminum chloride and other chemicals in them. 2.) antiperspirant? where does the perspiration go? one of the skin’s function is to remove toxins through it’s pores. The poisons/toxins need to go somewhere, so down into the breast tissue. Well, he thought I had the answer! I even found a doctor online who makes the same case regarding commercial deodorant products. But, then.. the scientists.. those paid off by Big Pharma more than likely… are on board stating that this is not true and cannot be proven… Well, think about it, do women in third world countries have a breast cancer epidemic like developed countries? When did America have an increase in breast cancer? I think the timing points to the time antiperspirants became popular. I strongly recommend reading labels if you are using deodorants.

  126. Grace Irizarry says:

    Wow, I had heard some of this before in Burzinsky’s documentary and it’s downright horrifying. To think of using all the emotion cancer represents for anyone, especially women going through breast cancer, purely for a financial profit is just despicable.

    Last year I participated in SGKs Race for the Cure as a corporate sponsor and shortly after saw Burzinsky’s documentary and felt like crap. During the event, I personally got caught up in the individual women there and their admirable attitudes and the emotional struggles they were going through there. The bond formed between young and old survivors or families of is undeniable and as a sponsor I felt proud of our brand being there in support of that. Until I learned the reality that we’re not really helping any of them find a cure, we’re in fact doing the opposite. Unfortunately, with SGK being such a huge recognizable organization, sponsors jump at the thought of being associated with a cause with such recognition and media coverage and we overview the reality of what we’re really contributing to.

    I for one, will not be recommending sponsoring breast cancer donations through SGK after this and I think every potential or actual sponsor should have this information beforehand in order to make a responsible and informed decision. It’s not about not supporting breast cancer patients and survivors. It’s about doing what’s right for them and making sure we assist with their real needs in a genuine sans pink-wash way.

  127. […] & breast cancer – a response to Susan G. Komen Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in […]

  128. Aubrey says:

    Would women of the world know as much as they do about the prevention of Breast Cancer without SGK? Would they know to do monthly self exams or have annual exams by their doctors without the early detection information out there? Would the hundreds of thousand of women that are diagnosed with breast cancer know where to turn for support? The Women that don’t have that option of changing their diet to help “cure” this disease, do we place blame on them or give them support? Would there be a place as Susan G Koman dreamed for others? This is a horrible disease, and yes the corporation around the original dream has grown bigger than ever imagined, but please realize the benefits that it has done are not insignificant.
    The elevated salaries for this non-profit -or any for that matter- that are over $200,000, are NOT acceptable. I wish you had stayed there in your argument.

    • PollyinAK says:

      I have never ever supported the Komen Foundation. I have been in advertising and promotion, and those pink ribbons bugged me. Instinctively, the marketing didn’t sit right with me. I am so glad to find this website that confirms my gut reaction. I learned about self-exams way back in the late sixties. And, this may seem weird, but I have studied hypnotic suggestion, and giving people a scenario where they may be a candidate for breast cancer doesn’t help them. (It almost creates it!) Prevention magazine and many other health publications have great advice on diet! There are many organizations that have support groups and it doesn’t cost anything to join. Komen Foundation turned into big business greed in my opinion and laid in bed with the pharmaceutical companies that make money on breast cancer victims. Sorry for the length here, but I had a bad pap smear (it was high up there in classification) and was told to make an appt. for a biopsy. I searched for an alternative which I found, made by a naturopathic doctor. An oral and suppository herbal capsule. I used it for three months then I scheduled another pap smear at a different clinic w/o mentioning the prior result. It come out clean. And I have been clean for 12 years. My mother-in-law died in three months when a biopsy was done on her cancer. My aunt died from cancer in her lungs and bones; she had breast cancer ten years prior when a biopsy was done. I think biopsies make some cancers spread so I avoid them at all costs.

  129. Federico says:

    Given the events of the last few days, this is a very prophetic essay. It’s hard to believe the outrageous salaries of their executives. And watching their lame excuses and outright lies on television further discredits this PR organization disguising itself as a charity. Planned Parenthood is a real charitable organization that helps all sorts of women.

  130. Dan says:

    Some very interesting stuff here, thank you very much for the insight. It has, unfortunately, been far too long that companies have been using good causes to boost personal revenue. Although I wouldn’t agree that SGK is the worst con out there, I would certainly agree that there are some smart minds behind it that ensure there is plenty of money coming in.

    For what it’s worth, I saw mention of an alternate version of mammography, called “thermography”, which uses heat detection to identify highly active cancer cells (which, with higher activity, show up as much “hotter” than other non-cancerous areas. I’m not sure if you have access to scientific journal articles or not, but I found a couple of articles that are very skeptical of mammograms and very supportive of thermography, which (in the early stages) thusfar boasts a detection rate of somewhere around 80%. Anyways, you probably already know all of that, but it’s for those who don’t.

    PS That being said, be careful who you allow to talk to you about thermography; as with every new, potentially useful, offer out there, someone will still be trying to make a quick buck off of you.

  131. publichealthgal says:

    It’s great to shed light on the hypocracy of SGK. I comment your blog for that. I agree non profit employees should get more modest salaries–I certainly did for many, many years. And, they should put the largest chunk of their funding towards what can reasonably be considered research for a cure. I must part ways with this blogger when bashing plannned parenthood, a laudable organization serving young and poor women. Annaul breast exams from a professional are important! I also question the blanket denouncement of mamograms. They aren’t perfect, but they are very necessary in diagnosing breast cancer. T dismiss them is reckless and irresponsible. Please don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

  132. Renae says:

    I have written several blog posts on my blog regarding this. My first being “The Mammogram Maze,” another being “Behind the Pink Ribbon,” and others leading up to “The Naked Truth.” Please feel free to read and post comments. Thanks.

    This post was excellent.

  133. Dee Jay Sweet says:

    Thank you so much. It is so refreshing to read the truth. You are brave, a voice of reason that flies in the face of popular opinion. Keep it up, and know that you are not alone. You are very much appreciated. God Bless you.

  134. Cordelia Blake says:

    I love this. I find the group offensive but usually don’t want to say anthing for risk of offending. Most of the pink crap that they make is in the cancer causing category! Yes it’s a big PR machine and I HATE that. And I totally agree about holistic cures not being given attention or research money. Good job and well done!

  135. Gina says:

    I love that you are so brave to post an article like this. In our Practice we promote healthy, natural ways to take care of the body. We have SGK affiliates calling and asking for donations. I tell them up front I do not support what they are doing and do not support Big Pharma in this “race for the cure.” because there will never be a cure. Keep up the great work and keep putting the truth out there.

  136. […] They’ve always been nauseating, a pink GOP branding machine.” Bright then links to a fascinating bring-down of the Komen myth that ran on a website called Butter […]

  137. Leslie says:

    Love this! Thank you for putting it out there!!! Awesome.

  138. suepur says:

    i would recommend people educate themselves by going on charity navigator. you can see how much a charity collects, and what percentage of their income is spent on programming-ie their mission- and how much on administration etc. the higher the score, the less on administration etc. Most high scoring charities spend up to 20% of their income on administration. it is an eye opener. some of your causes might be lining a ceo’s pocket-and not just susan g. komen

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Absolutely. Supporting any mega-charity just isn’t smart. There are better ways to make a difference and impact lives on a personal, meaningful level, with no high-paid middlemen involved.

  139. Janice says:

    I was taught that sugar feeds cancer cells in my biology class at Arizona State university, a Research I and highly respected university.

  140. Tracy says:

    Amen! I have wanted to write a blog about why I don’t donate to Susan G. Komen or the American Cancer Society for a long time. When I find an organization that is really looking for a cure (prevention, lifestyle, diet) I’m all in!

  141. Thanks for being brave enough to post this. I have seen reports on this for a while and been going hmnnn…I have friends who support this and who have been through breast cancer (lost a best friend to it in 2010) so I know it’s difficult info for people to read when so much emotion and effort has gone into supporting this cause – and I’ve contributed myself in the past. This kind of info has the potential to leave a bad taste in many people’s mouths. So bravo for putting this out there.

    Kinda went hmnn again…this year and didn’t contribute when some friends went on one of the walks.

    I’ve helped a friend through breast reconstructive surgery with reflexology sessions (which reduce recovery time – now there’s been a ‘scientific’ funded study which proves what us foot workers already knew, must write about it!).

    Also, I don’t get screened…my choice because my homeopath believes it’s a contributor to the start of cancer, squashing the female breast and then applying radiation…better tests for this part of our bodies are coming on line now but not available for everyone yet.

    And finally…going way ‘out there’ for some, but as somebody who has studied energy work and personal development for over 16 years now, I believe many forms of breast cancer (but not all) may be preventable through work on releasing emotions earlier on which relate to the heart center, women holding themselves back, stuffing emotions, allowing heartbreak to rule their lives and other methods of allowing emotions to eat away at the body. There! I was brave too! And in saying this (and I hope anyone reading this feels the sincerity I’m aiming to put across here) in no way is my intention to take away from any of the healing work anyone has done, gone through or lived through in this area. Let’s hope that one way or another, we find clarity soonest on why women get sick this way and how we can learn to prevent it for future generations.

    Love n light
    A Mom On A Spiritual Journey!

  142. StedyRock says:

    The fact of the matter the company raises millions and millions of dollar. You need to pay for talent to do that.
    They need to spend money on marketing to continue to raise that kind of money.
    And I’m sorry if you think finding a cure to cancer is so easy, but helping women through preventative care is also pretty important (and part of their mission statement)
    One of the reasons they raise so much are the hundreds of races and walks they organize, and the marketing campaigns they do, which raise their profile. The higher the profile, the more likely they are to raise substantial amounts of money.
    You may be shocked by what YOU think the Executive Director of a non-profit deserves, but I’m guessing you’ve never worked at a non-profit of that scope before.

    They are not padding the pockets of anyone. Yes the ED and other are very generously compensated, but how many people do you know that can call up the NFL and get the entire league to wear pink for a month? I promise you that one call alone was worth the ED’s salary and then some.
    Its just a matter of fact. You need to pay for talent. And SKG is very large charity, with a huge scope.
    I’m pretty certain you have misinterpreted much of the evidence you are looking at.

    • Lidia says:

      They are indeed padding their own pockets. That sister of SGK, Brinker is an appalling vulture. The Brinkers are mega-wealthy, like Mitt Romney-type wealthy, and she rakes in half-a-million-dollars a year plus all her free socializing and jetting around on private planes.

      Compare to Caroline Kennedy who paid herself $1/year.

      I can’t imagine my sister dying of breast cancer and me figuring “ka-CHING!” this is my ticket to big bucks…


    • Larry B. says:

      This post is unbelievable ignorant of nonprofit management in general, not to mention comically naive. It’s just a way to get more traffic, which has been successful, sadly. The dangerous thing about the internet is that everyone’s opinion, no matter how little the person knows, is validated merely be appearing. Author ought to be ashamed.

  143. Deni says:

    Wonderful post. Komen has NO programs for uninsured, diagnosed breast cancer patients. I found that out when I was diagnosed with Stage III breast cancer last year. They were the first call I made looking for help paying for treatment.

  144. Amity says:

    You did a great job on this post. I have not supported this fund for the fact that I want someone to prevent cancer not develop drugs to “cure” the disease. If you do not get the disease in the first place then you have nothing to cure. Which is why SGK doesn’t want to prevent it, they are lining pockets for already rich people. They will do what they can to keep their outrageous salaries. They work off the emotions of people that have suffered with breast cancer or have lost a loved one to the disease. Shame on them!

  145. Carolyn says:

    A very good read and confirmed much of what I already believed. Last year I organized a charity golf outing and (mistakenly) wanted to donate our funds (100% of everything we raised) to sgk. I contacted the local Chicago office and found that they have quite a stringent contractual agreement you have to execute including funding a $1 million umbrella insurance policy to cover the event. In addition to this, they have to approve any advertising in which you use their logo. There was a 3 page document full of legal jargon that had to be signed and executed before you could do anything on behalf their organization. After seeing the hoops I had to jump through to GIVE THEM MONEY it was extremely disappointing and changed my opinion of them forever. We ended up raising over $12k and donated it all to another charity. I refuse to buy anything with their logo on it and now will not patronize any business supporting them. Also the other reason I hate them…a very good friend lost his wife to breast cancer and I begrudgingly participated in a walk sponsored by sgk in her memory. At the “rally” before and after we searched for a booth that had information on support for surviving spouses…nothing. Again extremely disappointing. Useless and too big for their own good.

  146. I am happy to hear there are other women who have not become brainwashed by the pink ribbon garbage. First, changing your diet cures cancer, not waving pink ribbons. Eat Paleolithic or go Vegan- Both work. Inflammatory foods like gluten, dairy, refined sugar and soy are cancer-inducing. Second, an equal amount of men suffer and die from cancer of the testicles and scrotum and men also get breast cancer. Women have monopolized cancer and turned it into another gender divisive issue. I personally do not buy from companies who cater to the pink ribbon BS.

  147. Susan T says:

    Thank you for posting concrete information for people to read. This organization is just another greedy corporation that has this Great facade for pretending be “Doing SOmething”. The only thing there is to do about breast cancer and all the other diseases in the world is address the prevention, which is food. What we consume. Socrates, said, “Let thy medicine. be thy food and food be thy medicine.” It’s that plain and simple. Food is not only the prevention, but it is also can be the cure in a lot of cases.
    and the remark about “Promise Me” perfume speaks VOLUMES. The toxic chemicals that we put on our skin is ridiculous. The chemicals (like parabens and more) they put into our health and beauty products are also killing us. When will people wake up and stop putting convenience and greed ahead of people and our health and well being. It’s SO STUPID to me that ALL this money is wasted. It could be spent on feeding people good food, or at least educating them about product choices. I hope the Susan G Komen for the cure group goes under, or if they stay afloat they actually do something to help rid us of this horrible disease of cancer.

  148. […] recommend reading Butter Believer’s blog post about “pinkwashing” for a more in-depth look at Susan G Komen’s finances.  It’s quite lucrative to work for SGK, particularly in upper management.  The CEO and […]

  149. DJ says:

    explanation of abortion and breast cancer is explained on wikipedia. gives the probable reasons why people are confused about it and the origination of the cancer related idea that abortions cause cancer.

    • Lidia says:

      “why people are confused about it” is because right-wing religious nuts are very assiduous, well-organized, and vehement in pushing that false meme. I have one of those “Christian” pro-war, pro-death-penalty, anti-health-care-for-women-and-children family members who spews whatever hysterical nonsense the evangelicals come up with without examination.

      You can show these people all the scientific journal articles in the world, but they will cling to the version of “truthiness” that fits with their authoritarian, patriarchal theocratic world view.

    • IdahoLaura says:

      You’re using Wikipedia as valid and factual information??? I thought most smart people knew better than to get information from a site where anyone can edit/change the info.

      If you haven’t read the comments, I recommend that you do. There are links that prove the abortion/BC connection.

  150. […] I am glad to see they reversed their decision. But until they fire Karen Handle, reduce executive compensation in favor of allocating a greater chunk of their funds to actual preventative care and treatment – I’m done with the pink ribbon industry. For more reasons why you might want to do so too, further reading. […]

  151. Ben Pacheco says:

    I have had some of the same thoughts as the comment you make about Komen. It seems to me that we know many of the ting that cause cancer, but Komen has done nothing to make the public aware. i. e. Th head of our FDA being an ex employee of a chemical company creating toxic food!

  152. […] were webs of confusion; and her answers to pointed questions just didn’t emerge.   As Butter Believer reported, with graphs and charts and statistics, Komen isn’t exactly a charity’s […]

  153. Fmf says:

    So I had to have a DNC and an ablation due to polyps and terrible bleeding issues. I have a friend who had a DNC after miscarriage. Another for other problems. DNC’s are also used as abortions. Does that mean that I and the millions of women who have this procedure are at greater risk for breast cancer? It’s just nonsense.

    All the women who decry Planned Parenthood should hope they are never in a position of not being able to afford healthcare. Your wish for “embryos” to live while feeling its just fine for poor women to die from disease is sickening.

    And those who feel like birth control is evil… Where will your empathy be when these “perfectly conceived embryos” become children born to parents unable to take care of them? Will you take them in? I thought not.

    And yes, I know your self riteousness believes only in abstinence. Keep living in your fantasy land. Ignore the real problems (poverty, education) and just hope that everyone will find Jesus and decide to wait until they are married.

    I actually subscribe to many of the theories in the original post. I do believe that eating well and holistic therapies are a great approach to life. But I will continue to get a mammogram every year. And if God forbid I get cancer? I will look for therapies from BOTH eastern AND western medicine. Go ahead and try to eat yourself well. But I wont turn my back on any therapy that may give me more time on this earth.

  154. Ashley says:

    I am sickened by some of the attacks against Planned Parenthood here. I am a 25-year-old uninsured female. I’ve been using Planned Parenthood’s services since I was 17 years old. Throughout college, Planned Parenthood was the ONLY access to healthcare I had. FYI, I have never had an abortion and never would.

    I recently visited my local Planned Parenthood where I received a full exam and pap smear for 60 bucks (Jan. 2012). That was regular price, no low-income assistance. That is a bargain. I have HPV and Planned Parenthood is the only option I have found for an affordable colposcopy, a major preventive measure for cervical cancer. A doctor’s office quoted me thousands for this procedure.

    Without Planned Parenthood, I have no doubt I would have experienced at least 1 or 2 unplanned pregnancies thus far in my life. Yes, I want to have children someday, but I believe every child deserves to be planned and wanted into a family. I work 70 hours a week, no health insurance and I’m not yet married.

    Thank you, Planned Parenthood. I always tell my fiance that if I ever win the lottery, I’m donating a significant portion to PP. That’s how grateful I am.

  155. bravo, for posting this , I’ve always felt this way, it is a crime against women what they do. It is NOT a “cure”, how many years have they been doing this and still no cure…pahleeeeeze!!!!
    My mother was a victim of breast cancer at the hands of Big Pharma..thru BCP and then HRT….then chemo poison finished her off……sadly this is the scenario for most women.and if they do get radiation as well, they come out with another malady…CHF…and then need a V-Defib under their skin….when is this criminal activity gonna stop…when…how many more need to suffer, be brainwashed, suffer suffer, and lied to ??? HOW MANY????I will not be PINKWASHED, BRAINWASHED LIED TO ANYMORE!!!!!! all for the love of money…how pathetic!!!!!

  156. […] were webs of confusion; and her answers to pointed questions just didn’t emerge.   As Butter Believer reported, with graphs and charts and statistics, Komen isn’t exactly a charity’s charity, is […]

  157. Marcia Keeth says:

    While my mother was dieing of metastatic breast cancer this past October, every store I went into was awash in pink during “breast cancer month.” It was so painful to see my mother’s pain turned into a marketing trend. When she died in December, my sisters and I asked for donations to Dr. Susan Love’s Army of Women, an organization dedicated to identifying the causes of breast cancer so that it can be prevented from ever occurring. I look forward to the day that other people and other families no longer know the grief associated with breast cancer because this industry created by the Komen organization has indeed collapsed. Thank you for a brilliantly written expose.

  158. Erika says:

    THANK YOU, for being brave enough to write what I have been afraid to write for years.

    It is as though you have written the exact piece I would have written if I were brave enough – down to the same points and examples. Amazing.

    You are not alone in your sentiment, and I think it is time people really started to consider your points.

    If even a portion of the hard-earned, well-intentioned donation dollars spent to SGK were given to cancer patients wanting to seek care via non-pharma options that have significantly ASTOUNDING success rates, we’d have a massive decrease in cancer deaths. Dr. Burzynski is only one of MANY doctors and practitioners who have high success rates for cure. But none of them get any of this funding.

    I believe Burzynski’s movie is a must see for every single person alive. It’s that important.

    I will not give my hard earned dollars to this organization, and will not walk in a 3 day, or donate to friends doing the 3 day. And I’m tired of feeling like people think I must want women to die from breast cancer when I don’t give them my money.

    I WOULD give my donation dollars to a person who can’t afford alternative treatments (not covered by insurance of course).

    My heart goes out to the people who have lost loved ones to this terrible disease.

    I believe with all my heart that the more brave people we have who are willing to get the discussion started, the more people will realize there are things that work to heal it, and work in preventing it in the first place. And we will save countless other lives by doing so.

  159. Carla says:

    Strongly Agree!

    Huge props for putting this out there. I know controversial and popular subjects like this can be difficult to write, you did a wonderful job!!

  160. Fiona Stolze says:

    Great article, thanks for sharing. It’s always important to ask questions and not run along with things just because the majority are doing it. I love what you said about nutrition. We changed over to the raw food lifestyle a couple of months ago. It’s well known that when your body is alkalised like this, cancer cells just don’t have much of a chance. There’s lots that people just don’t know because it’s not in the general interest.

  161. […] The Robert Scott Bell Show a Super Bowl Dangers, Vaccine Scams, Jon Rappoport, Radiation Reports, Dr. John Apsley, Essential Fats, Stuart Tomc, Ron Paul Nevada Caucus Updates, Silver Cancer Cures, Mass Media Hysteria and More on The Robert Scott Bell Show (GCN) broadcast for February 5, 2012, 1-3 PM ESTCould An Alternative Cancer Cure Truly Eliminate Colon Cancer MalignancyCrocus “smart bomb” cancer cureI Will Not Be Pinkwashed: Why I Do Not Support Susan G. Komen for the Cure […]

  162. Tamara says:

    I thought this was very interesting. The thing is, if you want to get this message out to those who do not believe in alternative therapies or aren’t vegans, it might be good to not go on a rant about the fact cancer is curable without putting links to the studies and where you got your information. I am speaking purely as a devil’s advocate. It’s easy to dismiss an entire article if the article goes off topic, which it kind of did. Fortuantly I have already heard and seen the research you spoke of…but maybe provide the sources so others without such an open mind can see it and not think it is another one of those “nature hippie” things…and yes I have heard them call it that lol.

  163. Maria says:

    Awesome article and totally true! Why can’t people see that??

  164. Larry B. says:

    You have got the be kidding. . . .This is an unbelievably misleading and dangerous ‘article.’ Do you know even know anything about nonprofit management to draw the conclusion that this organization is ineffective? I’m guess from the rest of your site and terrible analysis, you haven’t the slightest bit of for-profit or not-for-profit training, education, or expertise to draw such silly conclusions. 11% admin is poor? A national organization shouldn’t have a sizable marketing budget? Where the hell are you pulling this from? Please go do some research on nonprofits in general before making such unbelievably poor statements. This is quite clearly a well-executed ploy to take advantage of current outrage to get more traffic to your site. Good job with that, but please be aware of the impact your uninformed words have on ALL nonprofits before speaking. You do have the right to be critical, but please know what the hell you’re talking about before you sway people into not giving money to ANY charitable cause. Because one day, you will be hoping for a solution to one of your problems and a nonprofit may be able to help.

    • IdahoLaura says:

      Most big organizations that want a cure for a disease (I’m familiar with MS walks, Juvenile Diabetes & Komen Cancer) DO make money off people that don’t go to prevention and very little goes into research for a cure. It’s easy to find the info online. NONE goes to helping women pay for treatment if they have no insurance. It’s all a big con!

    • Dom says:

      You really are misguided enough to think that the Susan G. Komen Foundation (which is what we are talking about here, not just any charity) is going to solve any problems? You have successfully ranted your way into an ineffective, repetitive post that uses the weirdest circular “logic” I think I have ever seen.

      This isn’t a thesis on the differences between NGO, NFP etc. This is an awareness article about how brainwashed people are in general about Breast Cancer.

      My mother got breast cancer two years ago and was systematically processed and scared by the medical/pharmaceutical for several weeks before coming to her senses and realizing the potential harm they were going to do to her. She wisely refused any radiation, chemotherapy “treatment” and all sorts of hormone pills that were thrown at her. Thank God she did.

      It is thanks to things like the pink ribbon that make this industry grow ever stronger. People who think that they are doing a good thing donate to fuel a powerhouse of misinformation.

      You said that this article is dangerous (or words to that effect), what is DANGEROUS here is the implications for everyday people that are completely misled and end up trying to “catch,” their cancer early and employ treatment, only to find that after a few months they are a burnt-out, withered husk of their former selves, doomed to DIE within a couple of years in the BEST CASE.

      Go get your information and facts straight before ranting about how a BUSINESS operates financially instead of considering the implications to PEOPLE.

  165. Mzeatright says:

    Finally! Very well articulated about these fund raisers to line pockets with no intentions of stopping the lucrative business of cancer!

  166. Kristin says:

    Of course things like SGK are quite suspect and creepy! Seems like obvious brain-washing to me. My own beef (well, one of them) with them is that they really do have *NO* interest in truly educating people about Prevention. I called my local chapter asking if we could have a booth with breastfeeding (which is proven to significantly decrease one’s chances of getting breast cancer the longer one does it, as well as the chances of the breast-fed daughter of getting it in the future http://www.naturalnews.com/028469_breastfeeding_breast_cancer.html). info at their race, and they said they only give booths to sponsors who give more than $2K to them!!! It just drives me insane watching our local race participants wearing shirts that say “Got Milk?” on them (local Dairy industry sponsor)!! OK…so, we should feed our babies cow’s milk instead of breast milk?! TOTALLY counter-productive to the anti-cancer cause!! Not to mention their ties with Big Pharma, etc. It’s just obscene.

  167. Tom says:

    butterbeliever: you mention cure for cancer and movie by K…ski. Is this available for viewing anywhere?
    Also, thanks for the post. My mother in law has breast cancer which has spread to her bones so my wife signed up for SGK walk. I won’t share this with her as it’s her way of doing something, not feeling powerless.

  168. Nathan says:

    Well put! I’m glad you put this all out there in cyberland for all to see. I am suspect about ANY organization that collects money at the grocery store checkout lane. Most of them are top heavy, money-hungry organizations that don’t help us at all. The only way we are going to “cure” cancer is to live a healthy lifestyle that includes natural, unprocessed foods that aren’t sprayed with chemicals, and stop using aluminum laced deodorant and anti-antiperspirant, and other products on your skin that you wouldn’t eat (remember skin is the largest organ and it’s ‘eating’ whatever you put on it!). The only problem is that there is NO MONEY in this “treatment”. Komen, and the like will just continue to search for chemicals and radiation methods that they can get kick-backs from to help us all. Wake up people. The FDA won’t stop the madness in our healthcare system. Do the research and take a vested interest in your own health and treatment! God bless!

  169. Lizbeth Ryan says:

    I was thrilled to read this very real assessment of the pink noose, as I have come to think of it. I don’t believe we should have cancer awareness at all, and never should we be screened for early detection. After all, isn’t that what our immune system is doing all the time? Screening us for cancer and eradicating it. When detected early we have not given the immune system a chance to get take care of it. Then we are terrified into letting these “doctors” poison us so we will come back later and give them more money.
    Thank you for this. I will put this on my facebook page Arkansas Acupuncture. My patients hear this from me all the time, and now I have confirmation.

  170. Dom says:

    Thank you so much, I could agree with every point you made here but that would be.. pointless 🙂 I am so glad to see something like this out there argued in an intelligent, rational manner. I am really, really looking forward to a day when more people are prepared to speak up about what is right and even more people are prepared to listen. I think it is sad that the first thing that sprung to mind when I read this was, oh no, she’s going to get sued, this is indicative that a lot of things need to change for people to actually feel SAFE.

    Thank you.

  171. annie says:

    fab to see more people exposing so called raising awareness campaigns that cost more to pay staff that actualy help the cause 😉

  172. […] I Will Not Be Pinkwashed: Why I Do Not Support Susan G. Koman For The Cure by Butter Believer […]

  173. frylnrind says:

    All trace holidays to March 8!!!

  174. Broussca says:

    I did race for the cure and donated to SGK until this incident. PP is a wonderful organization that provides many services to low income women. As a BC survivor, I appreciate their services and know how essential they are to women with little money. SGK politicized BC…religion has no place in the organization.

  175. […] Even before the recent kerfuffle over Susan G. Komen’s anti-reproductive freedom stances, I have long found it an unworthy charity, that from both a public health and a social justice perspective does serious harm.  It had previously defunded stem cell work, and is responsible for “pinkwashing” America.  For some pre-Planned Parenthood criticism, see Barbara Ehrenreich’s great essay here, this piece on Komen and KFC, and this great exploration on Pinkwashing. […]

  176. […] I will not be pinkwashed Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post.   […]

  177. Juanita M says:

    I applaud you for overcoming your nervousness and writing this anyway. I have never supported any kind of cancer research since I found out that there are so many natural cures that are debunked because the drug companies cannot make money from them. If cure was actually the goal, cancer wouldn’t even have a toehold in our health. Since making money is the goal, cancer will be allowed to flourish and grow until the powers that be find the magic pill that will make them millions. This is another subject entirely but why would the drug companies want a cure for cancer? They are making billions on current cancer treatments.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Precisely, Juanita! Cures for cancer = the end of the cancer industry. Which is why they set out to destroy Dr. Burzynski’s practice. Truly sickening stuff. Thanks very much for your comment.

  178. Michelle says:

    Thank you for putting into words what I’ve wanted to SHOUT from the rooftops for years now!!! It’s a tough topic to cover, sort of like politics or religion, people get very defensive about this sort of thing. I’ve personally known people with cancer and what bothers me most about Sugan G. Komen and the whole campaign is that they all act like there are drug related “cures” to cancer when half of the time, drugs have been the cause and heaven for bid you just take on a natural lifestyle, also CANCER is CANCER no matter what part of your body it occupies. Why there is a special organization just for breast cancer and it’s “cure” is beyond me.
    Anyway well said and I agree with it all.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Oh yes, people get very defensive, indeed! I feel pretty lucky that the majority of the response to this post has been supportive. Totally agree that it’s bizarre the way the industry likes to pretend the individual cancers are totally independent of one another, each needing their own, separate magical cure — thus, the reason why we need all that money to “find” it for each of them! **eyeroll**

      Thanks for your comment, Michelle!

  179. Tricia says:

    I recently read the book The Healing Codes, where the author is an oncologist. He discusses how little girls treated with antibiotics are at greater risk of breast cancer because it kills the good bacteria that feeds the cells. Eating right, protecting your gut flora, and not using anti-biotic’s is a great way to reduce your risk. Of course they won’t talk about that.

  180. madhu shree says:

    we should say people about the effects of cancer.
    this is the basics

  181. Winter says:

    It’s hard finding a reliable charity to donate to, and it’s sad organizations (possibly like this) take advantage of the public’s eager ignorance. I am a 17 year old (young, I know) daughter of a mother that has stage 3 breast cancer and a GBM, and I was going to organize an art show to raise money collection for research, but I am wondering if this will even have any impact. I want to help my mother AND future/present cancer patients somehow. Are there ANY breast cancer charities you recommend? Any information is appreciated.

    • I’m so sorry for your mom’s cancer, Winter. One of the best things you can do for your mom is to help her with natural food. Have you looked into a naturopath physician? Check with the Weston Price Foundation and see what else they can assist with. The more people who can cure themselves with natural remedies, the more impact it will make on the rest of the world! You definitely want to talk with a professional who knows how to work with cancer. Praying for you!!

  182. Thank you for any other informative website. The place else could I get that kind of info written in such an ideal method? I have a mission that I’m just now running on, and I have been on the look out for such info.

  183. Ginger says:

    My gut had already told me this.

  184. Very great post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to mention that I have really loved browsing your blog posts. In any case I’ll be subscribing on your feed and I hope you write once more soon!

  185. latest blog says:

    A person essentially help to make severely articles I would state. That is the first time I frequented your web page and so far? I amazed with the analysis you made to create this actual post amazing. Wonderful activity!

  186. Phyllis B Garrett says:

    I am truly appalled at the appalled at the Komen foundation. How dare any non-profit organization deceive the public. This sort of deceit is harmful in more than one way. When the public is deceived the beneficience of good will is damaged. People lose faith in good causes. Shame on the Susan B. Komen Foundation may God judge you according to your works….

  187. Nancy Bengtson says:

    Girl, you did your homework! THANK YOU!! Very though provoking facts indeed.

  188. Mishelle says:

    I didn’t read through all of the comments, but thought I would let you know why all of the employees are not listed. If an employee of a non-profit makes less than $50,000/year he/she does not have to be listed on form 990.
    Someone else may have already said it, also I hope people know these are available. My husband worked for a non-profit for a couple of years at a very low salary (we almost qualified for food stamps) and he found his CEO was pulling in 250,000+
    Now we always check these forms before we give a dime to any so called “charity”

  189. […] to 2009-2010 filings, Komen generated revenues close to $400 million for the fiscal year and allocated […]

  190. […] Corporations like KFC, ConAgra, Occidental Chemical and Johnson & Johnson are all telling consumers that if they buy their products with the strategically placed pink ribbons on the box, the company will donate money to the Susan G. Komen Foundation. […]

  191. DoulaLaura says:

    I love this article, but wanted to add that breastfeeding is also a way to prevent breast cancer- something the formula companies don’t want you to know! Nurse those babies- it reduces cancer for both mom and baby!

  192. Dina says:

    I just fell in love with you for this post.

  193. Kait says:

    Amen, sister. Total Con.

  194. julie says:

    My aunts cancer would have never been found had she not had the singular mammogram that found it.Same goes for my friends mother, whose first mammogram discovered her cancer. The belief that mammograms cause cancer? These women had never had a mammogram before. What, the radiation I’m assuming? We are exposed to tons of radiation daily… The yearly equivalent of 36 xrays. I’ll take that mammogram, please.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      No one is saying that mammograms are the only singular cause of breast cancer. There’s also a big difference between ionizing radiation and electromagnetic radiation. There are safer ways to detect BC than blasting the body with ionizing radiation.

      But, I hear you. Early detection does save lives. I understand why people take the risk of getting mammograms. I don’t plan on ever getting one, however. Clinical breast exams for me, and thermography, when I reach the age appropriate to be getting yearly exams.

  195. Celia Husmann says:

    Great post, I learned a lot from it and I am sharing with everyone I know.

  196. […] of the money that they take in actually goes to that goal.  Find out where the money goes. This website has great information about how the Susan G. Komen organization spends their […]

  197. […] but I used Slate.com’s simple breakdown of Komen’s tax filings and annual report. Also see this post on Butter is Better, which does a great job of laying out the roadmap as to where the profits […]

  198. Stacy says:

    Kudos! Great article, and I look forward to the articles on the effective alternative treatments!

  199. Rachel H says:

    Fantastic article. Sharing now!

  200. Dot says:

    Now THAT’s a cause worth supporting!
    I absolutely agree that to truly address the “cure”….we need to go back and address the “causes”, especially the unavoidable ones, such as all that crap that is used to manufacture all that pink crap being sold!

  201. Thiago says:

    Great article but the part that says that there is already a cure for cancer is complete nonsense and very disrespectful. I know people that died from it and tried everything they could. You can hate big pharma lobbying without making clueless statements like that

    • Tammy says:

      When you know people personally who have been cured of multiple forms of cancer outside of pharmaceuticals, then one may say there is a cure for cancer. This is in no way disrespecful of those who have died of cancer or currently have cancer and are fighting the good fight. There are numerous people who have been cured via numerous holistic, nutritional, herbal, essential oil approaches. There are too many for them to be flukes and those who gave an alternative treatment a chance weren’t clueless when they were cured.

    • Steve says:

      I agree with Tammy, there is no disrespect in suggesting there are other cures for cancer outside the medical model, especially since the medical model contains no cures. Unfortunately we have all been conditioned to hold our medical doctors up as mini gods in our lives and as the experts on health, but in fact, although our doctors are well meaning and good-intentioned people, they have been misled by the pharmaceutical companies money-making machine which is highly political, powerful, and will squash anyone trying to invade its profit margins. This is why I believe Thiago thinks cures for cancer are nonsense; BigPharma has done a pretty good job at discrediting and dismantling organizations that have cures or potential cures.

  202. J.Michelle says:

    This was very informative and questionable, at the same time. I will not make a quick decision . But I thank you for sharing this information.

  203. Steve says:

    Loved the article. I’ve never supported SGK and never will. Your article and other research I have performed has verified my suspicions about the organization. It all goes back to $$$. I was just telling my wife, ‘why can’t there be a huge charitable organization (like SGK) that actually does good for the world?’ but I think “huge charitable” and “good” are an oxymoron. Anytime you mix “extra large” with any venture, whether charitable or profitable, you end up with corruption. The love of money, status, power, influence, etc. tends to corrupt us weak people. How much money do we really need to live on? Here in Arizona I could live very comfortably in a beautiful two-story home and support my family with all our needs, plus plenty of nights out to dinner, one or two vacations per year and the kids enrolled in sports or some other activity they enjoy. In southern California I might need $150,000 to pull that off, but with $450,000 I could have that same life and give life to thousands in 3rd world countries with no running water and severe drought. I could provide fresh water wells, training for trades that would make them a living in their culture, basically provide what they need to be self-sustaining and then move forward to be optimally healthy. I am a Christian, so spiritual evangelism and growth would be high up on my checklist, but keeping them alive to hear the message I have for them is at the top. Thanks again for the thorough and thoughtful article.

  204. George M Cruz says:

    Donating to cancer research is the biggest fraud in charity donations. They don’t want to find a cure, (whoever they are). It’s the biggest money maker in the world. Everywhere you look in October it’s pink. Nascar, baseball , football, cheerleaders. Most every golf course has pink flags on the greens and breast cancer tourneys. What a joke. People give in good faith because it makes them feel good. The only thing you are donating to is giving someone a good paying job. You are keeping someone off unemployment so thats a good thing. (Or is it?).

  205. Bravo to you! Thanks for such thought provoking information…that took courage, for sure!

  206. Barbara says:

    I would like to just say that my biggest issue with SGK is the fact that there are many other types of cancers that affect children, men, and women. I think if they are going to raise this much money for “research” they should at least spread some of the funding to other types of cancer research such as leukemia, non-hodgkin’s lymphoma, the list goes on and on. I don’t think it’s right that other cancers are hiding in the shadows and this one particular kind is lime lighted. I also believe October shouldn’t be “Breast Cancer Awareness” it should instead be “Cancer Awareness”.
    I honestly feel terrible for the families, survivors, and current fighters of cancers that do not have an publicity for their disease. I honestly don’t see how this issue could not addressed. I personally have not known anyone with breast cancer but I’ve known several that have died from other types but I never see 3-day walks for prostate cancer.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      I also think it’s bizarre how culturally glorified breast cancer is, while so many other very common cancers are brushed over. I think part of that is to blame on the sexualization of the disease we’ve seen. Which is just so twisted and wrong. I agree that the focus should be more generalized on cancer as a whole.

  207. […] other ways, biases exist in research and awareness efforts. I urge you to read this article to better understand the politics and profit motivation behind the most popular awareness […]

  208. Jonathan says:

    I found your post during research for an e-book my MD wife and I are writing regarding breast cancer risks and bioidentical hormone therapy for women in menopause. It is a much misunderstood and emotionally charged issue that needs clarity. Thus, the book.

    Our position is, done correctly, bioidentical hormone therapy decreases the risks for breast cancer.

    The conventional “wisdom” (belief) is that “hormone therapy” increases risks for breast cancer. This perception stems primarily from the Women’s Health initiative (WHI) study of the late 90s/early 2000s, which used PremPro, a hormone DRUG, not a bioidentical hormone, administered in a continuous combined manner (a daily progestin drug – medroxyprogesgterone acetate – along with the daily conjugated equine estrogen drug), in a population of women who had been in menopause for years, average age around 65, if I recall.

    Regardless, the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. The prevailing belief among the preponderance of women and physicians is that “hormone therapy” causes breast cancer. This is the perception we are working to overcome.

    Anyway, believing the adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, I went to the SGK website to get a sense of their focus on prevention and the use of bioidentical hormone therapy as a means of reducing risk factors caused by the lack of estradiol, including insulin resistance, increased midsection fat weight gain, compromised immune function, etc.

    Lo and behold, what did I find, but the same institutional (FDA, big pharma) position regarding “hormone therapy,” which, in their minds, consists solely of the use of hormone drugs and solely for the treatment of symptoms and not the underlying hormone imbalance caused by menopause. It is this permanent hormone imbalance that actually increases breast cancer risks.

    The SGK position on hormone therapy, while no way advocating the use of hormone drugs, summarily dismisses consideration of bioidentical hormones.

    In short, they haven’t done their homework. They haven’t opened their minds to a more evolved, metabolic view of the causes of cancer and the means for preventing it.

    In time, I will contact them to present our case.

  209. Greg Mathis says:

    I became curious about the SGK foundation and recalled the PP flap from several months ago, so my curiosity led me here. I will admit upfront I am a believer and a social conservative, so my worldview and comments will reflect those things. Before reading further, please take a moment to stop, vent, curse me, call me a fascist or whatever word du jour is popular today and then come back and finish. Back? Good. The reason I personally went off the deep end about SGK’s funding of PP is the same reason the United Way and Red Cross made me angry: they asked for donations for one thing, and then decided, without the donor’s input or permission, to allocate the funds to something totally different. I personally think PP is a liberal politically motivated organization that uses the facade of women’s rights and health to pursue a political agenda. Even though one could make the argument that the PPAC is not technically the same organization, I say bull- those associated with PP make no secret that the PPAC is the political action arm of PP. It uses the PP brand and infrastructure to raise funds for political reasons. When the SGK foundation decided to halt funding for PP it caused a firestorm of protest from mostly abortion rights advocates and eventually led (if memory serves- too lazy to research) the CEO’s resignation. The point is I had been supporting the SGK foundation through payroll deductions at work and had no idea it was funding PP. Even though it was my responsibility to do my own research and see where the funds went I didn’t. I mean, logically, how could someone believe an organization that states it’s goal is to eradicate cancer fund an organization like PP? It boggled my mind. Needless to say, I no longer give to organizations that divert funds such as SGK, the United Way, or the American Red Cross. I instead allocate all of my charitable contributions to the Batson’s Children’s Hospital and St. Jude’s. To those who believe the PP is a worthy cause I say vote with your wallet. There is no reason SGK should be a front or fundraising arm for PP, the government already allocates taxpayer dollars of several hundred million a year to PP. For the SGK Foundation to regain its credibility, I believe it needs to focus on getting as much money as humanly possible into researching a cure. Cut staff, advertising, and “fundraisisng” to a minimal sustainable amount and they could still give more to actual research. It doesn’t matter if the cure comes from big pharma, as long as we find a cure. If I had cancer I would not care that the blister pack had “Big Pharma” written all over it as long as it was affordable, cured me, and did not cause other medical concerns.

  210. Melissa says:

    I’m so glad someone finally said it! I have secretly felt this way for years, but I never had as much courage to speak up.

  211. Hope Egan says:

    This is AWESOME! Thanks for having the courage to do this, and for doing such a great job of exposing the con that pinkwashing is–especially since there are already so many things we can do to prevent cancer!

  212. Connie Bendickson says:

    I couldn’t have said it better myself. THANK YOU for posting the truth. Well said.

  213. […] Read The British Medical Journal’s article How a charity oversells mammography, and for a very thorough examination of how SGK spends their money, Butter Believer’s post, I will not be pink-washed: Why I won’t support Susan G. Komen for the cure. […]

  214. Lau says:

    Breast Cancer Prevention Institute

    Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

  215. Leah H says:

    You have just addressed something I have felt for a long time! Will people ever wake up to what we really need to be focusing on? We have been brainwashed by these “causes”, pharma, and the food industry. It’s like one big circle of lies and deceit and people are gullible enough to believe that all these companies (and the government)only have our best intentions in mind!

  216. M says:

    While I do not support SGK foundation, you have made several incorrect statements from a medical perspective. First, tamoxifen is often used in women who have had their uterus removed. Second, mammograms provide less radiation than you will experience on an international flight. The risk benefit analysis for a mammagram has consistently shown them to be life-saving screening tools. You mentioned self breast exams which have actually never been shown to save lives, and they actually lead to a huge increase in unnecessary screening, e.g. mammagrams. Third, I would like to see data showing these all natural cures for breast cancer. I am not aware of anything except anecdotal information regarding such a thing. I applaud you for taking a stand but think that you will be more effective if you are more careful with ensuring the accuracy of the information you provide.

  217. Jenn says:

    So I am curious if you researched how much CEO’s of other non-profits make? How much fundraising does ACS do and how much goes to research? Did you research the lawsuits that show that groups were implying they were part of Komen when they weren’t? Yes in the 30 years of SGK they have expanded beyond just looking for a cure. a name change would be reasonable.

  218. Beth says:

    Hi there,

    First of all, I wanted to tell you that I have enjoyed reading some of your pages on your site this afternoon. I haven’t made it very far into them, but I appreciate your viewpoints. I can’t say I agree with everything I’ve read, but that’s ok. It’s always good to see others’ opinions and sometimes even learn why they believe like they do.

    I have been doing some research for a graduate Health Promotion nursing class on the Komen Foundation. I have had a hard time finding exactly where the funds that they raise do go. Regarding your post that states, “Over half their money toward promoting awareness and screening,” would you mind giving me a reliable resource for that? My professor and I have been discussing whether the funds raised by the “Race” go toward breast cancer advocacy or prevention and screening. She did not agree that the Komen Foundation supported health promotion activities in their programs; She stated that they provided breast cancer advocacy (after diagnosis) and not promotion of health (such as prevention, screening/early detection). I can see where it looks like their focus began to move away from screening in early 2012, but I wanted to see what info you had. I’m not trying to dispute her at this point because I have to redo this large paper regardless. I am just wondering where you obtained your information so that I may read it. I will need to know this in my practice as a primary care nurse practitioner (and for my own self-satisfaction with facts about this paper I’ve spent a lot of time on -lol). Thanks so much for letting me dig up your old post, and for your help if you see this. 🙂

  219. Lisa says:

    I’m so glad I ran into your website today – went ahead and signed up for your newsletters.

    I just had to comment on your article here. I live where the Koman’s Cure for Cancer started and their annual big race is held in our town. Too bad what started out as a good cause turned into money making machine for those running the charity organization. Couple of years ago, I subscribed to another newsletter that also ran an article on Koman’s Cure for Cancer and they had to take down the article because people got so nasty in their comments.

    You are brave in taking this topic on and I’m glad to see there are others out there that feel the same way we do about this charity organization. Given a choice, I avoid “pink” labeled anything.

    I appreciate your frankness and am looking forward to your future articles.

  220. Meredith Simpson says:

    Sometimes the right thing to do is the hardest. Thank you for posting this well-done article. We must also appreciate someone who takes the time to actually back up their opinions with facts. Whenever an issue that may have started with emotion then turns into a money machine, the original purpose always seems to become lost.

    **Looking at the facts in this article…, with such a large portion to awareness, really?…how hard is it to hire a media company to run all the ads and event planners to manage the local stuff.

    **Looking at the salary stats, if I read this right, it looks like the suits are rotating job positions so everyone can get a piece of the salary pie, even if for a few short months.

    **How much does a mammogram cost? I imagine some of that budget would surely cover thousands and thousands of free mammograms. Why are there not outreach programs in neighborhoods, a Mammo-Bus or something? If I wanted to have a mammogram today and was unable to pay – I would be hard pressed to find ONE single place to get one without at least mounds of paperwork first and maybe too late…

    I understand that there is strong emotion following associated with breast cancer and all survivors, but why give so much attention to such a negative disease. Women, if we can rally and become such a POWERFUL and I mean POWERFUL group, why not rally and make changes for the future? You survived cancer, that was just a thing, now it’s time to do something with the rest of your lives!!

    Why not rally for clean food? Why not rally for clean air or clean water? All linked to cancer-related problems.

    Mother Theresa said “I was once asked why I don’t participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I’ll be there.”

    Next time you see an SGK commercial (which I just did), imagine that group in a rally for better school lunches across the country? Wow – better grades anyone???…

    Thanks for your time and allowing me to post here.



  221. kay says:

    Let me just ask you guys one thing? Where would Breast Cancer awareness be and fund raising for the cure be without Susan Komen Foundation. Why should these fund raisers not gain some salary for there very hard work. There always has to be someone who is bitter. I say cheers for this organization. They have raised soooooo much money, awareness and empowerment for Breast Cancer. Every organization out there gets paid for there fund raising. It is a huge job to fund raise. These people organize, network, market and spend time away from their families to help raise money.

    • Val says:

      Honestly, kay, that’s the least of the issues, in my opinion. I think a well-run, TRULY non-profit organization should have several very experienced, capable people on board. People who could command extremely high salaries in the private sector. I don’t mind some of my charity dollars going to help make the organization run more efficiently and effectively. That’s clearly not the case here. SGK directs the majority of their profits back toward themselves in a variety of ways, which I think this article sums up brilliantly.

  222. Val says:

    I’m so glad I found you on Facebook! This is a great article that took a lot of guts to write. I’ve been saying similar things for years. How SGK can partner with companies producing carcinogenic food is amazing to me, but what’s more amazing is that people buy into it. It’s as plain as the nose on my face, at least to me, that they’re profiting from these poisons and from the “treatment”. They’ve got it made -that is, until enough people wake up! Thank you again for this article.

  223. […] Just FYI, not all breast cancer foundations can say that (*cough* Susan G. Koman’s foundation only gives 11% directly to research for finding a cure *cough*). Just […]

  224. Lori says:

    Butter Believer – just wanted to let you know I appreciate your willingness to write about this organization, knowing what a contraversial subject it is. I kind of stumbled on this accidently. Reading through the responses, as usual, I’m amazed at how easily the responses get focused on one little part of the article and seem to miss the big picture of the whole message. People, please stop getting so hung up on one tree, or more like, one tree branch, so that you can’t focus,and have a conversation about the forest that is devouring you. There is a huge problem with disease, the industry, deceit and greed, and people should be hopping mad about it. I am not a supporter of SBK at all, even though I have several family members and friends who’ve had cancer. I think you’ve nailed the subject matter very well. These whole industries are tied up together in very tight knots, and this foundation has jumped in to be a part of “raising money” from people’s fear of cancer and to help them feel like they’re doing something by donating for the research. We should all be able to agree that we’re ALL completely AWARE of cancer now. I’m sure many people in the medical field who work with cancer patients believe they are doing the best thing, as supported by some of the comments here – and they are writing that there are no known natural ways to fight cancer – and that is just not true – anyone saying that has not researched on their own. I just have to say this, because it is so important – Anyone fighting cancer, please research. Don’t believe everything that is told to you, just because they have a credential from somewhere, does not mean they know everything – that’s a fact they want you to forget. A strong immune system is the best thing you can give yourself to prevent or fight-sickness of any sort. That is also a fact. There are numerous ways to strengthen your immune system – AND – there are things to avoid to bring the immune system down lower. There are many documented treatments and helps out there – you just have to be strong enough to fight the mainstream way of thinking. Question everything. Pay attention to what your body is telling you – it’s the only one you’ll ever have.

  225. Heather says:

    I love this post! Check out this Spreaker episode by Susan Powter! A bit about the “pink ribbon” herstory!!


    This is where it all began!!!

  226. Carol says:

    Love all the opining. My worst regarding SJK is the amount of ads on afternoon TV. Every 5 minutes!!! How much research could be paid for if they would just pare down the commercials? When is it enough?

  227. Butter Believer,

    Thank you for writing a great post!

    Truth be told….

    Those who believe need no further explanation, those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice.

  228. Gail Murray says:

    Thanks for this information. My husband for months has been doubting the true effects of this organization on the actual problem. A gross misuse of funds appears in the legal attacks on other organizations working toward a cure. This feels arrogant and smacks of monopoly and collusion with big pharma. Providing hope and education in the absence of good advice unfortunately does fly in today’s world where most people take on the appearance of cattle and want the world to do their thinking for them. Susan Komen is an expert at fishing where the fish are — not in finding a cure for cancer.

  229. Lawrence Nall says:

    Breast Cancer and Parkinson’s Disease easily out draw all other awareness causes by a large sum. My wife and I are actively involved in Epilepsy awareness. Epilepsy in all it’s forms actually kill more people annually than Breast Cancer and Parkinson’s combined by a wide margin, yet receive less than a tenth of the funding. In fact Epilepsy affects more people in our country than any other affliction or disease yet the general public is still woefully unaware of this fact. Epileptics generally are not very forthcoming about their disease. That is starting to change, but the simple fact is breasts are the most prominent subject in our lives. Every TV show, magazine, commercial emphasize this point. Bikers raise money with Bikers for Boobs runs several times a year. Carl’s JR is selling hamburgers using the classic MRS Robinson pose except unlike Anne Bancroft in the movie this MRS Robinson has quite a pair and prominently displayed. he women who started SGK new what they were doing and are paying themselves quite well by just reminding people about breasts. Giving to them is the equivalent of making it rain at the strip club, only the women getting the money ain’t showing you them naked boobs.

  230. Lorraine says:

    Well articulated and thank you!

  231. Brandon Hobbs says:

    I am happy to see this. While my wife and I are into “real food” and doing all things in a intuitive way, the one thing that seemed to be missing from all the commentary (1.5 hrs reading) was the spiritual or metaphysical or subconscious element to this disease. I have had a suspicion about this marketing group for 2 plus years. Jesus said, “it is not what goes into a man(human)that defiles him, but what comes out. Just give that a second in your thoughts before throwing it out. Thanks, again

  232. Heather says:

    THis article makes me very sad. You do not have accurate research and have lots of facts that are just not right. When you go into stores and see the buy this for pink….the majority of that has NOTHING to do with Komen.

    Planned Parenthood is not only about abortions and contraceptives.

    Have you compared salaries to other organizations? SGK employees are at the bottom of the list compared to other charities with similar positions….

    Shame on you.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      Who are you speaking to? Did I say ANYTHING about Planned Parenthood in the post? You might want to re-read it.

  233. Chase says:

    My wife lived a clean life. Did self exams, we ate clean food (most of which we raised ourselves), did self and spiritual healing, and she still passed away. Friends of hers told her not to go for treatment or help other than self reflection. SHE DIED full of regrets that she listened to others and did not listen to her doctors. For all of the people who question fundraising actions by “non-profit” groups, I say shame on you. There is no such thing as a not for profit, no matter what someone says. the closest not for profit is the Jimmy V Foundation. As a researcher of treatments, I can personally attest to receiving funds from both the Jimmy V Foundation and Susan G Komen for the Cure. We are close to a cure and I have never ever been stymied for being close. I have been pushed by the FDA and CDC to be helped to find a cure. I work for a public university and my students and I do not get paid by corporations to find these cures. We do it so that the next generation does not have to deal with these issues.

  234. I don’t support them for a number of reasons.

  235. Al says:

    great piece… we found this after watching the documentary film “Pink Ribbons Inc.” It makes me never want to give a dime to that racket again. Over a million a year for the first three people on that list. You should have ‘outed’ the board members too.

  236. […] those of you who aren’t familiar with the business of cancer, I recommend this article about the business of cancer and also the chronicles of a young woman who lost her life to breast cancer, and in the few years […]

  237. Shauna says:

    Thank you for the courage and integrity that it required to take a stand for such a potentially controversial issue—especially in a world that doesn’t ask questions, turns blind eye after blind eye, is lead by their emotions, and quick to make accusations. And thank you for the doing this homework!! I’m holding on to this article forever.

  238. McCall says:

    This is going around FB with comments about stopping support to Susan G Komen and it breaks my heart. My mom and her bff co-founded the Race for the Cure here in Las Vegas and eventually the SGK local chapter. It is here simply because they wanted it to be. Because they wanted to help people and so they volunteered hundreds of hours and recruited all of their friends to do the same. They convinced SGK to let an idea that started in our living room become part of the national affiliate, because its was a system in place while they were learning as they went. My mom wanted to see things change and so she went out and started changing them. It is one of her finest achievements and I will forever be proud of her for it. She took time away from her family, not even knowing a person with breast cancer when she started, to put herself through classes and learn everything she could about the disease, its treatment and prevention, starting and running non-profits, supporting patients and their families, etc. She spent her weekends working with the city to get permits, finding volunteers, growing the chapter’s board, teaching self examinations at local churches and health fairs, doing anything and everything she could to make it happen. She worked, voluntarily, and often at the detriment of her own relationships, for a very long time, creating this event and the chapter’s services before it became big enough to pay for local employees. I am not disputing the facts in this piece because I don’t know that they are false. I also don’t know how these facts compare to ACS or any other like entities, but I doubt, if they were scrutinized, there would be much difference. What I do know is that not everyone running these programs, particularly on the local level, gains much financially. There are good intentions, and big hearts, fueling local employees and volunteers. What good is done by them, even if it isn’t done the way outsiders feel it should be, is more than would be done if they weren’t there. Services like this, unfortunately, are not a right, they are just that, a service offered. It is a business that runs the way it sees fit, to do what it can where others are not. By protesting our local race and chapter, you are not instigating a positive change, you are taking away from those areas where the money is appropriately allocated. If people want to see the other things change, maybe they can learn a lesson from my mom and go change them. Perhaps your research is a great first step to you doing exactly that.

  239. Great post! I agree with you 100% and have been sharing the problems with cancer research since the 90’s when I left the hospital setting. Real causes and cures are suppressed. Thank you for spreading the truth!

  240. Kate says:

    You say a lot of interesting things here and I agree with a lot what you have to say. However, I have to speak up and say something about what you said about the salaries of the employees. I volunteer at a non-profit that works with human trafficking victims in Nepal. We are small and the only people who make an income at our organization are the head director in Nepal, his 3 staff (all Nepalese) and our accountant. Everyone else donates their time because they feel passionate about the cause. This is great because more money goes directly to the people we are trying to help? Or is it….

    Because most of us are volunteers we have to fit our volunteering around our full time work and family obligations which means that the non-profit does not advance in its goals as quickly as one would like. Furthermore, many of the volunteers are not experts at management, marketing, program development and evaluation. This means that time and resources are not used at effectively as they could be if someone with the right background was doing the work. So get someone and pay them you say. Okay, well, you want to pay someone a fair salary for their education and expertise. The salaries you mentioned for this non-profit are, I agree, HUGE, certainly more than I will ever see in my lifetime. However, if you compare the scale of this non-profit to a similarly large company you would notice that the incomes they are earning are a fraction of those they could be taking home in the private sector.

    I find it so frustrating and demoralizing that just because someone wants to put their education and effort into working for a non-profit it means they need to be okay with a salary that is significantly less than what they would earn at a company. By doing this we are telling those people that if they want to earn a fair salary to feed their families they should give up their dreams of using their skills to give back to society.

    I absolutely understand that people want to see their donations go directly to the cause they are supporting but realize that there needs to be people working to get it there and, if want them to a really good job, you have to realize that you have to pay them a fair amount to do it. While over $400,000 for a VP of marketing seems like an obscene amount of money, compare it with the over $1.6 million that oil executives make and you can see that many of these people are earning far less than they could be earning elsewhere. Do you want to see people with excellent training and ability use that to ‘make the world a better place’ (so to speak) or to limit their efforts to private sector?

    Whatever your opinion of the merits of the Susan G. Komen organization, no one can argue that its staff have not achieved amazing things. They have removed the stigma of taking about and fighting breast cancer. They have made it a global phenomenon. Did you know that there are ‘pink’ breast cancer walks in the Middle East? I have seen women, living in repressive patriarchal societies, pull on a pink t-shirt over top their black abayas and walk proudly down the street, hand in hand with other women. That is amazing.

    So, in short what I am saying is to take a moment and before you get angry with non-profit admin costs because 10 cents of every dollar goes to paying staff instead of only a penny, I bet you that those staff will make your dollar go far further than it would otherwise and you are helping to pay a fair (hopefully) salary for someone that chose to devote their career to a cause.


    • Trixie says:

      Hi Kate, I agree with you to a point, that people need to earn a living wage to take care of their families. However, I’m fairly certain that non-profits such as Susan G Komen recruit only “highly qualified” individuals with Masters and PhD degrees from only the best Universities. I, personally, find this excessively offensive. By recruiting in such a way, it not only infers that these individuals are somehow smarter than the rest of us, but also implies that if you don’t have a high level degree you are absolutely incapable of making reasonable decisions. In my opinion, the fact that this person actually HAS this higher level degree draws into question their ability to make reasonable decisions, considering what those degrees costs and the sheer volume of graduates who have the same degree. So yes, non-profits should pay a REASONABLE salary to INTELLIGENT AND CAPABLE personnel for their services; but none of the salaries listed in this article strike me as reasonable considering the propaganda that SGK spews constantly about their mission.

  241. Cristin says:

    I probably would have agreed with you completely just a few months ago. This TED talk really shifted my perspective when it comes to charity. I challenge you to keep an open mind and watch it. It may just provide some interesting insight.

  242. Blythe says:

    This was a great article, thank you so much for the information. There are definitely issues with this organization.

    One thing I would like to point out is this – as an employee of a not for profit, I do make a comfortable living, and I work hard. You need to be careful not to lump people that make a decent salary at a not for profit into this mix. Being the president of a multi-million dollar nonprofit would warrant a salary like this. That’s not to say they are spending their $ “correctly.” It’s to say that you need to pay people.

    To run a successful business, for profit or not for profit, you want to recruit the best people you can. I shouldn’t have to live in poverty in order to fulfill my organization’s mission.

  243. wendy says:

    As a woman was was treated for breast cancer four years ago, I give you a big high five. Thank you for putting this important information out there. I cringe at the Avon and Komen events. I do want to point out that yes, Breast Cancer Action is awesome and totally worth supporting, but so is The Breast Cancer Fund http://www.breastcancerfund.org. They are doing similar work.

  244. cathy says:

    I agree with everything you have said! thanks for putting it out there!!! I wished more people would wake up to the scammers taking advantage of people!!!

  245. Michele Hoekstra says:

    I myself bought into the “pinktober” thing for many years due to my grandmother having breast cancer. I never understood why we have some much money being collected for breast cancer research and no cure has been found. When I found out how much of Susan G. monies were going to administrative costs, I found myself turning away from all the pink things for sale in October. I still honor my grandmother and my friend I lost recently to breast cancer by taking care of my self and having my exams on a regular basis. Education is important, but I think that they need to start sending the message that a huge part of the processed crap we eat and the toxic chemicals we put in and on our bodies everyday is a HUGE part of the problem.

  246. Bozo the Clown says:

    Donate to The Jimmy V Foundation… 100% OF EVERYTHING donated goes to Cancer Research.

  247. Jacqueline says:

    Whew! What a relief to realize that my suspicions may be real. I have never supported the “Pink” people, perhaps if they placed more emphasis on spreading the word about “prevention”, I could be more supportive of that cause.
    The Mayo Clinic, and other organizaitons, proffer the following habits as conducive to the occurrence of breast cancer: smoking, excessive alcohol intake, hormone therapy, and physical inactivity, amongst others. I believe that lifestyle, diet choices and personal habits do contribute to the occurrence of cancer. Therefore, the message coming from the “Pink” people should be more about prevention of cancer.
    Yes, I know that they are heavily involved with screening for breast cancer, and yes, early detection improves the control and outcome of breast cancer. However, I personally hate mamaograms and feel that if men, who I presume design and pmanufacture the mamography devices, had to use the equipment, they would have put more thought into the design and functionality.

  248. J M HAHN says:

    I do not support this “false”organization, they aren’t being honest. There’s already CURES for cancer but since there is soooo much money to be gotten from the lies, it will not be revealed to us. So, people, keep yourselves in the dark and stay in the darkness of cancer supporting their beliefs while you suffer and “pay through the nose” because of your ignorance. CANCER CURES HAVE BEEN FOUND, INVESTIGATE, IT’S YOUR BODY/LIFE…..

  249. Annie says:

    I have never been a supporter of the Komen program, nor will I ever. Research can be conducted by the average individual, which will reveal the inner-workings of the organization, just as this article has so articulately done. We do need dollars for research. What we don’t need is a greedy business model that purports to help the cause, yet is “in bed”, so to speak, with organizations that undermine the message of breast cancer victims.

  250. J says:

    I was drawn to this article simply because of my vehement dislike for the annual month of pink fashion accessories visible during National Football League games. I don’t even watch a lot of football; I am a casual fan at best. However, you cannot view a game, highlight, or magazine cover without seeing some huge athlete sporting a glove, scarf, socks, or shoes that have been “pinkwashed.” And for what? Uh, yeah, breast cancer exists. Honey, should we check your boobs again? I love this article. One of the best points made is the hypocrisy of the pink KFC buckets. Shameful. Thank you for putting this out there.

  251. Michael Mendelow says:

    I don’t necessarily love Komen, but re: “overhead,” I do believe this: http://overheadmyth.com/

  252. Lauren says:

    I was totally with you… I was going to share this on social media… until you got to “alternative” treatments for cancer. I am a graduate student studying biology and believe that it is irresponsible to tout pseudoscience as a cure for cancer to people who are often desperate for guidance. Yes, there are problems with the structure of the medical community, including the way that Big Pharma operates, but medical professionals recommend drugs based on years of working with patients. A lot of the kickbacks between Big Pharma and hospitals, which used to call to question the relationship between doctors and drug companies, are now illegal.

    Take home point: When alternative medicine is proven to work scientifically, people don’t call it alternative anymore. They just call it medicine.

    Also as for PP–As a strong supporter of a woman’s right to choose, I began doubting the work of Komen because they stopped funding PP. It was a political decision and not woman friendly, in my opinion. I’m all for talking about the monetary, emotional and health-related costs of abortion, but women should have the right to choose for themselves the right path based on ALL the information. Just needed to say my piece.

  253. Kheru says:

    Thank you for your thoroughly researched Article. i will be sharing it with any person i know who is not satisfied or fooled by mass deceptions simply bec everyone seems to accept what’s being done as good or positive. And You were right about the butter too. See Nina Planck and Sally Fallon Morel (Weston A. Price Foundation). Both discuss the true health benefits of nutrient dense real foods like butter and other saturated fats, as opposed to the anti health effects of industrially generated low fat “foods” and diet. Check out http://www.westonprice.org for the yearly shopping guide of whole and real foods. I’d like to see what you’d say about the new nutrition guides for school lunches that SEEM “positive” bec they are cutting INDUSTRIAL fats as well as real, nutrient dense ones, and replace it with SUGAR.

  254. Feloneouscat says:

    I don’t support Komen because they confused their mission statement (to cure breast cancer) with anti-Choice.

    Dad used to work for non-profits and basically Komen’s published numbers are reasonable (not perfect but reasonable). However, I can’t trust them again.

    Instead I give money to other groups, like the American Cancer Society.

  255. fred says:

    Pharma does more than just make drugs.
    They are leaders in the field of Genetics.
    Why do gene and proteomics research that will be the answer some day.

  256. Dyan says:

    Thank you so much for this article.This is how I have felt about this issue all along. Every time I see the pink I get angry. Now I really understand why! It always seems like they are preying on people’s fears,to support something that they have brainwashed people to believe is altruistic. But as far as I am concerned, is actually the worst form of manipulation imaginable. Yuck! So appreciate your strength and courage to speak the truth regarding this issue. Very validating to read. Hopefully more will wake up to the realities. I believe it is happening, just by you writing this article is proof 🙂

  257. James Watt says:

    You had me for the duration of the article until you announced that mammograms cause cancer. Linking, no less, to the pseudoscientific “Natural News” website.

    I think you have some valid claims in your article, but you cannot simply state that only 11% of the money donated does any good. The 11% administrative costs and 39% public health education may be the biggest losses in money for the organization, but all of the other services they offer women is still beneficial, even if it isn’t DIRECTLY related to curing cancer. That means 48% or so (or 48 cents on every dollar donated) still goes toward good things.

    The amount the people in charge makes is really a non-issue, people who run large charities and large organizations often come from the private sector where they made CEO-wages. If you want someone capable of running your organization that can bring those skills to the table, you have to pay for it, regardless if you are non-profit or not.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      I wrote this article two years ago. A few months after I had started blogging.

      I’m with you on Natural News being a terrible source. I know that now. Here’s a study from the Cochrane database instead, and another from the British Medical Journal concluding that mammograms may cause “net harm.”

      I addressed the other points already in the post.

  258. Judy R Overturf says:

    Thank you for the post! Had some research when they first started this Susan G Kolman Bologna. Didn’t like what I could find and thought then they were miss handling the money. So I have not bought into the PINK to support them, as I feel the same way. they are too worried about supporting themselves, not the cause.

  259. Lu says:

    I take the point on low-tech and back to the basics nutrition being a better strategy against breast, or any cancer, but I disagree with the idea of judging a non-profit solely based on their overhead/pay to administrators, for many of the reasons discussed in the podcast at the following address:

    I am sure there are many people working for and associated with SGK who are doing good work and believe that they are doing the right thing, although we live in a complicated world and things are rarely so pure.

  260. cindy wallace says:

    I really don’t think any disease will ever have a cure. I think that the pharmaceutical companies AND doctors don’t want that to happen because it will put a damper on their income if too many diseases are cured. When have they “cured” anything in the last several decades. With all the technology these days you would think someone would have cured something lately. j/s

  261. […] I Will Not Be Pinkwashed: Why I Do Not Support Susan G. Komen for the Cure […]

  262. Mr j c medical expert 52 yrs experience says:

    Many thanks for posting pink info. My daughter is trying to put your link to 31,000 women. I have been preaching very important preventative medicine for decades, especially regarding pain and cancers. Many thanks again and May God Bless!!

  263. Anne says:

    The stated mission of the Susan G. Komen Foundation: “The mission of the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation is to eradicate breast cancer as a life-threatening disease by advancing research, education, screening, and treatment.” You’ll notice there is no mention of a cure. Also, it is acceptable for as much as 30% of an the annual budget allotted for fundraising and admin, according to Charity Navigator and widely accepted standards. If anyone wasn’t aware of what their donated money/time was going toward funding (i.e. advancing research, education, screening, and treatment), that is their own fault, the information is not hidden.

  264. Vincenza Carter says:

    Thank for coming out on this issue, for putting up with the back lash you will be getting for speaking up.

    As well as Breast Cancer Awareness month, October is Pancreatic Awareness month – though don’t bother looking for the purple ribbons we wear, you won’t find many. My dad died of Pancreatic Cancer and the figures, when compared to BC, are sickening.

    Every year I go through the battle with the women in my family, with other women. No, I will not wear pink in October, I wear purple. Yes, there are women in my family who died from Breast Cancer, and my sisters have been struggling with cysts and tumors in their breasts for years. Yes, like my sisters I’m positive for the BRAC1 gene.

    The fact is that gene can just as easily give me Pancreatic Cancer as it can Breast Cancer. The fact is that for every 100 dollars given to Breast Cancer research, Pancreatic only receives 1 dollar – and some cancers receive pennies.

    The whole Susan Komen thing has become politicized and as a woman, I refuse to play. So thank you for this.

  265. Jill says:

    The only reason I don’t support most causes is because what we focus on tends to manifest, and I’m just not that into breast cancer. Don’t look where you don’t want to go, it’s like speeding headlong into a brick wall, all the while declaring that you don’t want to crash into a brick wall. We speak the future into existence. It’s a vibrational Universe. If we are all the time talking about breast cancer and the things we don’t want, that’s what we experience. Also, what we resist, persists, so “fighting” breast cancer (or anything else) only gets us more of what we don’t want.

    Thank you for sharing the information ॐ

  266. Jennifer Conroy says:

    Great. Now can we leverage some SGK funding into research about nutritional and other therapies? This is where I’m convinced the answer lies!

  267. Trixie says:

    I’m late to the party here, but I am wildly applauding you for this post with a solo standing ovation!!

    My mother died of Inflammatory Breast Cancer with a secondary cause of respiratory failure in 2010. Even before her diagnosis (which was NOT the result of any of the mammograms she underwent religiously every year), I was highly skeptical of SGK and their motives. It is now, and has been since her death, my heartfelt belief that Western medicine murdered my mother with their toxic conktails and radiation. I will not be pink-washed either……….EVER!! SGK and it’s people are thieves and crooks and liars, just like the majority of the American Medical establishment.

    I’m so looking forward to your other posts on prevention and natural cures. Kudos!!

  268. Naomi says:

    Kudos! Much needed and very glad you shared. I feel like I have been woken beyond what I already have, it’s amazing to me that I didn’t see this myself. It is so true that we are blind to the truth at times.

  269. Mi says:

    I love that you are able to call them out. Many people think you are insensitive to breast cancer patients if you don’t support “the cure”!!! That is ridiculous as they are two different issues.

    But there’s something that I don’t understand… Why is one of the advertisements on this site for “making strides?”!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Towards the top of the page, too.

  270. E. D. Parsons says:

    Thank you!!!!! This was a view point I had thought of as I see everything “pink washed” more and more each year but never had it laid out so well before. I appreciate your research and feel more confidant in not supporting them & that I will not be bullied into supporting them.

  271. Seana says:

    Thanks for putting this out there! You’re obviously not the only one to believe that the SGK thing is a big problem.

  272. Erika says:

    Well said or well written article. It is awesome and it takes balls to write about something that is this controversial because so many women have been manipulated in their most vulnerable space to commit to something that is Americas biggest money maker and biggest crock of shit. Has nothing to do with cancer cure and I salute you for writing something that address it. Good job.

  273. Frank D. says:

    It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that October is really “Let’s Make Lots Of Money Off Breast Cancer Month”. Take a touchy-feely, emotional issue and use a clever form of deceit to make enough money to fill a long convoy of dump trucks. Some people call it “business as usual”. I call it a big lie!

    Do we want a cure for breast cancer? Yes. How about heart disease? That kills five times more women than breast cancer. Nothing is ever said about it. Obviously, big business hasn’t figured out a way to use women’s heart disease to fill up the dump trucks.

  274. Dianne says:

    Thanks for the info. I have never supported it. For the same reasons I will not support the MS foundation. I feel like they just want everyone on medication.

  275. Beth C. says:

    We (me & my husband) have long believed that the cancer “cure” organizations are a scam how long have they been around and we have yet to see any change in how they “cure” cancer they still use the same poison that they have always used … no thanks I don’t buy it!

  276. Rebecca says:

    If you’re going to criticize a nonprofit, please learn how they work first.

    1) 11% administrative costs is pretty lean and it is NOT all executive compensation (what’s listed there on the 990 is about 1% of SKG expenses). It includes rental/real estate costs for offices, phone bill, website hosting, office supplies, electricity, all other staff, printing, internet access, etc etc. Those things aren’t cheap and they DO contribute to the mission by keeping the organization *open*. I get very tired of people thinking that major nonprofits can be run on fairy dust and good intentions as if spending money on toner for the copier is evil.

    2) You make it sound very sinister that board members’ compensation isn’t listed. Actually, it is. And it is $0. Why? Because in many nonprofits, being on the board is a volunteer position and in fact many nonprofits require board members to CONTRIBUTE money as part of their commitment. They are not working 40 hour weeks at SGK– they have their own jobs and they spend a relatively small amount of time fulfilling their role for SKG (though a good board member is an active advocate and fundraiser who can often make huge donations and other big benefits happen through their network of contacts).

    3) Addressing something in the comments that you didn’t say– I don’t know why people think current CEO Nancy Brinker doesn’t take a salary, but in fact she does. The IRS does not allow any business to not compensate people who are employed. If she chose to donate her entire salary, that’d be her business, but I’m guessing she does not do that. Anyway, that’s just nonsense.

    4) As has been said here elsewhere, while those executive salaries are high relative to what average workers make, they’re quite conservative for executive salaries at an organization that size. The fact that you’re offended that the executives might have advanced degrees among their qualifications is really kind of mind-boggling. The process of earning those degrees is a long and difficult one and requires building a defensible body of work within the degree program. It has nothing to do with one human being being “better” than another…it’s about it being a major accomplishment.

    5) Fundraising costs are always a significant part of any nonprofit’s expenses because it is EXPENSIVE to not only get but keep donors. There are tons of charities competing for people’s attention and dollars, and you don’t just win over a donor once and have them for life. You have to build a relationship with them and maintain it every year. Writing grant proposals is a long and detailed process, as is reporting on them. Cultivating individual or large donors is a constant and often very one-on-one process. Yes, it goes hand in hand with brand awareness, marketing, and PR. That’s not some wicked scheme on the part of nonprofits, that’s a reality based on how human behavior works. (And by the way, if *people* were completely altruistic, the whole pink ribbon merchandise thing would be unnecessary– people would just give money free and clear. But even people who donate money want something personally in return, whether it’s to write it off their taxes or to be seen as a compassionate person because they carry a pink ribbon water bottle that shows they care.)

    There’s a lot to criticize about SGK. But it undermines those arguments if you go after some of the most basic things about how a nonprofit functions and treat them as if they’re a conspiracy.

  277. […] I Will Not Be Pinkwashed: Why I do not support Susan B. Komen for the Cure: EYE opening! […]

  278. […] barrage of pinkwashing and messaging to get checked can seem annoying and alienating to those who feel the […]

  279. I was checking out at Kroger yesterday when the cashier asked me if I wanted to donate a dollar to breast cancer. I then proceeded to (shortly) rant about the evil’s of Susan G. Komen and was told “Everyone has different opinions.” Not sure how facts qualify as opinions. As I was leaving I noticed how the ENTIRE store was pink with breast cancer product paraphernalia. Even the organic mushrooms were in a pink container!

  280. Marilyn Olmsted says:


    A friend of mine linked this to my FB page where I shared your post. What do you think about this video?

  281. […] I Will Not Be Pinkwashed: Why I Do Not Support Susan G. Komen for the Cure | Butter Believer […]

  282. […] into dollars toward cancer research? I can’t help the skepticism after hearing about the controversial breakdown of Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s funds. Not all pink ribbon purchases actually go toward breast cancer research, and if they do, the […]

  283. […] doing walks to raise money for research and “improved” drugs doesn’t go where you think. This link explains where most of the money goes (only 39% goes to research…..) I Will Not Be Pinkwashed: Why I Do Not Support Susan G. Komen for the Cure | Butter Believer […]

  284. rima daya says:

    Let me just say that every illness and disease without a cure is a horrible monster but they are NOT treated equally and don’t get equal airtime. I am an advocate for Epilepsy Awareness and I have put on many fundraisers and have done so without taking money away from the cause or the charity to which I choose to give my money. Epilepsy is AS COMMON AS BREAST CANCER and takes as many lives each year.

  285. Pat Kennedy says:

    My Mother has Alzheimer’s. There is a better than average chance I will as well. Breast Cancer is not the only traumatic health issue that faces women today.
    And with the outrageous salary that the CEO’s get for running a charity,well, golly….that seems like a dandy job.
    Thank you so much for standing up to this issue. So many good causes are our there and I think that they should be recognized as well.
    And I can not truly believe that after all these years and all the money and all the research, there is not a cure by now. I just don’t believe it.
    Thanks for the article.

  286. […] 2011, Emily Michele Benfit wrote an excellent article entitled, “I Will Not Be Pinkwashed: Why I Do Not Support Susan G. Komen for the Cure,” where she meticulously tracks the amount of funds donated to Komen since 1982, and where […]

  287. jayne marek says:

    Tired of the pink myself …TEALS THE DEAL!!! BPOBIES R GREAT BUT COOCHIES CREATE …. WUT ABOUT AT LLEAST TAKE LIL ATTENTIoN OFF THE TATA N FOCUS LIL BIT Bit more on if not asmuch as the ugly cervical cancer? 1 in 7 women is breast c but cervical is 1 in 3….. what shud we really be thinking about ?????

  288. Doug Wallace says:

    What’s up “Double B”. Haven’t by your site in a while. I am so glad you wrote this article because I wrote one on the subject as well, and was so afraid of offending people. The thought process came to my head when I was doing my “guy thing”, watching football, and it was frustrating that the football players personal towels that they keep on their belt were getting confused with the penalty flags the referees were throwing. The link to my article is here —-> http://www.gaiahealthblog.com/2013/10/08/food-for-thought-breast-cancer-awareness-are-we-aware-of-mother-natures-solutions/

  289. Doug Wallace says:

    I also wanted to post an article I wrote on Thermography. It is a painless, non-invasive procedure that measure heat patterns in the body to detect breast abnormalities up to 10 years before they become tumors, which of course is up to 10 years before a highly radioactive mammogram can ever find the tumor. The thing about this technology, is that is [supposedly] highly reliable and practical, but it would put a big chunk of the cancer industry out of business if it became popular. A very few doctors are “quietly” advising women against mammograms and promoting thermography, but they have a gun to their heads by the “powers that be”. It’s such a shame we are so advanced but at the same time so “stone aged”. My article on thermography is here —-> http://www.gaiahealthblog.com/2012/10/31/girl-talk-thermography/

  290. Cesar says:

    If you are still skeptical about this then watch this video form start to finish. Susan komen and cancer society are both scams


  291. Adam says:

    Komens corporate sponsors produce the products that are the cause of the cancerous scourge we’re experiencing. Why else do you think that none of these “pink” organizations hardly contribute anything to prevention research ? Let’s all ignore the elephant in the room while you gladly turn over your hard earned money for “the cure”. Let’s also allow the symbolic pink ribbon to quell what should otherwise be outrage when we have for sale pink ribbon stickered cosmetics with documented carcinogens in them. Heck it can’t be bad for you if it has a pink ribbon sticker on it right ???

  292. Maria says:

    Here’s the problem with the administrative costs beef. All CEO’s make that much money. In fact, they much more than that. $760K is the median
    Salary of a CEO. http://www1.salary.com/Chief-Executive-Officer-Salary.html

    I understand that it’s a non-profit, but that doesn’t make it any easier to run. In fact navigating the non-profit world of donor and grant based funding is a specialty. It takes a very skilled, seasoned leader to run any entity the size of SGK. We want strong accountability and performance in the non-profits that we support and yet we don’t want to pay their administration what they are WORTH. The CEO of SGK is making well below their fair market value. Their CEO and most of the VP’s could be making much more in the private sector. The fact is, it’s takes money to make money, and it takes money to get anything actually accomplished, non-profit or not. 11% is below average and completely reasonable administrative costs for any non-profit to operate. Please see http://overheadmyth.com/?hq_e=el&hq_m=2137243&hq_l=4&hq_v=a4247839a5
    There are consequences to hiring under qualified, inexperienced leaders because you do not believe anyone working for a non-profit deserves to be compensated what they are worth. (Going-rate, fair market value)

  293. HealthMinded says:

    Huge kudos to you for writing this article! I was very interested in what you had to say, as I don’t support ANY charity for cures in regards to medically funded cures. As you already stated, there are, and have been for decades….even longer, cures for diseases. ALL diseases have a cure through alternative methods and natural organic foods. They will never be ones that dr’s, hospitals, charities will ever promote as they will not make them any money, and we all know it comes down to the almighty dollar. Such a shame!

    I have come across a movie in the making coming out soon called “Bought”. It is about the big 3…..Vaccines, GMOs and Big Pharma. Thought it would interest you and your readers: https://www.facebook.com/HealthMindedInfo/posts/531080313678303?stream_ref=10

    Just stumbled across your site today for the first time, glad I did! 🙂

    • Suz says:

      Escape Fire: The Fight to Rescue American Healthcare is a great documentary. amazon.com instant video. Recommended to me recently by a healthcare provider. By healthcare providers.

  294. Lou says:

    “More importantly, what the medical establishment fails to recognize is that cancer is largely preventable. … getting proper levels of cancer-preventing Vitamin D, or other factors such as breastfeeding, in any of their “public health education” efforts. Even though these are scientifically proven ways to prevent cancer.”

    Good for you. IMO ALL cancer not just Breast Cancer is COMPLETELY preventable. As you imply a major part of this prevention is staying as far away from Big Cancer INC. and friends, as is possible.


  295. Suz says:

    Thanks for the info. I love the term “pinkwashed.” The SGK campaign has become a “Big Business.” I’ve never much cared for the organization–heard an interview of one of the founders or someone years ago, and it didn’t seem quite sincere. Can’t remember why.

    I don’t support charities as a rule; I donate and buy from local programs that support my community, like the outreach programs, community thrift shop (volunteer run)and food bank, and women’s shelters, etc.

    If I want a product and the grocery shelf has only the pink labels, I go without, or buy a brand different than my usual. And sometimes stick with it!

    Good a article.

  296. Joan Hart says:

    I also think this is too much of the funds [that people ‘walk for’] being spent on other things besides pure medical research. Good for you for finding the info and putting it out there. I try to get my nieces NOT to walk for this creepy so-called charity, but you can’t tell anyone under 30 anything – they know it all. Did you also know that when you pull up your article an ad for ‘the Cure’ comes up and blocks the first few lines of [the article]? That’s a really crappy thing for them to do.

    • ButterBeliever says:

      That’s just a google thing, but yeah, annoying.

      I heard that now they require a minimum of $2,500 sponsored, if you walk. They accept nothing less. I think that’s sad.

  297. Duane Ackerman says:

    Komen reports that cell phones in no way cause cancer so young girls carry those cell phones in your bras and pockets all you want….besides….that cancer stuff only affects old people…

    PS…I guess I must take Komen’s word for it and ignore all that other silly scientific research that clearly states the opposite.
    Non-Profits trump Science all the time.

  298. Michelle says:

    Since I live in New England, where the Komen family is from, we get extra “pink-washed.” I have sympathy for anyone who has to go through cancer and as I understand it being prone to get breast cancer is very genetically based. I have a friend who is considering a double mastectomy a la Angelina Jolie because of the prevanence of it in her family. The doctor also told her mother who has treated for it twice that eating GMO non-organic soy might have been a factor in the first bouts aggression. So certainly there is a genetic and environmental factor here as with most cancers. I disagree with much of what Komen does and while I think that initially it was set up out of a sincere concern for public health it has morphed into just another profit based charity. I do not support it either.

    • Michelle says:

      Correction to my last comment, Susan G. Komen was not from New England, I was thinking of the Dana-Farber Cancer center. Either way I totally agree there is overkill on the breast cancer info…I mean be aware but the marketing is just sick and occasionally I feel like it’s just an excuse for men to talk more about our boobs 🙂

  299. Jennifer says:

    I walk in the Susan G. 3 day. I’m proud to do it. I don’t do it for Susan G. I do it for me, my daughters, in honor of my dead mother taken from us by breast cancer. Can you tell me another entity, another group, another person, another anything/anyone who does more for breast cancer awareness? Your article…it’s just so bitter, so full of what seems to be…well, hate. When I’m walking it’s my way of standing up and punching the cancer that killed my mother in the face….and it feels good. It’s not so much about what Susan G. does for the world of breast cancer but the outlet called Susan G. provides a platform by which those of us who have been hurt and broken can soar…if only for 3 days. We cry, we sing, we hurt, we hug, we share and we make lifelong friends…it’s not about Susan G….it’s about women, men, strangers, friends, coming together at one time sharing a burden for 3 days. Please don’t try to spoil the beauty of the love behind the walk.. and that’s exactly what it is for the walkers. It is an act of love. I guess you could say we pay to experience that act in a way that we might not ever have had otherwise. I realize you may not agree with how the money is distributed. You are certainly entitled to your own ideas or facts as you might call them. The truth of the matter is that’s out of our hands. But what is in our hands is the opportunity to come together once a year and make a stand for those we love. Pink is our color, and we wear it proudly.

  300. chris says:

    as a cancer survivor i can say that a holistic nearly all organic diet did not protect me from this disease. But i can also say that there was no history of Breast Cancer in my family. My oncologist thinks (and the canadian cancer agency puts this is print) that 13 yrs of heavy painful periods (and the imbalance of estrogen to progesterone) is what contributed to my cancer.. the imbalance was something i fought for 13 yrs to have tested, and could not afford the thousands of dollars to pay for my own testing. (‘we dont do that here’ is the answer i always got).

    i have been through the cancer ‘machine’ and i would never contribute a dime to this foundation or any cancer foundation/charity here in my own country. up here its much the same thing.. most of the money goes into researching better treatment drugs not finding a ‘cure’. I too hate that everyone jumps on the band wagon this time of year without any thought process.. like what you said – explain how buying KFC is going to help? My friends online and in real life all know my distain for this campaign. And most of them wont donate either.. never ‘on my behalf’ if they know what’s good for them 🙂

    thank you for a well thought out, factual, researched article.

    • chris says:

      oh.. and for those who want to Fuck Cancer, or any other slogan that is out there – forget about walking, biking, boating or whatever.. to raise awareness – we are ALL aware that 1 in 3 people now suffer cancer in their life time! Spend your time cooking dinner for someone going through chemo. look after their kids. help them out financially when they have to pay for the anti nausea pills themselves and their medical insurance wont.. start a go fund me page when they get cut off employment assistance because they cant work, and cant go on welfare because they own a house or car. THATS how to make a difference for a cancer patient.

  301. Rhonda says:


  302. […] I Will Not Be Pinkwashed: Why I Do Not Support Susan G. Komen for the Cure (Article) […]

Leave a Reply

Wanting to leave an <em>phasis on your comment?

Trackback URL http://butterbeliever.com/i-will-not-be-pinkwashed-why-i-do-not-support-susan-g-komen-for-the-cure/trackback/

I Will Not Be Pinkwashed: Why I Do Not Support Susan G. Komen for the Cure


Pinkwashing America

It’s October.

And that means, it’s prime pink season. It’s national “Breast Cancer Awareness Month.”

It’s that magical time of the year when shades of pale pink are plastered onto every product, every container, every conceivable gadget or gizmo that the Susan G. Komen Foundation can get their hands on.

When that iconic symbol of overlapped ribbon is supposed to adorn every man, woman, and child who ever had a mother, grandmother, sister, daughter, niece or aunt who faced the horrifying struggle of breast cancer.

But I am not buying it.

Susan G. Komen: For Cure or Con?

Susan G. Komen for the Cure is a multi-million-dollar company with assets totaling over $390 million dollars. Only 20.9% of these funds were reportedly used in the 2009-2010 fiscal year for research, “for the cure.” Where does the rest of the money go? Let’s have a look. As you can see, the largest chunk of the pie is going toward “Public Health Education.” More on that later, but for now I’d like to take a look at the millions spent on “administrative costs.”

Show Me the Money

Here is a section from Susan G. Komen’s Form 990 from 2008 showing the salaries of some of their highest-paid employees. I’ve included the heading of the page to show what the numbers in the columns represent, but cut out the board members listed as having no salary. Er, “Reportable” salary…

Note the dates of employment for some of the lesser-paid employees. Gary Dicovitsky, VP Development, for example, was paid $95,291 (plus $2,746) only from 10/08 to 3/09.

Gary must have gotten a promotion since then, though. Because while it still lists his position as VP Development from 10/08 – 3/09, his salary from 2009 was $417,109. Oh, plus $18,091 in change.

I don’t know about you, but I would never expect directors of a charitable “non-profit” organization to have a higher salary than most doctors, lawyers, or even politicians.

Screenshot from their 2009 Form 990, straight from Komen.org:

Curiously, these were the only employees listed in this type of form, similar to the 2008 one. Other employees were not listed with their position title.

In all, about 11% of Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s annual revenue goes toward employee salaries. And that adds up to a lot of money. But what about the rest?

“Public Health Education”

Is this really making a difference?

The area in which Komen spends the highest percentage of funds is in “public health education,” in other words, bringing awareness to the population of the disease itself and the importance of screening for early detection of breast cancer. While that may be considered a worthwhile goal to some, it’s important to realize that Komen stands to profit off of spreading that message.

They admit to about 10% of funds used for “fundraising,” but let’s be honest, the pink-ribbon-plastered “awareness” and”education” campaigns are often little more than a highly effective form of advertising — which in turn, brings in Komen’s millions. In other words, a way to raise funds, for themselves, while getting a pat on the back for their efforts to “save lives.”

One thing that doesn’t quite compute with me is how Komen’s mission of finding a “cure” — after all, that is their name — is congruent with putting over half their money toward promoting awareness and screening, for early detection of breast cancer. It’s not curing breast cancer to be aware that you could get it, nor is finding out that you have cancer and treating it in the early stages in hopes of entering into remission. That’s not a cure. Yet that is Komen’s largest promoted focus.

So what do they do to accomplish their mission of finding a cure for breast cancer?

"Promise Me" perfume, plugged by Komen to fund their cause, contains known, potent carcinogens so dangerous, they are banned by the International Fragrance Association.

“Promise Me” perfume, plugged by Komen to fund their cause, contains known, potent carcinogens so dangerous, they are banned by the International Fragrance Association.

Research “for the Cure”

The first thing that pops into my mind when I think of a charity giant such as Komen funding research to prevent disease, is pouring money into Big Pharma’s pocketbook. After all, our only hope of a cure for cancer is that magical drug or vaccine that pharmaceutical corporations will one day rescue us all with, right?

Of course not.

But the reality that research in the conventional medical world is put toward, well, conventional medicine (allopathic drugs) remains. For me, this begs the question — where exactly does your research funding go, Komen?

SGK had the following to say regarding accusations that their organization funds pharmaceutical research:

“It’s been reported that Susan G. Komen for the Cure provides funding to pharmaceutical companies.  That is simply not true.  We have never funded pharmaceutical company research – our grants, totaling $450 million, have gone to research institutions in the U.S. and abroad.” – Susan G. Komen for the Cure

Ohh… okay. So you would never provide funding to pharmaceutical companies that sell disease-promoting, toxic chemical drugs to cancer patients.

But take their money? Sure!

“The Komen Foundation owns stock in General Electric, one of the largest makers of mammogram machines in the world. It also owns stock in several pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca (now AzkoNobel).

AstraZeneca has long been a Komen booster, making educational grants to Komen and having a visible presence at the Race For the Cure. At the 1998 Food and Drug Administration hearings, the Komen Foundation was the only national breast cancer group to endorse the AstraZeneca cancer treatment drug tamoxifen as a prevention device for healthy but high-risk women, despite vehement opposition by most other breast cancer groups because of its links to uterine cancer.

The organization’s biggest sponsors are — surprise! — the corporations that profit from cancer through chemotherapy and radiation. To them, Komen for the Cure isn’t really about finding a cure for cancer; it’s about promoting cancer so that they can sell more drugs and radiotherapy that keeps more patients locked into a cycle of dependence on toxic cancer treatments.” -Well put, Natural News.

(Did you catch that bit about poisoning healthy women with the carcinogenic cancer drug, Tamoxifen, as a preventative measure? Yeah. Moving on…)

Susan G. Komen does indeed provide millions of dollars to fund research — but what exactly are they researching with those grants? One blogger diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer who had serious doubts of the intentions of the Komen foundation, dug through the research grants herself, and found the following information about how Komen’s research money is spent:

Now, of those categories being researched, which sound like they are actually focused on curing breast cancer?

Early detection? No.

Prevention? No.

Treatment? No. (that would be drugs used to treat symptoms.)

The only conceivable categories related to finding a cure for the cancer being researched would be etiology (the study of causation), survivorship, model systems, and biology.

So to break it down even further, Susan G. Komen for the Cure only spends a possible 53% of it’s research funding for a cure, or — about 11% of total revenue. Donate a dollar “for the cure?” Only about a dime of that will go toward research that might actually be designed to cure cancer, through allopathic medicine that is driven by the pharmaceutical system.

Think Before You Pink” **

Incredibly, this actually happened.

Komen receives over $55 million dollars in annual revenue from corporate sponsorships, from such health-minded companies as Coca Cola, General Mills, and KFC — that’s right — the fast food joint contributing to American society with buckets of diseased and tortured birds fried in genetically modified toxins. Buy a bucket of junk food, and pretend as though you’re helping to save lives while you slowly take your own!

Pink ribbon products are everywhere. But how much good is it really doing to support the fight against breast cancer by purchasing them?

As it turns out, not much.

If only about a dime of every dollar is spent on research for a cure, then just imagine how miniscule of a contribution is being made for that cause when such a small portion of the pink proceeds go toward Komen as a whole.

“It’s rarely more than a penny on the dollar,” said Trent Stamp, executive director of Charity Navigator, a charity watchdog group. “It’s just great advertising.”

Pinkwashers are clearly not just in it for the noble cause. The companies that sell these products are well aware that promoting themselves as supporters of breast cancer awareness leads to better public perception and increased profits.

Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy  explains that, “The makers of some pink products donate proceeds only for a limited time. These products may command a higher price tag, and sometimes they will remain on sale after the donation period ends — even with the higher price.”(L.A. Times)

In addition to limiting the amount of time that portions of pinkwashed proceeds will be donated, product manufacturers also usually put a cap on the total amount of money that will be donated. If that limit has already been reached by the time you buy your pink product, your purchase isn’t contributing a thing. But the company sponsoring Komen continues to proudly sport the pink persuasion anyway, in hopes that you’ll buy into it.

**The Breast Cancer Action organization has created a project to educate consumers about the deceitfulness of pinkwashing, or cause marketing of pink ribbon products. They promote awareness of this issue with the Think Before You Pink campaign, aimed especially at highlighting the pink products which themselves are cancer-causing or dangerous to your health, such as toxic cosmetics, rBGH-laced dairy products, and air-polluting cars. The BCA is doing great work toward fighting the pinkwashing scam and is actually a breast cancer organization I believe should be supported, if any!

Bullies “For the Cure”

Did you know that Susan G. Komen for the Cure spends nearly a million dollars annually suing small charities over the use of the word “cure” in their charitable endeavors? Komen’s general counsel, Jonathan Blum, had the following to say regarding a legal battle of Komen’s which threatened to shut down a small lung cancer organization for the use of the word “cure” in their name:

“We see it as responsible stewardship of our donor’s funds.”



Cause when I donate money to a charity, I expect them to use it to dismantle other charities that don’t have millions of dollars to spend on harassing others. Thanks so much for being a good steward of my donations, SGK.

Do we really need breast cancer awareness anyway?

In my not-so-humble opinion, cancer “awareness” is a ridiculous goal invented by deceitful organizations such as SGK to profit off of the American public — make sure you’re “aware” that you could potentially get breast cancer! So that you can go and get yearly mammograms that cause cancer (and make lots of money for us!), then once you get it, you can come right back for unbelievably expensive and toxic treatments that will only keep you alive long enough to squeeze out from you every last penny that you’re worth!!

Sorry. This stuff really bothers me.

The only thing I would advocate as far as the “awareness” train goes would be the importance of self breast exams. Obviously, you should always be looking out for changes in your body that might signal illness. But if I were to discover anything suspicious, I would be very, very careful about just who I put my potentially ill body in the hands of — I certainly would not want a conventional doctor to swoop in like a vulture and push a bunch of dangerous and nonsensical “treatments” down my throat that will only make me sicker and cause me to live miserably.

STOP the lies — there already are cures for cancer.

Breast cancer, along with other cancers, are being treated and cured successfully every day with alternative therapies, and have been for quite some time. But do big corporations and organizations like Susan G. Komen stand to profit off of those treatments? Of course not. So we aren’t hearing about them!

I’ll soon be sharing some of the more successful holistic, alternative cancer treatments (hint: most of them are centered around real food NUTRITION!) that have been curing patients without a single dose of chemotherapy or radiation. Or a pinkwashed product!

But even modern advancements in safe and effective cancer cures are being found — and thwarted by the FDA and the pharmaceutical giants (in which Komen has monetary stock, remember?) which support such government agencies.

I strongly encourage everyone to watch the documentary film, Burzynski the Movie: Cancer is Serious Business, for an incredibly eye-opening look into what happens when cancer cures are actually found (their creators are faced with a prison sentence!). The film documents the work of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, a medical doctor and Ph.D. biochemist who has discovered the genetic mechanism that can cure most human cancers. For a limited time, you can actually watch the film in its entirety online for free. Do it!

Prevention is the best cure

More importantly, what the medical establishment fails to recognize is that cancer is largely preventable. And Susan G. Komen for the Cure is no exception to such ignorance. There are no mentions of eating healthy foods, getting proper levels of cancer-preventing Vitamin D, or other factors such as breastfeeding, in any of their “public health education” efforts. Even though these are scientifically proven ways to prevent cancer.

This is not the way to fight breast cancer!

No. We are simply told to accept that our likelihood of getting breast cancer amoun