Developing and improving the skills of young people to learn about killing other people

The death industry is really about money. Clearly it's cheaper to kill people than to give them health care, palliative care, home care, mental health care, etc. It's about saving money, and in some cases, it's even about making money. 

For example, Dying with Dignity. 

In 2021 they received $1,653,893 in donations (why would anyone donate to these people anyway?). They actually had $8,000,000 in the bank that year. And they received $204,655 from the federal government in FY 2021. Why any company should receive grant money when they have this kind of money in the bank is beyond me.

But that wasn't enough. They also received two government grants from the Canada Summer jobs program for 2020 and 2021. To get this money, employers must:

"demonstrate that they are providing quality work experiences for youth that provide opportunities to develop and improve their skills." (emphasis added)

They have ten employees. Check out their salaries:

1 person earns $1 to $39,999

5 people earn $40,000 to $79,999

3 people earn $80,000 to $119,999

and the winner is...the one person who earns $160,000 to $199,999. 

Charity Intelligence who rates charities for donors (and not for the charities) gives DWD a 1 star rating (out of 5 stars). For each 

"dollar donated, after overhead costs of fundraising and admin/management (excluding surplus) 36 cents are available for programs."

That's a lot of overhead.

As Canada kills more and more of their undesirable people, I predict we will see this company do better and better financially. 

Check out the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition's terrifying information on Canada's MAID regime.

Breast cancer prevention

Not only does the Breast Cancer Industry receive 36 times more money from donors than colorectal cancer, but those dollars have little impact on breast cancer prevention.

On page 38 of Charity Intelligence Canada's report Cancer in Canada there is a graph that identifies the Opportunity for Donor Impact of the top cancers in Canada.

Under the prevention column you see there are no dollar signs for Breast Cancer. According to the legend on the graph, this means there is:
"Limited or no opportunity for donor impact".

Page 41 says:
"Breast Cancer in Canada: Donor opportunity for impact – Very Low, due to saturation and past success"

And yet we know there is evidence that points to a possible link between breast cancer and abortion, a link the Breast Cancer Industry refuses to acknowledge.

The report also summarizes some of other cancers and their donor impacts:
"Pancreatic Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – Very High
Lung Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – High
Colorectal Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – High
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Donor opportunity for impact – Moderate to High
Ovarian Cancer: Donor opportunity for impact – Moderate to High"

On page 41 the report summarizes breast cancer funding in this way:
"Breast cancer is the most funded cancer – receiving 28% of all Canadian cancer funding, despite representing fewer than 10% of cancer deaths or PYLL [potential years of life lost]. Breast cancer receives 3 times the average of the other 9 top killers: more than $10,000 per breast cancer death. With 45 charities focused on breast cancer and high support from general cancer charities – and the resulting high survival rates – breast cancer has a low funding need relative to other cancers."

If breast cancer "has a low funding need relative to other cancers", why do we see that little pink ribbon on so many consumer products?

So, let's go out on a limb here.
 
Let's assume just for one tiny moment (work with me on this), that yes, there just might actually be an increase in the incidence of breast cancer for women who have had one or more previous abortions.
 
If we then started telling women about this evidence, letting them decide for themselves if it had merit, I wonder what might happen?

Maybe some women might opt out of choosing to have an abortion. Maybe some women might choose to keep their baby. Maybe some women would choose to put their baby up for adoption instead.

I wonder how much breast cancer prevention we might see then?