If you read yesterday’s post about the Princess Margaret Foundation scam, you might have come to the conclusion that I’m puzzled by the way they handle their money.
To get clarity, I wrote to them and ask them for an explanation.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I had a look at the sweepstakes and when I add all prizes together I come to about 10 million dollars.
Wouldn't it be better to invest that money into healthcare instead of all those items?
How can you afford all those houses, cars, vacations and electronics?
I'm looking forward to your answer,
This morning I found a reply …
Hello, Conny, and thank you for your note.
This is a long-standing debate. The problem is, without the prizing, especially the largest of the prizes, the lottery doesn’t hold the same cachet. It would be all but impossible to have people pay $100 (or any sizable amount of money) for a ticket without offering something very substantial in return. The homes, cars and trips provide dreams for ticket buyers, but these dreams fund essential cancer research work at The Princess Margaret in turn. And we need the lottery proceeds because they are the single largest source of funding, outside the government funding, that the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre receives. Since the first Princess Margaret lottery was presented in 1996, more than $227 million has been raised for cancer research programs at The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. We wouldn’t have had that source of revenue without the lotteries.
I hope you better understand why we hold the lotteries and why we offer such wonderful prizes.
The Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation
This fund raising still doesn’t make any sense to me. Do people really need a reward to find a cure for cancer? Isn’t healing (and subsequent living) enough?
The Cancer Society was founded in 1913 by 15 doctors and businessmen. So they’ve been in operation for 99 years. Although progress in the diagnosis and treatment of certain cancers has been made, cancer is still a dirty word that for a lot of people sounds like a death sentence.
In comparison, vaccines have been formulated for viral and bacterial diseases. Nearly all these vaccines were formulated quite some time ago, without the use of computers and with limited funds. So why is it, that with all our technology no more cures our found.
One cure our brilliant scientists did find. The cure for erectile dysfunction (Viagra) and it only took them 13 years.
When can we expect a cure for cancer? My guess is never.
Imagine if you will that a cure was found. No more donations for the Cancer Society, Princess Margaret Foundation and a list of other cancer related organizations. No more cancer related doctors and nurses, no more machinery and oh dear, no more drugs. That translates into a loss of not millions but of billions of dollars.
For the longest time I thought I was the only one being skeptical about the use of all those donations, but after talking to quite a few people, it turns out I am far from the only one. All kinds of people are more than a little suspicious of cancer “research”.
In general they all agreed, cancer is not just an illness, it’s a business.
Are people really spending $100 on a ticket for the Princess Margaret Foundation? They bitch and whine about the gas prices; they switch to LED lights to save electricity; they go to the store with coupons; they complain about unemployment after the recession; there’s all kinds of advice on frugal living. In short … do you really see these people throw away $100 on a ticket that might or might not win?
And speaking of winning … where is last year’s list of winners? Who won the houses and the cars? Were they won?