[FRANCES O]

me mere...less then 1% of men suffer from breast cancer. Children are not affected by breast cancer. Why not support the fight for CANCER instead of focusing on just a cancer that only affects women. Susan Komen is a very gender biased charity and gives no support to men or children who suffer from cancer. I can see by other folks responses on here that they dint care about men or children which is sad.

[BEETLE]

they have funded 1,736 research projects to the tune of $450 million.
They fund work in pain management.
They fund an initiative in quality of care.
They fund a tissue bank for research.
They fund education sumpsSIAmrld wide.
And a lot of other stuff, too.

[hotreez718]

You got that figure from me, but apparently ignored the rest of my answer so here it is again:

You are the only person who insists this is somehow a gender biased foundation when it has nothing to do with gender, but with disease.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation was started by Susan Komen?s younger sister who promised her she would do everything possible to put an end to breast cancer shortly before Susan Komen?s death from the disease at 37 years old. What part of this sounds sexist or biased to you?
You continually ridicule and deny that it has taken a lot of hard work to make this foundation the world?s leader in breast cancer charities yet you have not stated single thing you have done for any cancer.
It has taken them 25 years to raise 1.5 billion in funds yet Sam Walton left 1 billion to his foundation to find a cure for multiple Yulma all by himself because he was one of the richest men in the world. Nancy Komen was an unknown 30 something trying to keep a promise to her deceased sister. What the hell is wrong with you?
I am one of the lucky few in this forum who has never had cancer, but I am able to understand their fears and concerns. My job has shown me the horrors of cancer. I will never forget the 9 month old baby who died of melanoma in his mother?s arms or the young man who was attending USC medical school who slowly had parts of his body amputated until he died of his disease in the hospital that was supposed to help him become a physician missing an arm, a leg and part of his chest due to cancer. I have also seen the amputated breasts sent to pathology after surgery. There is nothing ?sexy? about it as you claim.
So stop telling me I am a feminist (as if that is a bad thing) who only cares about female cancers. You are already aware of the charity I have done for prostate cancer.
Ignorance is one thing and you are ignorant, but your despicable insensitive rants are downright mean and uncaring.
Karma is a ***** and one day you or someone you love may get breast cancer. I don?t wish that on anyone, not even you, but if it does happen I hope you remember what you have done here.


To answer this question:

There are thousands of people alive today due to the research the money from these charities has provided.
In 1988 the 10 year survival rate of a stage 2 breast cancer was 53% today it is 78%.
At stage 3C the 10 year survival rate was 0 in 1988, today it is 36%.

[zimmiesgrl]

Why do you continually ask these questions? Do you have some sort of fetish with breast cancer and money used for funding? I am a member of Susan G. Koman and if it wasn't for this Org, many women who could not afford mammogram would not have had them because way back when, insurance co. wouldn't pay for them or reconstructive surgery considering it 'cosmetic'. This Org and the American Cancer Society put an end to that line of crap. Breast cancer doesn't strike only women, men get it too which means they benefit from it as well. What have they shown for it??? You've got to be kidding.

ADD I wish I read Denise answer before I answered. You go Denise. I love it.