[ SECRET POST #2634 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2634 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Lady Gaga]


__________________________________________________



03.
[free!, attack on titan]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
(Panic! at the Disco)


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
[Anarky]


__________________________________________________



10.
(Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)


__________________________________________________



11.
[Frozen]













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 013 secrets from Secret Submission Post #376.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[kaijinscendre]

Do you mean Bono's charity? Where only 1% of the money he raised was actually used for charity?

[(Anonymous)]

I had actually forgotten all about that one (pun intended).

[kallanda_lee]

To be fair, it's not just celebs. Things like the Red Cross have a ton of money go to themselves, too.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. I read a study once about the percentages of what actually goes into charity from organizations, and UNICEF's answer was only 20%. That might seem a lot but it's still not even half of the profits and it was only medium ranked among the other charities.

But, reliable sources would be nice.

[kallanda_lee]

Sadly my "source" is that I had a journalist friend investigating where charity money for Haiti went, back in the day, and she was met with closed door after closed door. They do NOT want transparency about where the money goes, but I do not have the numbers.

[(Anonymous)]

Hadn't heard about that one, but... *major facepalm* A good reason to be REALLY cautious about celebrity charities. Even if you like and trust the person who's the figurehead, they're not necessarily going to be the person who's running it and making sure all the numbers check out.

[kaijinscendre]

Meh. The only reason I know (and this is embarrassing) is because I was listening to like...two year old Roosterteeth podcasts and they mentioned it.

[greenvelvetcake]

Or the Komen Foundation. Fuck the Komen Foundation.

[(Anonymous)]

This. Claims to be for women's services, yet cuts funding to Planned Parenthood because "Oh Noes! They provide abortions and kill ze babiez!"

[(Anonymous)]

Actually they aren't "for women's services", they're about fighting breast cancer. And since there is some question about the link between birth control and cancer (supposedly the World Health Organization declared birth control pills a class one carcinogen but it's hard to find definitive sources for that), and since very few PP clinics actually provide mammograms on site, they decided that they would rather give that money to organizations whose goals more closely aligned with Komen's own, i.e. fighting breast cancer and providing cheap/free mammograms. It happens all the time--a foundation adjusts its funding to better meet its goals.

It was Planned Parenthood who made a big noisy stink about it, despite the amount lost being a very small percentage of what PP takes in, and vilified a foundation which is all about saving women's lives, because they saw a political agenda when it was probably just a practical financial decision.

[fadeinthewash]

It didn't help that they'd hired in the previous year a pro-life woman who has advocated for defunding Planned Parenthood.

Regarding the carcinogen thing, NIH says it depends on the contraceptive and the type of cancer; oral contraceptives can raise risk for breast cancer, but evidence suggests the risk goes back down after a decade of no contraceptive. This is in line with what's summarized in this WHO monograph (pdf).

They DO however on the < a href="http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/generalinformationaboutcarcinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens" target="_blank">WHO Group 1 list:
Estrogen postmenopausal therapy
Estrogen-progestogen postmenopausal therapy (combined)
Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined) (Note: There is also convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary)
Progesterone

"[Group one carcinogen" for WHO just means "sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity" or that there's good evidence of it in animals with reason to believe that it would be in humans as well. So it's not like it's a rating of how dangerous a carcinogen is, just a scale of whether something is carcinogenic. Source (pdf); see p. 24. So while it's not a good list, it's also not an indicator "most carcinogenic thing ever panic panic panic!" the way that sort of rating might suggest barring any context. If you look over the list linked about, you'll notice wood smoke and working as a hairdresser is on there, too.