ACS-The World's wealthiest 'non-profit' institution

I found this posted elsewhere and it's really an eye opener. It's long but is very interesting information to know and keep handy.

http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm

Just a few snippets for you:

They evidentally like real estate and vehicles.

Quote:
Fund-raising appeals routinely stated that the ACS needed more funds to support its cancer programs, all the while holding more than $750 million in cash and real estate assets. A 1992 article in the Wall Street Journal, by Thomas DiLorenzo, professor of economics at Loyola College and veteran investigator of nonprofit organizations, revealed that the Texas affiliate of the ACS owned more than $11 million worth of assets in land and real estate, as well as more than 56 vehicles, including 11 Ford Crown Victorias for senior executives and 45 other cars assigned to staff members. Arizona's ACS chapter spent less than 10 percent of its funds on direct community cancer services. In California, the figure was 11 percent, and under 9 percent in Missouri.

Among other things, it appears the ACS is in bed with alot more than big pharma. Seems they're also aligned with the pesticide industry too.

Quote:
In 1992, the ACS issued a joint statement with the Chlorine Institute in support of the continued global use of organochlorine pesticides

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Behold, the Dramatic Chipmunk! (it's actually a prairie dog, I know) The best part are the mashups people have done with this video:

Old timey version
Lost version
Windows version
Snatch version
If you watch this version, you will die in seven days
DC gets a voicemail from Alec Baldwin

And if you're interested, you can get a Dramatic Chipmunk shirt as well.

---------
"When I say your dumb name, please stand up briefly, but then quickly drop to your knees and forsake all others before me." -Ignignokt

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

handbanana - what on earth does your comment have to do with this thread????????????? Sounds like a troll to me.

darkseid - I read that entire article - twice. I am stunned beyond belief. I mean - I have read so many articles similar to this, about that ACS, WHO, bogus studies, propaganda, etc. - but this article just sends a rage through me. My husband's cousin who used to work as the head cancer nurse at St.Vincent's years ago, had told me similar, and I just assumed she was exagerating (her style). This article PROVES the connection between the ACS & pesticide, film, pharmacutical companies - it lists names, pulls it all together in one twisted ugly knot. (is Scott owned by Johnson & Johnson?). The ACS blackballing (no funding) any entity that promotes cancer prevention....... I am outraged. Over 100 known cancer preventatives or cures known - and yet the ACS refuses to acknowledge them, blackballing any clinician or oncologist that does.

I've said this before (repeatedly) - The ACS does not WANT to find a cure - that much is apparent by: "This history of ACS unresponsiveness is a long and damning one, as shown by the following examples" (and includes a long list of 10 critical cases). Cancer is HUGE money - of course they don't want to find a cure, and are NOT Interested in cancer prevention. And only about 10 percent of it's 'take' actually goes to research or cures. Then add to that the mammograms.......................

And people think a smoking ban will be the 'cure'. Great article.

Now listen to the silence of everybody who thinks we're nuts.

And a deadening silence from those who voted in a silly smoking ban.

Doesn't make much sense. Unless no one (or few) from ACS get cancer. If that number is "statistically significant" then I think the question should be asked: have they found a cure or preventative for cancer. Otherwise, they must be heartless bastards who don't mind seeing members of their family die.

Old South End Broadway

I think it's more that cancer is a huge money maker. This is not new news - I just never knew how many pockets were being filled. I mean, I knew there was a connection with the pharmacutical companies, & pesticide companies - but blackballing of clinicians & oncologists stunned me.

mccaskey - darkseid & I don't even know each other, outside of these boards, and he is not the only poster who was against the smoking ban, so don't play this like it's me & him on this 'rah-rah' pro smoking team - us against the world. That's nonsense. If anything, it seemed like there were more posters against a smoking ban than for one. My comment about the deadening silence was simply to point out what I've been observing on these boards. As soon as credible articles, etc. get posted that pretty much prove that we have been right about a lot of this - articles that prove that ACS, WHO, etc. are money machines, with a LOT of conflicts of interest rolled in - it seems that the pro smoking ban/smoke hater posters just sulk into the corner.

Do you think I like learning that the Cancer Society misuses cure donation money? Or that it's in bed with the pesticide & pharmacutical companies? Or that it has knowingly buried so many promising cures & preventatives because they need that cash cow that cancer brings? I used to collect for the damned Cancer Society. I had my kids out walking with me, collecting for the damned cancer society. And now, I feel like I have swindled people. I have friends & relatives that have, or are dying of cancer (not smoking related, by the way), and it infuriates me. It infuriates me that my husband's wonderful aunt died a horrible, painful, slow death from cancer - if there was any possibility at all of a cure that was silenced - I am horrified by all of this. Do not think for one minute, that darkseid, me, or anybody else posts these threads just to annoy or piss off the smoke haters. Or to beat the horse to death. Posts like this are not to argue about a smoking ban - or about our rights to smoke. We post articles like this (and I thank darkseid for finding this article) because people need to be aware of the ugliness that is going on with ACS, WHO, the Lung Society, etc. Add to that the sub groups who they are hand in hand with - pesticide companies (that can cause cancer), pharmactical companies (that make money from all of it), etc. Take the time to actually READ the damned article - ALL of it. Read it again. darkseid did not pull this out of his hat to be 'annoying' or to push your damned buttons. He posted it (I'm sure) to educate people - to make them aware, that YES, even THEY may have been fooled, taken in. I am furious that when people donate money to ACS they assume it's going to research, to find a cure for cancer. Only 10 percent or less even comes close to going towards those things - the rest lines the pockets of top executives, buying real estate, cars, etc. IF tobacco is as dangerous as the surgeon general & ACS claim it is, then why on earth don't they just BAN it entirely nationwide - like they'd do with heroin? Because there's too damned much tobacco tax money to be made - they need people to have cancer - they need people to smoke. In fact, I just read (and will post here soon) a newspaper article that said as much.

Anyway - my comment about the deadening silence of smoking ban fans was about how when confronted with ugly truths about the wonderful ACS, etc. the smoking ban lovers don't want to hear it, all of a sudden, they got nothing to say. I posted another thread that got the same, empty results. I was challenged to prove my statements with studies, and I did - in great length, and then challenged my challenger to do the same. Deadening silence. What it looks like to me, is that the smoking ban fans just wanted to pass the damned ban -in the name of health, in the name of protecting employees, from the dangers of shs - when in reality, it seems to be more they just didn't like how it smelled. When they are confronted with the facts, of the REAL studies & articles & statistics - they either clam up entirely, or they get blustery mad & go into rants about dirty smokers & it's smell. They seem to get angry when confronted with the facts that shs pales in comparison to the carcinagens they are exposed to daily. Because it's easier to blame shs & smoking. Because it's popular to blame shs & smoking, we're easy targets. And, people tend to like having something or somebody to blame things on. SHS is handy - it can be used to blame a lot on. But when challenged to PROVE it, with actual studies (that have not been thrown out, proven to be bogus, or poorly run - of which all 70 were; the best study - the ONLY one that WHO didn't have it's hands in,done in Germany, proved any connection between shs & disease to be highly questionable) - they clam up, or toss out propaganda put out by THE CANCER SOCIETY & WHO (who are bedfellows).

Anyway, after you've actually read the original article (all of it), stop to consider where all the smoking violations go to for hearings - Franklin County, Columbus Ohio - Judge Cain who is on the board of Maryhaven (along with about 5 other judges in Columbus), who also has his (their) hands in the tills mentioned in the above article. Somebody on another thread said well you can't assume Judge Cain is making money off smoking cessation drugs - horsefeathers. Maryhaven is a rehab that handles smoking cessation. Judge Cain (and others) are also deeply entrenched in much of the above. They are getting wealthy off of people dying. They are helping fund, create, & market carcinagens. (take the time to search toledotalk achives for the thread "Follow the money"). They are silencing any 'unrecognised' cures or preventatives for cancer. Like I said earlier - my husband's cousin was head cancer nurse at St.Vincent's for a very long time, and she tried to tell me this years ago, but I assumed she was exagerating, or didn't have her facts straight -because good GOD, I could not envision the evil that seems to be ACS. Since then, I've been told the same thing by a few other nurses.

At any rate - these threads aren't started to piss you all off. They are to inform, as we become informed - it's a learning process, a lot of this has been new to us. People need to WAKE UP, and get out of denial, or nothing will change, and people will keep dying of cancer needlessly. Anybody who knows anybody who's had or has died of cancer should be furious. Blaming it all on smoking or shs may make you feel good, or feel like you've accomplished something solid & healthy by passing smoking bans - but smoking bans accomplished nothing that will affect your health. Car emissions, household cleansers, pesticides, etc. will do you in a whole lot faster than shs.

I read the article. Or at least most of it. I get it.
American Cancer Society=BAD. Cancer Prevention Coalition=GOOD. At least, according to the CPC.

CPC big on PREVENTION. Great, sounds good to me. ACS NOT big on prevention, interested in MAKING MONEY, being in league with big pharma, etc. OK, sure, possible, I'll buy that possibility.

All kinds of things cause cancer: beef, milk, cosmetics, fertilizer, cleaning products, etc.,etc. Great, sounds reasonable to me. We should avoid these as much as possible to PREVENT cancer, according to CPC. Fine. I get it.

Smoking; still bad, right? Second-hand smoke; still bad, right? Because a zillion other things may cause cancer, we're supposed to just shrug and say, sure, light up, what the hey, what's the big deal?

And who's doing the critique on this Cancer Prevention Coalition, their policies and their stances? Who's checking their closets to make sure they're squeaky clean and on the up-and-up?

I assume, because they say all these products cause cancer, they're advising against their use. After all, the CPC is about PREVENTION. What better way to prevent cancer, than to eliminate all the possible causing agents. Perhaps, all these products should be BANNED because they cause cancer. Is that what you want, Starling, all these things to be banned? Remember now, the organization that says the ACS is so bad is all about PREVENTION.

Let's start with the cigs. Ban 'em.

mccaskey - I never said smoking was good - ever. However, shs is not the killer or death knell that the ban advocates have led people to believe it is. I do not believe in ANY bans - I prefer to think we live in a free country, and people have the right to choose & decide for themselves how to live their lives, where to eat, what do drive, what kind of dog to buy, to watch strippers or porn, etc. My point was simply that for all the money & time invested in promoting bogus shs propaganda to push for smoking bans, the money & time could have been better spent on cures, or worse hazards than shs. I bet even you could come up with a few things you think the money could have been better spent on - more urgent, more dangerous threats, or more needy situations. I get angry when I see the numbers of dollars that have been spent to push smoking bans, because there's so many other hazards that are going unchecked, and more needy situations that could have benefited. And it always comes down to the reasoning, that people just don't want to smell shs. The fact that people will & are dying of possibly preventable or curable cancer because the cure money went instead to make it so the masses could have smoke free bars & restaurants pisses me off - because there have been NO studies ever, that have shown any serious connection between shs & disease - especially to those who simply stop in a bar or restaurant for a few hours a week. I guess my point is this - to all the smoking ban lovers, while you are enjoying your smoke free restaurant, bar, etc. try to imagine the people who may never see a cure - and like it or not, the cash spent on pushing smoking bans, just may have been used to find one - or to get one seriously accepted.

handbanana said "The author cherrypicked information to suit his agenda." .............kind of like the shs propaganda did? I find it interesting, that you seem to be approving what is in that article, the conflicts of interest, strange bedfellows, mis spent funds, excessive executive salaries, etc. You find nothing wrong with the fact that ACS is in bed with pesticide companies & stalls funding from cancer preventative measures it doesn't want to acknowledge? Whatever. You yourself cherry picked small parts to tear apart in that article (like debating whether ACS was in fact the wealthiest) - and disregarded the important parts; the parts that people should be aware of. Too many people assume the Cancer Society is golden, take it on faith. Ditto WHO & anything the surgeon general says, without question. I just find it very interesting, that the pro smoking ban folks will eat up all shs propaganda as truths, and try to tear apart anything that disputes it.

No, articles like this will not undo the smoking ban. But they may help inform people to help undo the ban. There are plans to have it on the ballot again by November 2008 at the latest. All I hope to accomplish, is for people to look & learn beyond the shs propaganda, to fact find for themselves. If this bores you, then simply don't read or contribute to it. Funny thing - freedom to choose................

Can someone explain to me the following quote from a .pdf I got from the CPC titled

Old South End Broadway

Lots of different cancers than lung cancer - colon cancer is the third leading cause of death by cancer, I think. Easy to blame all cancers on smoking (and no smoker ever says smoking is not dangerous - we simply dispute that shs is the danger ACS makes it out to be - OSHA also disputes ACS on this. Being in a restaurant or bar a few hours a week around shs is not going to give you cancer, that's the ACS way of freaking people out.) I don't dispute that cancer is a leading cause of death - but there are a lot of different types of cancer. Also, there are tens of thousands of things that can cause cancer, but it seems that shs is what it all gets blamed on. There are fewer smokers now than there were 2 decades ago,and yet there are more cases of cancer than ever before in history. Thousands of years ago, there wasn't really much in the way of cancer (I read this somewhere - will have to dig it up again). The sun causes cancer for God's sake. At any rate - I'm not going to quibble on this anymore, below is an interesting link.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html

I won

Old South End Broadway

He Who Took His Screen Name From A Penis, Folks.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!

_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

And you and your buddy have made it clear you don't want us to give our opinions on this subject anyhow...so have a conversation with yourselves.

"If anything, it seemed like there were more posters against a smoking ban than for one."

Yeah, like me. But posting this crap doesn't help repeal the ban on cigarettes.

"As soon as credible articles, etc. get posted that pretty much prove that we have been right about a lot of this - articles that prove that ACS, WHO, etc. are money machines, with a LOT of conflicts of interest rolled in - it seems that the pro smoking ban/smoke hater posters just sulk into the corner."

This is not a credible article. As McCaskey pointed out, the Cancer Prevention Coalition competes with the American Cancer Society for donations. And the author of this article has the gall to complain about conflicts of interest that the ACS has.

As for the sulking, what you see as silence is what the rest of the community sees as "Not this crap again". The only reason I post in these threads is because you've presented a story that is so flimsy that doesn't take but a few minutes to research the errors. Perhaps other people on this site have figured out how to use Google to fact check as well and realize whatever you and Darksied post is going to be full of propaganda and half-truths. For example, look at this quote from the link:

"In 1992, the ACS issued a joint statement with the Chlorine Institute in support of the continued global use of organochlorine pesticides

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

McCaskey, I'd like to hear your opinion.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.