This forum is a safe, judgement-free place to discuss Alternative medicine. Alternative medicine refers to treatments that are used INSTEAD of standard, evidence-based treatment. Breastcancer.org does NOT recommend or endorse alternative medicine.
Posted on: Jul 20, 2011 11:43PM - edited Jul 20, 2011 11:45PM by Leia
I was just looking at this organization's 990, tonight. The amount of $$$$ they pay those people is staggering. Hala Moddelmog received $468,255. For the year ended 3/31/2010.
According to Wiki "Hala Moddelmog (born January 3, 1956, in Georgia, U.S.A.) is President of Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc., effective May 20, 2010, reporting to Wendy’s/Arby’s Group President and Chief Executive Officer Roland Smith. Previously she was president and chief executive officer of Susan G. Komen for the Cure since September 2006. Moddelmog is a breast cancer survivor who had been diagnosed in 2001. She was responsible for all aspects of management for Komen for the Cure, the world’s largest grassroots network of breast cancer survivors and activists. n 2004, prior to joining Komen, Moddelmog founded Catalytic Ventures, in Atlanta, a private equity firm that consulted and invested in the food service industry.
In 2011, Moddelmog was appointed as president of Church's Chicken, a division of Atlanta-based AFC Enterprises, making her the first female president of a quick service restaurant chain (also known asfast food restaurants).
During her leadership of Church's Chicken, more than 19 percent of Church's Chicken franchises have become owned by female franchisees. This is due in large part to the company's attempts to network female investors and would-be female franchisees together to combat the biased appearance that some fast-food franchises present toward female entrepreneurs. 
Posts 1 - 30 (190 total)
Jul 21, 2011 11:45AM - edited Jul 21, 2011 11:47AM by apple
I don't know that there is a specific paramater.
Do keep in mind that grant writers or organizations that can pull in or donate big grants (to a nonprofit) may be worth some compensation.. Just because a 'statistic' is on the internet..... ya da ya day..
It is possible to find the percentage an organization 'pays' for administration, but that may not reveal how effectively that money is spent." For instance is 21% goes to fundraising costs.. that does not reveal how many funds are raised. Best not to just diss.. but disscuss.
from our wikipedia re American Cancer Society... "The society's allocation of funds for the fiscal year ending August 31, 2010 lists 72% of funds for Program Services (Patient Support 28%, Research 16%, Prevention 16%, Detection and Treatment 12%). The remaining 28% are allocated for supporting services (Fundraising 21%, and Management, General administration 7%) meeting the Better Business Bureau's Standards for Charity Accountability (At least 65% to program services and no more than 35% to overhead and fundraising expenses.
I suppose I should have wikied Komen
Jul 21, 2011 11:37PM - edited Jul 21, 2011 11:40PM by Leiadigger wrote:
"What does this post have to do with alternative/complementary/holistic therapy? Yet another bashing post....."
I started this thread, yet I totally agree.
Note to the Moderators: We do need a new HARD Thread. Something like "The Business of Breast Cancer."
Where we can talk about the $$$$ that is associated with cancer treatments.
This all DOES cost $$$$. Someone is paying for it. Let's get a forum started talking about that.
Jul 22, 2011 12:18AM - edited Jul 26, 2011 09:21AM by Moderators
WTHeck does this have to do with anything?
The "business" of breast cancer - as if bc will be investigated, treated, patients cared for, etc. at no cost to society.
Jul 22, 2011 11:18PM - edited Jul 26, 2011 09:22AM by Moderators
This fiction that we will all get unlimited treatments, for whatever illnesses is coming to an end.
Have you been paying attention? This country owes $14Trillion. And the Congress wants to increase that to $16.5Trillion.
The USofA does not produce anything. It will come to the point where the foreign investors will not loan us any more $. And this will all come to an end.
Don't you think the Chinese want their mammograms? There are 1Billion Chinese people.
The Chinese produce stuff; the USofA does not.
What I am saying is that this current medial paradigm, radition for Stage 0 camcers or even other cancers, is coming an end.
We just can not afford it. Since we are borrowing 40% of what we spend.
Jul 22, 2011 11:39PM - edited Jul 23, 2011 12:06AM by jyg
Leia, we do not live in China. For that I am grateful. I bet Chinese women want to have more than 1 child also...
The best scientific evidence is what it is. Yes, if men developed bc at the rate women do, we would know more about the natural history of DCIS and which tumors should be treated more aggressively. It is, however, not difficult to review results of well designed randomized controlled trials and evaluate the effect size of lumpectomy + radiation over lumpectomy alone (now throw in Tamoxifen). Based on such data, there are tools that individual women can use with their docs to help decide which treatment(s) are best for them. Quality of life is the outcome of highest concern. Economics is a reality but takes a back seat in medical decision making, even at the policy level when quality data are available.
Cut a few bombers, end a few wars, and we can pay for a lot of health care and prevention.
Jul 23, 2011 12:12AM crazy4carrots wrote:
Leia -- It might be a good idea to do some historical research (not too far back, just 10 years or so) to find out why the US isn't manufacturing much these days. A visit to your local library might yield some enlightening info.
And yeah, jyg, you've got the right idea! Time to get priorities straight, starting with the health and welfare of U.S. citizens.
Jul 23, 2011 12:24AM - edited Jul 23, 2011 12:25AM by nurse-ann
Looks like this thread has gotten entirely "off track" or my original impression was totally "off-base". I thought this thread, the BCO thread, and the ACS thread were entirely about "disclosure" and "transparency" which I am all for.
When financial information and organizations are transparent, it's up to each of us to decide how we feel about the information revealed!
Jul 23, 2011 12:36AM jyg wrote:
nurse-ann, I can't speak for anyone else, but I have been responding to comments in the thread, specifically to posts from the the OP. Not attempting to hijack anything but rather participate in a dicscussion, which is what I thought these forums were for.
Now that you mention it, why have 3 threads for one discussion about disclosure & transparency in BC orgs?
Jul 23, 2011 09:33PM elmcity69 wrote:
wow, i'm not sure how we veered into Chinese women and their mammograms.
if treating cancer is big business, imagine how big the business of a cure would be. if Big Medicine has the malevolent motives some here believe, then it has nothing but motivation to use/find a "cure", because the profits are beyond imagination. imagine a cure -be it Budwig protocol, Metformin, carrot juice - whatever you think. Eli Lilly can jack the price to $1,000 an ounce/dose/container of cottage cheese. i know this all sounds silly, but it's just the nuts and bolts.
there is no conspiracy. is Komen big business? for sure. I despise their pinkwashing campaigns and Hallmark "lets make lemonade out of lemons!" approach. But Komen is separate from the thousands of oncologists and other medical professionals who work for a world without cancer.
Jul 23, 2011 09:35PM elmcity69 wrote:
and jyg: RIGHT ON!! finally - someone talking about our Military Industrial Complex, which sucks tax payer dollars into weapons of war and destruction. how about our lovely young men coming home, crippled in mind and body, because old men want to go to war? $14 million dollars EACH for nuclear attack submarines. that's a whole lotta chemo/rads/nursing care etc.
(ok, i digressed. sorry.)
Jul 24, 2011 06:08PM MsBliss wrote:
Digger, whether this discussion belongs in this forum or not, it is an interesting point. Those of us who donate our time and money to "Pink, Inc" are often times shocked to see how much "charity" work pays. I remember in the 1970's when it came out about how much the head of Unicef or one of the other big three national charities was making and there was a reaction to it. Not anymore. No one seems to understand that most of the money raised for charity is used up by the charity for "administration" purposes. I have a relative that heads a charity and believe me, where the money goes is troubling. Look at Bono's charity, where only 1% of the money raised was used for the target cause. It makes charity look like the biggest growth industry now, tax free, no less.
Jul 24, 2011 06:19PM MsBliss wrote:
Well, the reason the "survival" data is so "much better" now is not because we are necessarily better at treating bc, it is because they have massaged the numbers to include DCIS which elongates the time line of survival past 5 years. Women with DCIS were already surviving past 5 years long before it became part of the early diagnosis and treatment paradigm. Pink Inc has had no effect other than creating a sort of "branding" of bc.
Having an oncologist in the family has made me see things a little differently.
Jul 24, 2011 06:41PM Melizzard wrote:
"RIGHT ON!! finally - someone talking about our Military Industrial Complex, which sucks tax payer dollars into weapons of war and destruction. how about our lovely young men coming home, crippled in mind and body, because old men want to go to war? $14 million dollars EACH for nuclear attack submarines. that's a whole lotta chemo/rads/nursing care etc.
(ok, i digressed. sorry.) "
Yeah, you sure did digress. There are some of us who have dedicated our lives to serving this country and, in my case, got cancer because of it. I was proud to have served my country, and so is my husband who is retiring in September. Cut back on all the military spending? Think we became one of the strongest militaries in the world because of downsizing and cutting back? I have personally seen some tremendous military members out of a job due to the cutbacks and it was the country's loss.
This aspect of a discussion has no place on this list, in my opinion. But since there were those raising concerns about what we spend on military power ... well ... some of us are in support of military power. And good healthcare. And people spending money raised for a cure for that, and that alone. Dunno, cuz I haven't researched it, but I have heard that Komen spends much of the donated money on things other than breast cancer cures. But, as I said, that's heresay. :)
Jul 24, 2011 09:56PM - edited Jul 24, 2011 10:01PM by Leia
Why do you think the US isn't manufacturing much, these days? You said, you'd been to the library. Tell us.
In my view, the US isn't manufacturing much, these days, because of government regulation. As I've said, I'm the CFO of a local NFP (but only make $60K/year) and I literally spend ONE HALF of my time filing out government reports, preparing tax returns audits, union reports, sales tax reports, Unemployment reports, Labor and Industry reports, ad nauseaum. I have only one half of my time to devote to growing my business.
My company is tiny. But just magnify this over the entire economy, it is strangling us. We spend $400Billion/year just filling out tax forms.
So, Lindasa, the manufacturing is going overseas. Because it costs too much, to produce anything here.
And what is YOUR reason? Be interested to hear.
Jul 24, 2011 10:20PM - edited Jul 26, 2011 09:25AM by Moderators
" It is, however, not difficult to review results of well designed randomized controlled trials and evaluate the effect size of lumpectomy + radiation over lumpectomy alone (now throw in Tamoxifen)."
jyg, there have not been any "well designed randomized controlled trials and evaluate the effect size of lumpectomy + radiation over lumpectomy alone" in thirty years. When it all became the "standard of practice." In the USofA.
Although, actually, I did read of one such Austrian trial back in 2006. When I had my 2CM IDC Stage 1, nodes 0/2, HR+PR+/HER-. And it said that with my type of cancer, if I had the radiation, there was a 4% chance the cancer would come back. If I didn't have the radiation there was a 6% chance the cancer would come back. And this was statistically significant. In fact, it was HUGE. Statistically. All FOR the Radiation.
I looked at that study and said .... what? I should subject myself to all of the known and unknown side effects of radiation for a 2% better outcome?
My conclusion? Nonsense. I did not do the radiation and five years later I'm cancer free.
And jyg then you said,
"Economics is a reality but takes a back seat in medical decision making, even at the policy level when quality data are available.
Cut a few bombers, end a few wars, and we can pay for a lot of health care and prevention."
Economics is the basic reality of life. Again, you have to produce something before you can consume it. The USA produces, nothing .All that we do is consume. It will come to the point where China et al will not loan us any more $$$$. And then, no more "free mammograms" to discover the Stage 0 DCIS and lets treat the hell out of it.
This will just end.
Jul 24, 2011 10:38PM - edited Jul 24, 2011 10:41PM by Leia
Birdlady54, it is EXACTLY the Unions that have driven up the cost of producing anything, here.
I have an interesting story. At my NFP, we're operating on Cash $fumes. And in the interest of $Cash flow, we stopped paying the Union payments. Several months, ago. We literally had no $Cash. Although, hope for the future. We've got things going on.
But my point, the Unions started COMPLAINING. But what were they complaining about? That my company did not remit their Union Dues. We were behind, on everything, the Union Dues but also the Health and Pension benefits. But they didn't care, about the latter. They just wanted their employer withheld UNION DUES.
This says it all, to me. Unions are only interested in it for themselves. They want their $$$.
I have a solution. Totally easy. Just stop the employer withholding of Union Dues. Let the Unions go to their members, and get their dues. I bet 90% of the Union members would not pay.
And this just gets back to the Health Care Unions. Breast Cancer, what we're talking about, here, on this board. These health care unions all want their $$$$
If we truly CUT health care costs, what will be cut? It HAS to be health care salaries. That is where the $$$$ is. So that means our society provides breast cancer treatments for the truly ill. The women with Stage 4 metastatic cancer. NOT these women with Stage 0 DCIS. Or even my diagnosis, 2cm Stage 1 IDC.
This is just nonsense.
You can all rail, on this board, about all of your "treatments" and how we all "deserve" them but the USofA is going bankrupt. We can't afford this, anymore. This WILL all end. This is all ending, sooner rather than later.
Jul 24, 2011 11:07PM Leia wrote:
"if treating cancer is big business, imagine how big the business of a cure would be. if Big Medicine has the malevolent motives some here believe, then it has nothing but motivation to use/find a "cure", because the profits are beyond imagination. imagine a cure -be it Budwig protocol, Metformin, carrot juice - whatever you think. Eli Lilly can jack the price to $1,000 an ounce/dose/container of cottage cheese. i know this all sounds silly, but it's just the nuts and bolts."
WHAT are you TALKING about? How is Ei Lilly going to jack up the price of cottage cheese? When it is proven that the Budwig Protocol cures cancer?
This makes no sense, at all.
The fact of the matter is Burzynski has an alternate cure (separate thread) and the FDA has spent 30 years trying to discredit him. And unlike Budwig, Burzynski at least is providing a drug of sorts. The Antineoplastons, which the FDA STILL wants to discredit. Even when it's been shown that it works.
Big Medicine has no interest, in a cure for cancer. Budwig will never get any credibliity at all.Because Budwig is based on eating right. And not some "drug" that Big Pharma can patent.
We all need to make our own choices. Who do you believe?
I think it's obvious what I believe. And it is NOT Big Pharma.
Jul 24, 2011 11:18PM - edited Jul 24, 2011 11:19PM by orange1
Who is big pharma? People like me, who get cancer, with family members who get cancer. You think I or my colleagues prefer a profit sharing check over a cure? You think we love our lives or our families less than you?
Jul 25, 2011 12:10AM orange1 wrote:
Good night SusanK8. I have got to go to bed now so that I can be at work on time (and earn my pretty good salary) while I see how my company can ensure that a clinical trial for a drug that we hope will prevent Alzheimer's disease in very high risk patients, can start on time. Hope it works.
Jul 25, 2011 12:37AM - edited Jul 25, 2011 12:57AM by ruthbru
Stumbled across this thread and it hit a nerve. My dad did every one of things on the Alzheimers prevention list. He is now in a nursing home suffering from severe dementia. I wish following that list on dos and don'ts, (or any list for preventing cancer or any other condition), would be a foolproof guarantee against disease.....alas, that is not always the case. A healthy lifestyle can certainly lower your risk of many dieases and conditions, but it does not eliminate it.
edited to add that Ronald Reagan and Sargeant Shiver (to name a few well known people) both had vigorous lifestyles, intellectually stimulating and demanding jobs into their later years, many friends and social connections....and yet both died of Alzheimers......studies 'can suggest', but real life doesn't always follow a study.
Jul 25, 2011 01:04AM ruthbru wrote:
Certainly we should all become knowledgeable, and live as healthy a lifestyle as we are able. But I'm sure we all know people who do everything 'wrong' and live to the ripe age of 93 with a cigarette in one hand and a gin tonic in the other! Some of it is truly is random, or the luck of the genetic draw.