Now, the American Cancer Society is Just Lying…

The other night, the American Cancer Society put out yet another note on their Facebook page trying to defend their actions in rejecting an atheist National Team.

It’s full of lies.

First, their message:

We want to apologize to all those who come to our Facebook community to either support the American Cancer Society or be supported by it. Because we respect and value the voice of our community, we have tried various methods of dealing with the current situation involving the Foundation Beyond Belief, responding in a measured way and only removing hateful and egregious posts. In addition, we want to make sure we are absolutely clear with respect to the facts.

We have seen profane hyperbole and personal attacks on members of this community that only serve to disrupt the American Cancer Society’s ability to serve cancer patients and their families. At this point, our ability to deliver on our life saving mission has clearly been impacted. We need to get back to work.

These are the facts:

In recent weeks, supporters of the Foundation Beyond Belief have used the American Cancer Society community on Facebook to post misinformation, saying the Society turned down half a million dollars and is discriminating against atheists.

These statements are false.

Todd Stiefel, a humanist philanthropist and supporter of Foundation Beyond Belief, approached Relay For Life representatives and offered a matching gift of $250,000 if Foundation Beyond Belief teams raised $250,000 in 2012. The matching gift offer from Mr. Stiefel was contingent on his and the Foundation Beyond Belief’s request to become a Relay For Life National Team Partner. However, beginning with this fiscal year, ACS discontinued Relay’s National Team Partner program for clubs and organizations while National Teams focused around commercial organizations remain.

Mr. Stiefel and the Foundation Beyond Belief have not told us if they are willing to consider working with the Society in any manner other than as a National Team Partner. We think this is terribly unfortunate and wish the Foundation Beyond Belief would reconsider making its recognition as National Team Partner a condition for its support. We do not take lightly an offered donation of a half million dollars, and we remain committed to discussing with the Foundation Beyond Belief ways in which we can work together, encouraging the group’s participation in Relay For Life and in the Society’s mission to save more lives from cancer.

After reviewing the situation, it is clear that we have made mistakes. We did not communicate effectively about the rationale behind our decision not to allow the Foundation Beyond Belief to participate as a National Team Partner. And we used our own organizational terminology in public communications to differentiate between commercial teams and teams formed by clubs and organizations, calling them “corporate” and “non-corporate” teams. Unfortunately, that lack of clarity created misunderstanding and confusion. To be clear: we ended the National Team Partner program for clubs and organizations, many of which were incorporated, earlier this year; the National Team Program for commercial entities –primarily businesses and corporations with large employee bases– remains. Going forward, we intend to make the distinction much clearer in our communications.

The National Team Partner program will now be implemented in a way that more clearly outlines the requirements for participation. Perhaps just as importantly, those requirements will be more clearly communicated on our Relay For Life website and elsewhere. You can find information about our National Team Partner program here: http://www.relayforlife.org/learn/nationalteamprogram/index

We acknowledge our mistakes, and we appreciate your patience and understanding as we have worked to resolve them. We appreciate our many loyal volunteers who believe that the Society and its Relay For Life program would never discriminate against any group committed to participating in our mission to save lives from cancer. It is our deepest desire to get back to business as normal so that we can focus on serving cancer patients and their loved ones, and the millions of individuals who want cancer information and who are passionate about engaging in our mission.

Greg Donaldson
National Vice President, Corporate Communications
American Cancer Society

So where are the lies?

Let’s go through the big ones, one by one.

Mr. Stiefel and the Foundation Beyond Belief have not told us if they are willing to consider working with the Society in any manner other than as a National Team Partner.

Not true.

Todd Stiefel specifically asked if a youth affiliate team was possible. Between the organizations he works with (notably, the Secular Student Alliance and CFI On Campus), there were over 400 student groups who could have participated. The ACS rejected that idea, despite having youth affiliates from other non-profit groups.

No reason was given for this rejection.

… we remain committed to discussing with the Foundation Beyond Belief ways in which we can work together, encouraging the group’s participation in Relay For Life and in the Society’s mission to save more lives from cancer

Not true.

According to Todd, the National Relay for Life people do not call him or try to contact him. The only person Todd has communicated with from the national organization is Reuel Johnson and that was only over the phone, once in the past six months, and only after Todd “complained to local Relay people that he had not been returning emails or phone calls.” He subsequently received two emails from Reuel, both neglecting to mention the matching challenge or trying to secure the donation.

If the ACS was serious about working with the Foundation Beyond Belief and Todd Stiefel, why not follow up with them? Why not propose alternative ways to work together?

Simple: They’re not really interested in working with atheists.

In recent weeks, supporters of the Foundation Beyond Belief have used the American Cancer Society community on Facebook to post misinformation, saying the Society turned down half a million dollars and is discriminating against atheists.

These statements are false.

Not entirely true.

They have indeed rejected the money. Says Todd: “They have rejected it by default by refusing to give us the only condition on the gift: equal recognition [granted] to other non-profits, such as with a national youth affiliate team.”

Sure, they won’t refuse the money, but by not giving the atheists the same recognition any other group would have received and by not trying to secure the donation in any other way, it’s really just another form of rejection.

As Todd points out, “If someone asks someone out on a date and they never answer, it is still a rejection. So is this.”

However, beginning with this fiscal year, ACS discontinued Relay’s National Team Partner program for clubs and organizations while National Teams focused around commercial organizations remain.

Not true.

They’re trying to change the rules after the fact.

Todd explains that they have continued National Teams with clubs and organizations… but since Greta Christina‘s AlterNet article came out on October 10th, they’re now calling them “Youth Affiliates.”

Furthermore, when the ACS’ new website rolled out on September 1st, they continued to mention the same youth partner clubs and organizations they had the previous year. (We have pictures to back that up.) They’ve since gotten rid of those references from their site.

Todd Stiefel was recently contacted by one of the Youth Affiliates.

Apparently, they were never told they were no longer a “National Partner” or that they were now a “Youth Affiliate” until after Greta’s article came out… which reinforces the idea that the ACS made the changes in response to the backlash, not before it.

Our case is still solid. The atheists are being denied a National Team while other groups get to keep theirs. Instead of admitting that, the American Cancer Society is trying to spin the story so that they appear to be the victims.

This isn’t the end of the issue. If they want to keep pushing the lies, then we’ll send more media attention in their direction.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • http://yetanotheratheist.com/ TerranRich

    “Simple: They’re not really interested in working with atheists.”

    This just smacks of exactly how fundamentalists and extremists argue. I was with you riiiight up until you made this assertion, based on nothing but paranoia and personal interpretation of events and facts. You know what I see? An organization that screwed up, misused terminology, and was caught with their pants down. Sure, they’re still being stubborn, but I think this is more a case of trying to save face, vs. discriminating against atheists.

    • Eskomo

      OK, then why will they not give equal billing to Foundation Beyond Belief?

      • http://yetanotheratheist.com/ TerranRich

        What is the nature of the origin of the universe? Same answer: We don’t exactly know just yet. We have some guesses, some more educated than others, but we certainly can’t say for certain that this is outright discrimination.

        • http://religionsetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Joshua Zelinsky

          This is a poor epistemological approach. Just because you aren’t certain about something doesn’t mean you can’t make a decent guess about what hypothesis is most likely to be true. In this context there’s a clear front-runner. 

          • http://yetanotheratheist.com/ TerranRich

            Then I must ask this: Does it really make sense for such a large organization to publicly discriminate against atheists and risk horrifically bad press as a result? It just doesn’t sit well with me that this is outright discrimination. You all could very well be right — I’m not saying it’s not possible, or not true. I just personally can’t see how it can be that this is purposeful discrimination on such a large scale.

            • Pustulio

              It’s more like discrimination by proxy. The ACS likely doesn’t have any problem with atheists per se, but it’s well documented that religious people don’t like seeing atheism acknowledged in public and that religious groups will boycott at the drop of a hat. So from a strictly pragmatic standpoint it makes sense to take a small hit  financially in order to avoid the larger hit they would take if religious people perceived any insult from the association and decided to pull their support en masse. 

              • http://yetanotheratheist.com/ TerranRich

                This makes much more sense to me than just plain discrimination, and would fit the circumstances and events better.

                • http://religionsetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Joshua Zelinsky

                  I think then there may be a communicatio in issue in the thread, in that at least I when using the term discrimination considered that to be a version of the general discrimination hypothesis (since it does amount to same thing- the ACS actively deciding the FFR should be treated this way because they are atheistic). I don’t know if other people in this thread have meant to include it whene they say discrimination.

                • http://yetanotheratheist.com/ TerranRich

                  I agree. When I think discrimination, I think of people purposefully snubbing us for the explicit reason that we’re atheists, out of their own prejudice/bigotry/intolerance. It was a narrow-minded view, I’ll admin.

                  Yes, I do see this as a case of discrimination, especially if they’re trying to pander to the majority of people around us.

        • phaceplant

          This contrast of questions is illogical. 

          Just because YOU come to the same conclusion for these two questions (i.e “We don’t exactly know just yet”) does not EQUATE the burden of evidence in support or refutation of each.

          In fact there are people much smarter than I that would attest to understanding “the nature of the origin of the universe [sic]“. But, this is not ‘the question’.

          In keeping with the issue at hand, many commenters have posted evidence supporting Hemant’s claim on the ACS facebook page. If the responses by Megan Yarbrough on this page weren’t just dismissive, many readers posted evidence of further lying in these responses. 

          It is not a large step to infer that the ACS does not want to be affiliated with atheist philanthropy.

    • Pinko

      It seems to me that this: “They’re not really interested in working with atheists” is as much a supported assumption given the information available as this: “You know what I see?  An organization that screwed up, misused terminology, and was caught with their pants down.”  So it would seem that you have a different interpretation of the facts as Hemant.  I don’t get why anyone has to accuse anyone else of acting like a fundamentalist or extremist because of a difference in interpretation.

    • http://www.facebook.com/unrejectednull Unrejected Null

      They’re trying to save face BECAUSE they discriminated against atheists. There’s no “vs.”

    • TheBlackCat

      This isn’t an issue of terminology.  The post is simply lying:

      1. The timeline doesn’t match.  They were working with the FBB long after the point where they claimed that they changed the rules, yet didn’t bother to tell them that all of their conversations were completely pointless because the rules changed months before the discussion even started?

      2. Directly contradicting their claims that they tried to work with the FBB to find an alternative approach, they rejected alternatives approaches like youth teams without explanation.

      3. Also directly contradicting that claim, they made it as difficult as possible for the FBB to get in touch with them, and were very dismissive when the FBB did finally manage to get in touch with them.

      4. They started changing their website and deleting inconvenient but still true information like the youth partners program info only after the PR problems started, and they are still claiming that the youth partners program is active.

      So no, I don’t think “An organization that screwed up, misused terminology, and was caught with their pants down” fits the facts at all.  If that was the case there would be no reason to reject the youth partner program.  If there was a good reason to reject the youth partner program, why have they not given it?  Why have they removed all mentions of it from their website while the program is still active?  Why have they seen the need to lie about their actions so many times rather than just letting the truth stand?  

      This isn’t a simple mistake.  If it were, it would be easy to fix: let them join the youth partner program.  Heck, if it was as simple as they claimed, then this whole thing wouldn’t have happened because they would have told the FBB that they were not accepting groups of that type when the conversation first started, rather than just abruptly refusing to return emails or phone calls.

      I think the fact that they refused to give a reason for rejecting them from joining the youth partner program so many times indicates that they won’t like how people will react to the answer.  I think the fact that they lied so many times indicates that they don’t think the truth will convince people.  I think the fact that they changed the timeline to make it seem like the decision happened before the discussion with FBB rather than after indicates that their interaction was a cause of the change rather than an effect of it.  I think the fact that they lied about how hard they worked to find an alternative solution with the FBB indicates that they want people to think they were mor supportive than they really were.  All these, I think, strongly indicates that it their behavior is due to what the FBB stands.  It certainly does not match your assessment, which the simple truth should be more than enough to address.

    • Erik

      I think its fair to accuse them of discrimination. The Cancer Society is treating an atheist group much differently than other groups, AND not telling the atheist group why, AND giving misinformation to the public/media when asked why. It seems like discrimination.
      If we are right (likely) then we force them to confront the issue. If we are wrong (unlikely) then the Cancer Society has just made a (very big) mistake and needs to fix it anyways, so lets call them out on it.

      If a store refuses to serve a gay customer, but comes up with a ‘legitimate’ reason why service was refused, and that reason is clearly a lie, it’s reasonable to accuse the store of discrimination.

  • Kevin_Of_Bangor

    That was a Hemant bitch slap!!

  • http://profiles.google.com/mrmongoose901 Clayton Ramsey

    I’ve been following this, but not incredibly closely. At this point it seems like, either by chance or design, the issue has become too muddied for anyone not intimately familiar with all of the facts. My advice would to come up with some clear, concise points that can be stated in a single paragraph and really prove the discrimination. For example, a list of other similar organizations that are still being allowed do exactly what the FBB wanted to do. Something short enough that people will be able to read/understand it quickly, but compelling enough that the ACS will need to try to respond to it. Basically a ‘talking point’ (as much as I hate that term).

    Without that, it basically just degrades in to a long explanation by them as to why they’re the victims, followed by a long explanation by us trying to describe why what they just said is inaccurate. All of which will be basically ignored by anyone else, and might even make the FBB look like the bad guys to people who support the ACS cause and want to believe they’re not to blame (and may already have a slight anti-atheist bias). 

    • Anonymous

      The truthful bottom line is that they stand to lose more money from Religious oganizations who oppose ACS accepting a nonbeliever organization than they stand to gain from taking the chance that nothing will happen.  They just don’t want to say it because it is discrimination of sorts, and by this point, it’s too late to be truthful without looking like a collective ass.

      • Chris Slaby

        I think you are completely accurate. It’s just unfortunate/annoying that they won’t just fess up and say that this is what was/is going on. As good atheists, I think we should keep the most important issue front and center, the truth. The largest issue isn’t the atheist discrimination, that’s not particularly surprising. What’s most unacceptable is the lying. They just need to say that they were scared to lose money from Christians who would oppose ACS because it recognized FBB. Why, at this point, they just don’t tell the truth is beyond me. 

    • Chris Slaby

      I completely agree, though I think Hemant has already laid out some very clear options here:

      “According to Todd, the National Relay for Life people do not call him
      or try to contact him. The only person Todd has communicated with from
      the national organization is Reuel Johnson
      and that was only over the phone, once in the past six months, and only
      after Todd ‘complained to local Relay people that he had not been
      returning emails or phone calls.’ He subsequently received two emails
      from Reuel, both neglecting to mention the matching challenge or trying
      to secure the donation.
      If the ACS was serious about working with
      the Foundation Beyond Belief and Todd Stiefel, why not follow up with
      them? Why not propose alternative ways to work together?

      Simple: They’re not really interested in working with atheists.”

      AND

      “Todd Stiefel was recently contacted by one of the Youth Affiliates.
      Apparently, they were never told they were no longer a ‘National Partner’ or that they were now a ‘Youth Affiliate’ until after Greta’s article came out… which reinforces the idea that the ACS made the changes in response to the backlash, not before it.”

  • Terry F

    Why not just move on and work with an organization that is willing to?  I Do not see benefit in this long and protracted discussion when there are  many other charities just as worthy….

    • John

      I think it’s worth exposing this and their other bigoted moves as much as possible. I’m suspecting their leadership has a fundamental minority problem, and nothing is going to change unless the buzz about them discriminating overshadows any worry about recognising atheist, gay, whatever doners.

      • Erik

        Yes!

    • raewagner

      You’re right.  When a huge, nationwide organization discriminates against a group of people and continues to lie about it, we should just shut up and move on.

      • Rpm

        Me likes your faceitousness.  Acidic humor is very funny.  However, we should give them back a double dose of whatever they be giving us.  So we don’t believe in a santa in the sky, money is money.  I wouldn’t believe whatever the ACS wrote about cancer.  In fact, tumors that grow and cause humans problems will be with us for a very long time especially if you follow the standard procedures for its eradication.  Organic foods and vitamin b17 will get you farther than chemo.

        • Parse

          If by ‘farther’, you mean ‘an earlier grave’, then absolutely.
          For one thing, your “vitamin B17″ (also known as laetrile) doesn’t improve survival rates or survival times, but it does have the benefit of high levels of cyanide. 
          For your reading pleasure, an article about the history of laetrile.  It’s on the long side, but I suggest you read at least the portion near the end, titles “NCI Studies.”  When the National Cancer Institute studied laetrile, they found that “not one patient was
          cured or even stabilized. The median survival rate was 4.8 months
          from the start of therapy, and in those still alive after seven
          months, tumor size had increased. This was the expected result
          for patients receiving no treatment at all. ”

          Rpm, if you have cancer, and you want to treat it using “vitamin B17″, more power to you.  It’s your funeral, after all.  But you’ll actually need to provide evidence – verifiable and definitive evidence – that it works as you claim before we’ll accept your miracle drug. 

    • Anonymous

      What everyone else said.  It’s not like “exposing the bigotry of Cause A” and “contributing to Cause B” are mutually exclusive anyway.  It’s a false dichotomy.

  • Anonymous

    if the policy is preventing you from taking half a million then CHANGE THE POLICY for crying out loud?!?

    but apparently some stupid INSIGNIFICANT policy is more important than half a million for fighting cancer…

  • Anonymous

    They aren’t worth the bother except that malicious and defamatory lies about individuals or organisations are libellous and should be treated as such.  I don’t think that they’ve got that far yet, it seems to be petty “he said, she said” at the moment.  give it time though.

    In the meantime there are plenty of good causes who would bend over backwards for this kind of money and who don’t care which gods donors worship (or not).  I’d be interested in hearing where FBB and Todd Stiefel will be donating money to and how it will be used.  Assuming that they still wish to donate the money to someone.

  • http://twitter.com/dartigen Dartigen

    Eh, well, they don’t want the money, fine – give it to a charity that will accept it. There are plenty out there who I’m sure would just about faint at the thought of half a million dollars.

    If people don’t want help, why keep offering?

  • Per Piotrr Edman

    “Profane”?

  • b00ger

    I still don’t understand their logic for discontinuing non-profit teams and only supply support to “commercial” teams. It seams that the infrastructure is clearly in place to support any kind of team and this “commercial” vs non-commercial split is extremely arbitrary. There’s absolutely no reason why two organizations should be handled differently simply because one is a for-profit company and the other is not. Seems like there would be some other non-profits who could get national recognition that this policy would disqualify as well. 

    I wish someone would point out that this is a stupid fucking policy regardless of how it specifically impacts FBB.

    • Anonymous

      IIRC, they claimed that they don’t have the infrastructure to support it.  They even refused Todd’s offer of supplying our own bookkeeper to keep track of the donations.  Another thing that makes no sense.

    • Anonymous

      It also makes very little sense when you see how small some of the corporate teams are.  Wolters Kluwer only had 10 teams and raised about $10,000 in 2010.  Yet, they are still showing on the corporate teams webpage.  The offer FBB and Stiefel brought to ACS was several magnitudes better than that but ACS turned them down.

      Other small corporate teams–Quest Diagnostics, 23 teams, $38,000; Pricewaterhouse Coopers, 46 teams, $116,842;  Purolator USA, 22 teams, $22,000; KPMG, 33 teams, $103,777; Jeld-Wen, 29 teams, $62,243; JBS, 32 teams, $57,137; and there are several more.  Obviously the reason ACS denied FBB a national team was NOT about “past performance”, “number of teams”, “not cost effective”, “corporate teams are larger contributors”, or whatever new excuse ACS is using. 

  • JohnH

    They have been discriminating against gay groups as well. At least in the cases I heard of they flat out told them the truth (that some internal guys objected to them and said it may cause controversy).

    Has anyone heard of them denying help to cancer victims that happen to be atheist, or gay, or part of some other minority group they don’t like?

    • Dusty Wilson

      When I had cancer, ACS didn’t help me at all.  They kept telling me to call the Livestrong people instead.  They didn’t help either.  LLS helped me a LOT though.  One would think that the big name charity would help people, but they certainly didn’t do anything for me.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=750428174 Paddy Reddin

    Personally I can honestly say they won’t see one red cent of my money ever again.

    For anyone who does want to give to a good charity, take a look at http://www.charitywatch.org/ which gives a list of top rated charities by subject.  

    Still think there should be more media attention about this, but then again, it’s seems to be ok to discriminate against Atheists in the 21st century.  A lot more standing up and coming out needed.

  • Gus Snarp

    What bothers me most about this post is this:

    We have seen profane hyperbole and personal attacks on members of this community that only serve to disrupt the American Cancer Society’s ability to serve cancer patients and their families.

    This is clearly a tactic intended to smear every atheist critic they have with a hand full of comments (if any). The nastiest comments I’ve seen on these threads came not from atheists critical of ACS’ actions in this case, but from people who appear to attack the ACS anywhere and everywhere with completely off topic complaints about not focusing on their kind of cancer, not handling money well, or being complicit with “big pharma”. The atheist critics were occasionally blunt, but I never saw profane attacks, maybe they were really fast on the delete button?

    In any case, it’s an attempt to distract from the issue and make us look bad, it’s taking the low road, and it’s terribly insulting to the large number of atheists and other critics on this issue who were not in the least profane. ACS apparently does not understand the internet, they ought to check out a YouTube comment thread some time just to see how things work. In the meantime, they need a new social media team who understands the internet and its denizens.

  • Anonymous

    It’s amazing how many people are posting your article in the comments. No surprise though, it’s an excellent exposure on the sad hypocrisy they published.

  • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

    Apparently, they were never told they were no longer a “National Partner” or that they were now a “Youth Affiliate” until after Greta’s article came out… which reinforces the idea that the ACS made the changes in response to the backlash, not before it.

    Our case is still solid.

    I can’t agree to this part being a solid case. You present no evidence that they were responding to Greta’s internet article. That’s rather flimsy speculation. Could just be a coincidence.

    • http://religionsetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Joshua Zelinsky

      The point that they were responding to Greta’s article is a weak link in that argument. But that specific link doesn’t substantially detract from the argument as a whole. The necessary link is that these organizations didn’t hear about this until after the public backlash had already started. Whether Greta Christina’s article or the Young Turks coverage or any other coverage was the specific bit of backlash or something else doesn’t detract from the pattern here.  The general timing strongly suggests that the ACS made the change in response to issues with the FFR. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2C6XFSMIUYAZUDZ4CWUWLV7CEY Josh Pearson

    The American Cancer Society is a joke. There are far better, more deserving, charities to give this money to. In the 2010 fiscal year ACS used only 17% of there funds for cancer research, compared to 21% for fundraising.

    Where as organizations like Stand Up To Cancer give 100% of publicly derived funds DIRECTLY into cancer research, as well as setting up sharing infrastructure and creating research “dream teams”.

    What about AIDS research or Malaria? What about a water charity or a food one? There are thousands of better charities than the American Cancer Society. At this point the money should go to one of them.

    • Tom

      What happened to the other 62% of the ACS’s funds?  I’m getting the distinct feeling that I’m not going to like the answer.

  • Anonymous

    People always wonder why we can’t cure cancer with all the millions of dollars people are donating. This gives a good explanation on why cancer can’t be cured right now.

    http://explainlikeakid.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-cancer-not-curable.html

  • Cobo Wowbo

    Looks like Planned Parenthood will be getting a bigger check from me this year…

  • Vlmetiva

    This is why I don’t give to charities like the ACS or Susan G. Komen. They spend way too much money on advertising and fundraising. They care more about their company than curing cancer.

  • http://religionsetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Joshua Zelinsky

    Is there a chance that all the relevant documents and screenshots will be put in one place where one can easily reference them for people trying to read up on this? Right now, I’ve tried to explain to people what happened, but between my own faulty memory, the complexity of the details and the ACS issuing various contradictory statements, a single summary statement with a timeline and references would be nice.

    On a related note, is there a chance that Stiefel will release his emails with Johnson? Seeing that actual exchange with the time stamps be useful for people who are still unclear about what happened. 

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Hemant Mehta

      Greta Christina will be posting a foliow up piece soon with all relevant screenshots.

      I don’t think Todd will be releasing the emails. There’s nothing in them that hasn’t been discussed ad nauseam.

  • raysny

    There are plenty of other charities that would like my money. I’ve donated for the last several years, this year it will be another deserving charity. My only hope is that when they call for a donation this holiday season, it’s me who answers the phone; my wife is too polite.

  • Medgette

    There will never be a cure for cancer!!!!

  • sac

    ACS isn’t  even looking for a “cure”.  Give your money to someone who is.  I have 4 family members who were diagnosed with cancer.  The ACS didn’t do much  They gave my mom a wig.  A wig she didn’t need b/c the the treatments she had usually don’t cause hair loss.  If the ACS was so smart why didn’t they know that?  They fundraise, fundraise, fundraise, and occasionally send out pamplets telling people to use sunscreen.  ACS is a joke.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X