Giving to cancer charities - deception?
Discussion
Research into cancer, find a cure for cancer, cancer awareness and on and on. It seems everywhere you turn the public worldwide pours many millions into finding that magic cure for cancer but there never seems to be an outline of whee the money actually goes.
There are only so many labs, scientists, technicians and capable organisations to find this cure yet this money all pours in and goes where? Well my guess is nowhere - simply back into funding more advertising to ask for more money.
Governments themselves fund scientific research, corporate entities are undertaking their own research and will reap £billions if they are the first to find the 'cure' so where does all the money go?..
There are only so many labs, scientists, technicians and capable organisations to find this cure yet this money all pours in and goes where? Well my guess is nowhere - simply back into funding more advertising to ask for more money.
Governments themselves fund scientific research, corporate entities are undertaking their own research and will reap £billions if they are the first to find the 'cure' so where does all the money go?..
The Crack Fox said:
A friend of mine, a father of 3 little kids, will be told if his brain tumour is operable or not on Monday. If only 0.000001% of the money donated to cancer charities does some good to beat this f
king horrible disease then I don't care what might or might not happen to the rest.
Sympathies - tough times.king horrible disease then I don't care what might or might not happen to the rest.My dad died in 2009 from a brain tumour. All his treatment was pretty much from methods developed years ago - chemo, MRI, operation etc.
Pommygranite said:
Sympathies - tough times.
My dad died in 2009 from a brain tumour. All his treatment was pretty much from methods developed years ago - chemo, MRI, operation etc.
Those techniques don't get invented and then never developed. There are loads of ongoing trials but each one is only good for a very specific type of cancer (of which there are hundreds) and it takes years to complete.My dad died in 2009 from a brain tumour. All his treatment was pretty much from methods developed years ago - chemo, MRI, operation etc.
I agree that cancer charities seem to be a black hole for money but I think that's lack of transparency. At least some of the money seems to get to where it needs to go because it is a field that is constantly developing, it just isn't clear how much.
Cancer Research UK traditionally receives most of its income through bequests when rich people passed away from cancer. That income has dropped considerably as progress is made, so they are appealing more directly to the public and benefiting from sporting events, which surely are a good thing.
If you want to inform yourself how CRUK uses donations for research, there is a huge amount of detail on their website http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/ - the money goes to funding world-class research labs in London, Cambridge and elsewhere.
Of all the charities my family has been involved with, CRUK is probably visibly spending by far the most of their income on good work, and the research staff there are truly dedicated, working long hours for a fraction of what they could earn in, say, pharma.
Similarly the Institute for Cancer Research http://www.icr.ac.uk ; we should be proud that these institutions are based here, we are second only to the US in advancing research into all forms of cancer.
Or find out about Macmillan Cancer Support http://www.macmillan.org.uk and the care they give to cancer victims.
If you want to inform yourself how CRUK uses donations for research, there is a huge amount of detail on their website http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/ - the money goes to funding world-class research labs in London, Cambridge and elsewhere.
Of all the charities my family has been involved with, CRUK is probably visibly spending by far the most of their income on good work, and the research staff there are truly dedicated, working long hours for a fraction of what they could earn in, say, pharma.
Similarly the Institute for Cancer Research http://www.icr.ac.uk ; we should be proud that these institutions are based here, we are second only to the US in advancing research into all forms of cancer.
Or find out about Macmillan Cancer Support http://www.macmillan.org.uk and the care they give to cancer victims.
1 in 3 will get cancer. It affects many many people. I am told that the government does not sponsor any research, Iit's all privately funded. I have no proof of that though.
And Lastly, treatments of cancer are moving forward very quickly indeed, i was told what you knew about chemotherapy 5 years ago is now completely out of date. Long may it continue.
From a 'survivor' utilising modern Technology.
And Lastly, treatments of cancer are moving forward very quickly indeed, i was told what you knew about chemotherapy 5 years ago is now completely out of date. Long may it continue.
From a 'survivor' utilising modern Technology.
nails1979 said:
Whenever I speak to a charity worker at work I find they've always got a 50k plus car, expensive house, teeth too big for their mouths and are full of themselves and damned arrogant.
I think too many people are making money out of charity's and it needs to stop
There needs to be a balance though - pay next to nothing and you can't get good staff. There is a massive amount of waste and outright theft/misuse of donations going on with a lot of charities, I do agree with that.I think too many people are making money out of charity's and it needs to stop
nails1979 said:
Whenever I speak to a charity worker at work I find they've always got a 50k plus car, expensive house, teeth too big for their mouths and are full of themselves and damned arrogant.
I think too many people are making money out of charity's and it needs to stop
Cancer charity workers? Specifically, research scientists, which is where most of the donations go?I think too many people are making money out of charity's and it needs to stop
Widening this to the overall sector, there are good charities and bad. Some spend almost all their income on "administration costs", employ chuggers in the street and give the rest of the non-profit sector a bad name.
Back to cancer - there are quite a few MDPhD researchers who do research during the week and are on call at hospitals at the weekend; and that can fund a decent lifestyle, but no-one goes into this to get rich; as mentioned earlier, they can all earn far more in the pharma sector; I've known people move from cancer research to pharma and triple their income overnight.
Part of the problem is that "cancer" is just one word, but in reality there's lots of different types of cancer and they can act in different ways and react differently to different treatments. Take breast cancer for example, one drug that may work well for a woman in her 30's may work differently or have different side effects or not work at all, for a man in his 50's. Ovarian cancer can be incredibly difficult to diagnose before it's in a later and harder-to-treat stage. Because of the lack of knowledge about the brain, a tumour up there can be incredibly difficult to deal with without damaging other grey matter.
Because of this huge degree of variation there is a LOT of research going on, once you find the treatment that works for 90% of people you then need to find out what works for the other 10%, while still developing the 90% stuff to try and negate some of the side effects.
Let's also not forget that some of those adverts include reminding men to check their testicles and women to check their breasts regularly for lumps, or making people aware of the signs of bowel cancer, because getting diagnosed early is pretty much key. Yes people "should" know these things already, but they don't an if an advert on the TV helps them then I'm happy for money to go towards that.
At the end of the day, if I got cancer I'd be bloody grateful for anything and everything spent on research.
Because of this huge degree of variation there is a LOT of research going on, once you find the treatment that works for 90% of people you then need to find out what works for the other 10%, while still developing the 90% stuff to try and negate some of the side effects.
Let's also not forget that some of those adverts include reminding men to check their testicles and women to check their breasts regularly for lumps, or making people aware of the signs of bowel cancer, because getting diagnosed early is pretty much key. Yes people "should" know these things already, but they don't an if an advert on the TV helps them then I'm happy for money to go towards that.
At the end of the day, if I got cancer I'd be bloody grateful for anything and everything spent on research.
Boshly said:
1 in 3 will get cancer. It affects many many people. I am told that the government does not sponsor any research, Iit's all privately funded. I have no proof of that though.
And Lastly, treatments of cancer are moving forward very quickly indeed, i was told what you knew about chemotherapy 5 years ago is now completely out of date. Long may it continue.
From a 'survivor' utilising modern Technology.
This is why we should all give to cancer charities for research. Its the one desease likely to affect everyone in some way. As you get older the more you realise that its like someone walking down your street taking shots at random people. Off the top of my head.....And Lastly, treatments of cancer are moving forward very quickly indeed, i was told what you knew about chemotherapy 5 years ago is now completely out of date. Long may it continue.
From a 'survivor' utilising modern Technology.
My mother is a cancer survivor.
My brother had moles removed as they were suspect.
My daughters best friend had cancer as toddler.
My sons friends mum died of cancer.
My aunt died of cancer.
2 of my workmates died of cancer.
2 of my grandparents died of cancer.
It should get the lions share of funding, and its one charity I give to without question.
Notionally, there is something deceptive going on, but its not all a con at all. Its a complex picture IMO.
1. Research into any health condition is funded by different bodies. The guvment, in the form of the Health Research networks. Universities, some with guvment money, some with their own. Charities- some run their own work, others pay towards certain labs , hosted at universities, staffed by people who work there who may also have NHS contracts etc. Drug companies do work more separately ( to make a unique drug to make money of) but may also give to charties or labs.
2. Cancer research is vastly overfunded compared to other more common killers globally eg malaria, but cancer affects westerners so it soaks up the charity funding ticket.
3. Raising money is a core function of any charity. There are limits on how much they can spend to do so, and many funders/ donors also set limits on how much they allow their money to be spent on further fundraising.
4. Some charities are pretty domineering in the market, because of their doe-eyed appeal ( childrens ones, save a puppy etc) or their unassailable virtue-base ( cancer is nobodys fault, maybe) . This is an easy thing for celebrities and Corporations to affiliate with. Footballers are always visiting childrens wards- when did you ever see one visit a refuge for victims if child sexual abuse? And which do you think happens more, and needs more urgent funding to combat - childrens cancer or sexual abuse? The latter, unfortunately.
5. Charity is seen as some kind of penance paid when all of our more capitalist activities are done. Making money from a social cause is seen as immoral. I put it to you that this is so naive it is actually harmful.
Why is it that if I make £500million off a violent video game, I get on the cover of Wired, but if I make £250,000 from exporting malaria meds to Africa, and buy a damn nice house with it, I am considered a demon who exploits? This is the oldest failure of thinking, which has its roots in Puritan christian bullst. Have a google of a TED talk by Dan Palotta to get a better description of the damage this thinking does.
1. Research into any health condition is funded by different bodies. The guvment, in the form of the Health Research networks. Universities, some with guvment money, some with their own. Charities- some run their own work, others pay towards certain labs , hosted at universities, staffed by people who work there who may also have NHS contracts etc. Drug companies do work more separately ( to make a unique drug to make money of) but may also give to charties or labs.
2. Cancer research is vastly overfunded compared to other more common killers globally eg malaria, but cancer affects westerners so it soaks up the charity funding ticket.
3. Raising money is a core function of any charity. There are limits on how much they can spend to do so, and many funders/ donors also set limits on how much they allow their money to be spent on further fundraising.
4. Some charities are pretty domineering in the market, because of their doe-eyed appeal ( childrens ones, save a puppy etc) or their unassailable virtue-base ( cancer is nobodys fault, maybe) . This is an easy thing for celebrities and Corporations to affiliate with. Footballers are always visiting childrens wards- when did you ever see one visit a refuge for victims if child sexual abuse? And which do you think happens more, and needs more urgent funding to combat - childrens cancer or sexual abuse? The latter, unfortunately.
5. Charity is seen as some kind of penance paid when all of our more capitalist activities are done. Making money from a social cause is seen as immoral. I put it to you that this is so naive it is actually harmful.
Why is it that if I make £500million off a violent video game, I get on the cover of Wired, but if I make £250,000 from exporting malaria meds to Africa, and buy a damn nice house with it, I am considered a demon who exploits? This is the oldest failure of thinking, which has its roots in Puritan christian bulls
t. Have a google of a TED talk by Dan Palotta to get a better description of the damage this thinking does. nails1979 said:
Whenever I speak to a charity worker at work I find they've always got a 50k plus car, expensive house, teeth too big for their mouths and are full of themselves and damned arrogant.
I think too many people are making money out of charity's and it needs to stop
Let me be clear - I do donate to CRUK. I do agree with the above statement, though. I think too many people are making money out of charity's and it needs to stop
My work over the years has led me to work with some 'big name' charities and it's mortifying to see the upper echelons at play, their arrogance, the money they earn and their tactics. Some seem like evil corporates, rather than charities. (I'm not bundling CRUK into this).
Light n Hairy said:
Why is it that if I make £500million off a violent video game, I get on the cover of Wired, but if I make £250,000 from exporting malaria meds to Africa, and buy a damn nice house with it, I am considered a demon who exploits? This is the oldest failure of thinking, which has its roots in Puritan christian bullst. Have a google of a TED talk by Dan Palotta to get a better description of the damage this thinking does.
Agreed. I was going to post that.t. Have a google of a TED talk by Dan Palotta to get a better description of the damage this thinking does. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_t...
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff