The ACS Reverses Its Strong Position on Mammograms and PSA Testing

The American Cancer Society Reverses Its Strong Position on Mammograms and PSA Testing; by Dr. McDougall www.drmcdougall.com
Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society told the New York Times on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 , “We don't want people to panic, but I'm admitting that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated.” 1
How does your personal physician communicate confidence and comfort to you now? “I am sorry I recommended a mammogram that resulted in an unnecessary amputation of your breast?” How consoling do these words feel, “It is a shame you haven’t had an erection in the past 10 years due to the PSA test I insisted you get, that led to debilitating prostate treatments—I hope you and your wife understand I was just following orders from the American Cancer Society?” Tens of millions of women and men have been irreparably damaged by the universal and enthusiastic recommendations for “early detection programs,” also known as “screening,” from their personal physicians, neighborhood breast and prostate clinics, community hospitals, national medical associations and medical societies over the past four decades. Now, all that the faithful patients get is a timid apology from the American Cancer Society, evoked by an article in the October 21, 2009 issue of Journal of the American Medical Association, titled “Rethinking Screening for Breast Cancer and Prostate Cancer.” 2 Since, in my opinion, this admission of guilt is insufficient, what would be fair retribution for the harms done? Adequate scientific evidence to stop mass screening programs has been readily available to your personal doctor for more than three decades. A flick of the “on” button of his or her computer, and a ten-minute search at the National Library of Medicine (www.pubmed.gov) would have revealed the truth. In 1976 Pietro M. Gullino presented his findings on the natural history of cancer, showing early detection is really late detection, at the Conference on Breast Cancer: A Report to the Profession, sponsored by the White House, the National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society. 3 He explained: “ If the time required for a tumor to double its diameter during a known period of time is taken as a measure of growth rate, one can calculate by extrapolation that two-thirds of the duration of a breast cancer remains undetectable by the patient or physician. Long before a breast carcinoma can be detected by present technology, metastatic spread may occur and does in most cases.” This report was subsequently published in the journal representing the American Cancer Society (Cancer). 3
In more familiar words, Dr. Gullino and many other researchers have clearly told everyone listening: mammography, breast self examination, PSA and digital rectal exam are really late detection methods and cannot be expected to save lives by “catching cancer before it spreads.” Unfortunately, there is no profit in telling this truth. So, 386,560 people in the US are diagnosed annually with breast cancer (194,280) and prostate cancer (192,280); many of them through screening. 2 Cancer-screening businesses using two modern technologies—the mammogram and the blood test, prostate specific antigen (PSA)—have captured more customers than all other efforts combined. Campaigns have been so effective that about 75 percent of men have had a routine PSA test and about 70 percent of women older than 40 report they have had a recent mammogram. 2 More than $20 billion is spent annually on screening for these two diseases. There are two customary ways a doctor-patient relationship is established. The traditional means is that you become ill and you seek out the advice of a doctor. In this case you initiate the relationship. The worth of the evidence supporting the doctor’s treatment does not need to be very solid. Your doctor is acting in his or her professional capacity to offer you the best available remedies without any real guarantee of the outcome. Remember, you asked for the help.
The second means of establishing a doctor-patient relationship became common with the introduction of programs looking for “early” cancer (screening). In this scenario the doctor comes looking for you. Life is good—you are enjoying your family, hobbies, and work. Then a knock sounds at your front door by way of a radio, TV, or magazine advertisement. Just as likely, during an office visit for an unrelated issue, such as a virus cold, your doctor admonishes you for failing to have your annual mammogram or PSA test. Through screening programs millions of people have become patients. When the doctor turns unsuspecting men and women into customers then the evidence that the outcome of this campaign will be far “more good than harm” must be unquestionable.
On October 21, 2009 the public was told by the American Cancer Society that this has not been the case for breast and prostate screening. Why now? The evidence has not changed—the only change is that now a few more people are willing to tell the truth. Why the delay? Annually, there is $20 billion at stake for screening alone and hundreds of billions more for the tests and treatments that follow. The ivory towers of your town’s cancer centers have been built from the blood of men and women subjected to harmful screening programs.ancer Mongering—the Most Successful of All Medical Enterprises

In 1985, 24 Years Ago, I Explained Why Early Detection Cannot Possibly Work
In my national best-selling book, McDougall’s Medicine—A Challenging Second Opinion, I presented this simple illustration and explained that breast cancer has, on average, been growing for ten years before discovery by any technique. The same picture is true for prostate cancer. The argument for early detection of breast and prostate cancer rests on the belief that the test can discover cancer in its early stages—before it has spread to other parts of the body. Unfortunately, this argument is groundless. Many laypeople, and a very few physicians, believe that breast and prostate cancer goes through a series of steps in which it remains within the respective organs for some time period until it spreads to the lymph nodes and then to the rest of the body. In their minds the process looks something like this:
Step 1: A cancer manifests and starts to grow slowly in the tissue (in this case, the breast or prostate).
Step 2: With time, the cancer grows into a larger tumor.
Step 3: Eventually, the cancer spreads to the lymph nodes.
Step 4: Finally, the cancer spreads from the lymph nodes to the rest of the body.
This step-by-step progression from a harmless mass to a body full of disease almost never occurs. Rather, cancer spreads to other parts of the body via the venous bloodstream in the very early stages of its development. The spread of cancer to the lymph nodes actually occurs simultaneously with the spread of the cancer to other parts of the body.
Normal, healthy cells multiply only when necessary, such as during childhood growth and development, or to repair damaged tissues after an injury. Cancer cells, however, divide at their own free will at the site of origin, and spread to other parts of the body where they continue this uncontrolled growth without respect for the surrounding healthy tissues. Like most other cancers, breast and prostate cancers begin with the mutation of a single healthy cell into a malignant one. Once this transformation occurs, the single cell begins to replicate, or divide. The time it takes one cell to divide and become two cells is called the doubling time. The average doubling time is approximately 100 days. 3,8 This means that in 100 days, a single cancer cell will have become two cancer cells. In 200 days, that one cell will have become four cells in a breast or prostate gland. By one year there are eight to twelve cancer cells lurking undetectable. Consider that one breast or the entire prostate gland consists of about 100 billion cells, and then you know why the cancer is impossible to find.
At this doubling rate, it takes about six years for the single cancer cell to become one million malignant cells, which together form a tiny tumor that is about the size of the tip of a lead pencil. A mass of this size is less than one millimeter in diameter, and is undetectable by breast self-examination or mammography (or any other presently-known technology) in the female breast, and by digital rectal examination (DRE) or by PSA (or any other presently-known technology) in the male prostate.
Even though the cancer is so tiny that it cannot be detected, it nevertheless has already spread, or metastasized (in medical terminology), to other parts of the body in virtually every case of true cancer (as opposed to the latent forms of cancer). It is the cancer cells that have spread to, say, the liver, lungs, bones, and brain, that kill the patient, and not the cancer cells confined to the breast or prostate.
After about ten years of growth, the average cancerous mass inside the breast or prostate is about one centimeter in diameter, or about the size of an eraser on the end of a pencil, and consists of about one billion cells. This is the earliest stage at which a tumor can be found. As Dr. Gullino explains, “two-thirds of the duration of a breast cancer remains undetectable by the patient or physician.” 3 As you can see, early detection is a misnomer.
Just as tragic is the devastation to the lives of the tens of millions of men and women with indolent cancers that would have never appeared in their lifetime if no one had been busy looking for them with screening programs. Once found, these nonthreatening lesions are aggressively treated with radiation and surgeries, leaving women deformed and men incontinent (wetting their pants, wearing a diaper or a catheter) and impotent. The poisoning effects of chemotherapy and the undesirable consequences of hormone deprivation treatments then follow these locally applied therapies (radiation and surgery). Thus screening leads to overdetection, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment of non-life-threatening cancers in huge numbers of people. How Do They Say, “I’m Sorry?”
No doctor can restore the natural breast of a woman or give back a man’s sexual function. These people will remain the casualties of the war on cancer fought with unjust and ineffective weapons delivered by untruthful medical professionals. Certainly, some of your personal physicians didn’t know, but ignorance is no excuse when the truth is so easily available. In 1997 an article titled, “ On the growth rates of human malignant tumors: implications for medical decision-making.” the authors, Friberg and Mattson concluded, “Most tumors are several years old when detectable by present-day diagnostic methods. This makes the term ‘early detection’ questionable. Human traits of greed and dishonesty have prevailed. Righteousness and giving are also human traits and now is the time for these two to triumph. $20 billion (the same amount that is currently spent on annual screening for breast and prostate cancer) should now be spent annually doing the right things for saving people from cancer, the unreliable tests, and the harmful treatments. Physicians, screening clinics, hospitals, medical associations, and medical societies must be forced, under the penalty of law if necessary, to tell the truth: Their testing does more harm than good.
Furthermore, they should be made to spread the good news about diet and cancer. Presently the American Cancer Society’s dietary messages for cancer prevention are, for women to “…stay at a healthy weight throughout your life and avoid gaining too much weight,” and “men who eat a lot of red meat or high-fat dairy products appear to have a slightly higher chance of getting prostate cancer. These men also tend to eat fewer fruits and vegetables. Doctors are not sure which of these factors is responsible for raising the risk.”9 These are downright timid messages about the importance of a healthy diet.
The truth is breast and prostate cancer are caused by the rich Western diet full of beef, chicken, cheese, milk, and oils, and contaminated with powerful environmental cancer-causing chemicals. A sizable share of that $20 billion must be spent on advertising, education, and subsidy programs to bring about monumental changes in our eating. The American Cancer Society needs to put meaning behind their apology by enthusiastically spreading the message that a starch-based diet with fruits and vegetables is fundamental for cancer prevention and good health.

Cell Phones Can and Do Cause Brain Cancer

The bombshell results of a major decade-long study carried out in 13 countries will support longtime speculation that long-term cell phone use increases the risk of developing cancerous condition.The $30 million report, which is to be released before the end of the year, follows a warning from the International EMF Collaborative that regular cell phone use could increase the risk of brain tumors significantly and that regular use is especially dangerous in children whose brains are still developing.The cell phone industry assured us for years that cell phones are safe and don’t cause cancer and other problems. Major organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Cancer Institute, also have stated there is no evidence cell phones are dangerous.But the official line may have to change because the WHO oversaw the new study.According to the Daily Telegraph in London, the study will show “a significantly increased risk” of some brain tumors “related to use of mobile phones for a period of 10 years or more.”Cell phone safety has been a concern for some experts ever since the death of Lee Atwater in 1991 from a brain tumor that developed under the exact spot where he held his cell phone. Sen. Ted Kennedy’s diagnosis and death from a malignant brain tumor also spurred safety fears. Kennedy’s brain tumor, called a glioma, was the type some experts have associated with the use of cell phones.CTIA — the Wireless Association — and the Food and Drug Administration also have stated that cell phones aren’t a health risk.But other experts, including my own research points to research that indicates a link between the electro-magnetic fields (EMF) of cell phones and three types of tumors: * Glioma * Cancer of a salivary gland near the ear called the parotid * Acoustic neuroma, which is a tumor found near the earAn Israeli study published two years ago found a 58 percent increase in risk for parotid tumors among people who relied heavily on their cell phones. And a Swedish study found that he risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma doubled after 10 years of heavy use.Prominent neurosurgeons have stated they do hold cell phones next to their ears.“I use it on the speaker-phone mode,” said Dr. Vini Khurana, a prominent researcher and an associate professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National University.Other prominent experts agree. “I do not hold it to my ear,” said Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a practicing neurosurgeon who also is CNN’s chief medical correspondent. Gupta says he uses an earpiece.Some experts haven’t waited for the WHO or FDA to issue warnings. Last year, Dr. Ronald Heberman, director of the University of Pittsburg Cancer Center, sent a memo to all faculty and staff, warning them of possible danger and advising them to cut cell phone use.I have also published warnings that ALL cell phones or cell phone services emit radiation that is harmful to health and can cause a cancerous brain condition. You have to be at least 2 to 3 feet away from your cell phone to avoid being exposed to radiation in excess of the Environmental Protection Agency minimum of 3 mG.Cell phone use has also been linked to other problems, including infertility, insomnia, hearing, and, of course, driving hazards.To learn how to prevent exposure to harmful cell phone radiation go to:http://www.phmiracleliving.com/p-373-rf3-air-tube-headset-hook.aspxhttp://www.phmiracleliving.com/p-233-q-link-classic-pendant.aspx
In Love and Healing Light,Robert O. Young, Ph.D., D.Sc.

Sixteen Ways to Help With the Flu Symptoms

How I Helped My 9 Year Old Daughter Safely Move Through the Flu Symptoms in 3 Days in August 2009 by Corrine BrandiMy daughter, Caroline was very sick for 3 days this August – headache, sore throat, high fever, dizziness, chills, sweats and throwing up. She certainly had the flu. The specific label is unimportant as I never take kids to a doctor to be labeled. Instead I help them get well. These are the things that we did – exactly. Three days later she was perfectly fine and 100% back to her routine and lifestyle. You can do it too….Before getting into the specifics I’d like to talk about a broader paradigm. The body eliminates dietary, environmental, microbial toxins (from bacteria, yeast,and mold) and metabolic wastes (the byproducts of energy production) in four basic ways: respiration, perspiration, defecation and urination. Also known as breathing, sweating, moving the bowels and urinating. Throwing up also works but is less pleasant…Notice that acidic or sick people run a fever and sweat, have rapid and shallow breath, urinate frequently as long as they are hydrated and sometimes develop diarrhea. Please do not try and suppress these natural elimination processes with acidic drugs! All of these things are ways of getting better. DO NOT administer Tamiflu, aspirin, Tylenol, Advil, or Alieve, etc. as these drugs stop the natural elimination process and are being investigated as causing more severe illness and even death in the case of the flu. Why? Because they all acidify the blood and tissues which the body is trying to reverse. Taking these acidic prescription and/or nonprescription drugs prevent the body's natural process to return it back to an alkaline natural alkaline state.In my case, neither of my daughters, now 9 and almost 12 have ever had the need for any toxic acidic drug, over the counter or prescription; nor have they ever received an acidic poisonous vaccination.Here are sixteen things I did with Caroline when she was sick or over-acid to help alkalize and detoxify her body from excess acidity, thereby allowing her body to heal and return to an alkaline balance:1. Most important of all is super hydration with high pH alkaline water - 9.5 or better. You can buy water in a bottle, the best is pH Miracle Water, Essentia or Evamore. You can add alkalizers found at a healthfood store or from The pH Miracle Center. You can also simply add aluminum free baking soda, Redmills Bob’s Baking Soda found at any health food store or section or Dr. Young's pHour Salts which is even better because it contains in addition to sodium bicarbonate, potassium, magnesium and calcium bicarbonate. Best of all, invest in an alkaline water machine that does it for you, and again check the pH Miracle Center for the best water machines, such as the pH Miracle Mark I Ionizer. Drink as much as possible as often as possible. Dr. Young recommends to drink at least 1 ounce of alkaline water per 1 pound of weight. 2. Move the diet to liquid and/or pureed alkaline foods. Do not use the body’s energy to digest low water content dry acidic foods. Use it instead to heal. Be stingy with the energy. Saute some anti-microbial onion, ginger and garlic in coconut oil. Get a box of organic veggie broth and add any mostly green veggies you like (NOT corn or mushrooms). We love broccoli, kale, chard, and celery. Heat until the veggies just give to preserve their energy. Preferably puree with sea salt or pH Miracle pHlavor salt and olive oil or pH Miracle Avocado oil for super nutrition. Or just eat whole. 3. As a matter of fact add sea salt or Dr. Young's pH Miracle pHlavor salt and avocado oils to everything you eat. Sea salt sets up the electrical charge in the body so cells can communicate properly and provides much needed minerals. Oils and fats like avocado, olive, hemp, flax, blends like Udos and coconut oil both buffer acids, provide materials to build cell walls and in the case of saturated coconut oil, energy to burn. Coconut oil is also wonderful for the liver as it struggles to clean the blood. My favorite is Wilderness Family Naturals but you can purchase any cold-pressed organic oil. Adding fresh sliced raw avocado or pH Miracle Avocado oil to the top of the soup is a bonus and again adds energy! Olive oil and avocado oil are amazing medicine. Use it first thing in the AM to detoxify the head. Upon waking take a tablespoon of extra virgin organic olive or pH Miracle avocado oil and squish vigorously in the mouth for 3 minutes. Set a timer. Really squish it! This w ill pull toxins and microforms (bacteria and yeast) out of the head while you spit them down the drain. Rinse mouth with the pH Miracle pHour salts when done. Amazing gross stuff comes out, sometimes white and foamy with yeast. 4. Add super-foods to your water like Doc Broc Power Plant greens and moringa powder. In addition juice green veggies and grasses and drink up! 5. Eliminate – just for now at least – all acidic and stressful foods. At the top of the list is anything you might drink except water, veggie broth, herbal tea and juiced greens. This includes all fruit juices, sodas, sports drinks, milk, coffee and alcohol. Next most important is all dairy, including the fermented kind called yogurt. Following this is sugar, meat, peanuts, vinegar, and of course any and all processed foods.6. Start taking Vitamin D3 – all over the press as the single most important thing to do to help with the flu symptoms. Dr. Robert O. Young also has a super potent form of D3 at 50,000 IU's per capsule. This high potent D3 can be purchased on line at: www.phmiracleliving.com. Due in part to the overuse of chemical sunscreens, acidic diets and lifestyles most of us are deficient in vitamin D3. 7. Open blood flow and deliver nutrition to the cells. 8. Take super antioxidants like glutathione, N-acetyl-cystein, and R-pHactor. 9. Use colloidal silver to improve circulation to acidic areas of the body. It can be used anywhere in the body including up the nose and in the eyes, and even on cuts to disinfect them. You can also gargle with it. We always keep colloidal silver in the house. Other tried and true excellent supplements are Echinacea and Zinc, all available at any healthfood store or at the pH Miracle Living Center. 10. Use a blend of salt and bicarbonates to mix in alkaline water to irrigate the sinus passages. You can use a neti pot or Dr. Hana's Nasal Wash System. 11. Move the lymphatic system, the body’s sewer system of excess acidic waste. Jump on a mini-tramp, get in a far-infrared sauna (I have one in my cellar) or just gently move, even if it’s walking around the house. vibrate on a whole body vibrational machine. In addition detox foot pads while sleeping, such as are excellent for pulling toxins out of the lymph through the bottom of the feet. You’ll be amazed at the black, gooey, stinky junk that gets pulled out! Another favorite for lymphatic release I use all the time is a warm bath with 1 or 2 cups baking soda or pHour salts and 1 or 2 cups Epsom Salts. Have the child sit in the bath for 20 minutes drinking one of the alkaline fluids I’ve talked about. In that short time your child can dump up to a quart of toxins into that bath water. You can also use more expensive bath salts that include essential oils and are found at any healthfood store. Again, this is excellent to promote healing sleep. 12. Detoxify the bowel from acidic proteins and sugars. Many kids are constipated because we feed them ‘kid food’. Ever look at the crap on a ‘kid’s menu?’ Many households are also child-centered and the children train the parents to feed them only junk by refusing to eat anything healthy. When sick I will move to baking soda or pHour salts in water to clear the bowel. If your child refuses to drink it, or can’t because of vomiting, then I would suggest you head for an enema. Fleet Enemas are safe and effective. It’s amazing how much better they feel after eliminating the garbage. I’ll only do this with permission on an older child and would never force or put fear into a sick child unless it is absolutely the last resort. 13. Do not fear fever. My Naturopathic Doctor always told me “watch the child, not the fever”. Fever is a natural defense and should not be suppressed. A medical emergency is only if the child is lethargic and uncommunicative and cannot be revived. This generally can be resolved very quickly by spraying the pH Miracle pHlavor salts into the childs mouth every 5 minutes. Other than that here are some strategies to help your child feel more comfortable:- cold cloths to the head, nape of the neck and wrists - light blankets or just a sheet - tepid baths being careful not to chill the child - and my favorite, wet socks. Take a pair of white cotton socks and wet under cool water. Put them on the child’s feet and then immediately put pure wool socks over the wet socks. The body will pull the heat out of the head and use it to dry the socks. The child will usually sleep. If socks don’t provide enough relief then the ultimate strategy is sheets. This is usually best for young er children but will work with anyone. Strip the child naked. Wet a white cotton sheet with cool water. Place the child on the sheet and roll the child up in it. Immediately roll the child up in a wool blanket. Hold your child and reassure him or her until the child falls asleep. The child won’t like it at the beginning but it has always cut the fever enough to allow the child to sleep, which is the goal, when everything else has failed and your child is miserable. In 11 years this strategy has never failed me.14. Homeopathic remedies are often extremely useful. They work on the theory of like cures like and are merely the vibration of the ingredient, not the ingredient itself so there is zero chance of toxicity. Caroline tends to respond to Aconite often but there are others for fever including Belladonna and Bryronia. Consult a homeopath or just Google it and get one at the health food store that matches the child’s symptoms. Make sure that the homeopathic remedies are free from alcohol. Simple strategies, many of which our grandmothers have told us – clean water, soup, move the bowels – because they work.15. Lead by example. If you are fearful your child will be fearful. Be the rock. Stay close; leave only when the child is comfortable or asleep and even then only for short trips to the kitchen or bathroom. Reassure your child that the body is SO SMART that it knows exactly what to do. That he or she will be fine and that you are there for him or her.16. Turn off the acidic TV and read or tell a story. Touch your child if he or she will allow. Let him or her sleep in your bed, turn down the lights and play a favorite music if he or she is up to it. Create a safe space of healing with perhaps essential oils that are calming like lavender, etc. Go with whatever the child wants as long as it fits within the healing guidelines. Extremely acidic sick kids change their minds quickly. First they want the covers off, then on. They might be angry or fearful one minute and clingy the next. It’s all ok because the emotions are part of the healing process, they are also being released.I am not a doctor; I’m just a Mom who loves her kids so much, just like all Moms. These are the strategies I’ve learned from people much smarter than I am that have lightened my load and lifted my heart because I no longer fear sickness. It breaks my heart to see other kids suffer because their parents lack the knowledge to help them and are driven to fear by the media and Big Pharma. In reality, our bodies are always trying to be well! So rather than fight it we have learned to help the body do what it is trying to do anyway… Life Wants to Live, it is Universal Law...In Love and Healing Light,Robert O. Young, Ph.D., D.S

Preventing and Reversing Cancer

The pH Miracle for Cancer - The Formula for Preventing or Reversing CancerDuring Week 4 of our Thursday night teleseminar on the pH Miracle for Cancer we answered several questions on THE FORMULA FOR PREVENTING AND REVERSING CANCER.The following is an overview of those questions and answers.1) Is there an inexpensive way to prevent or reverse cancerous tissue?I truly believe that the cure for cancer is found in its prevention not in its treatment. It has been said that an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure. An inexpensive way to prevent and/or reverse cancerous tissue is to maintain the alkaline design of the human body through lifestyle and diet.This lifestyle and diet is outlined in Chapter 11 of the pH Miracle for Weight Loss or should we say the pH Miracle for Cancer. Go to: www.phmiracleliving.comWhen you understand that there is only one sickness and one dis-ease caused by the over-acidification of the blood and then tissues due to an acidic lifestyle and diet -- then you can understand why there is only one treatment. And that treatment is to alkalize and energize the body with the right alkaline lifestyle, foods and drinks.If you have the conviction and will make a commit to change I believe you can have a confirmation or a pH Miracle.2) If I have cancerous tissues do I have to have radiation, chemotherapy or surgery?Now that you understand that cancer is not a cell(s) but an acidic liquid that spoils cells it doesn't make alot of sense to radiate or chemically destroy cancerous cells with more poison. Logic should tell you that radiation or acidic chemical therapies may only make things worse or more acidic spoiling even more cells. But there are situations where the tissue has become so cancerous or acidic that it needs to be cut out so it doesn't spoil more of the healthy tissue(s). This is when surgery can save lives and should only be used as a last resort.Cancerous tissue is not something you get -- it is something you do as a consequence of daily choice of what you eat, what you drink, what you THINK, and how you live. You either have an alkaline lifestyle and diet and enjoy a fit and healthy body, or you have an acidic lifestyle and diet and experience or will experience the aches, pains and suffering from metabolic acids -- your own toxic waste products that is absorbed into your tissues.This is your life and it is your free choice -- choose wisely.May I suggest once again that prevention is the key to a healthy and fit body.3) What are some of the latest natural ways to prevent or reverse cancerous tissues?Here are a few of my recommendations which should be reviewed and approved by your medical doctor before implementing:a) There are several powerful natural antioxidants or antacids that can be used in buffering the acids associated with cancerous tissues. They are as follows:Acetyl-L-Carnitine – 200 mgs. 6x a day Nicotinamide (B-3) – 25 mgs. 6x a day Cojugated unsaturated fats - 1000 mgs 6x to 9x a day Co-enyzme Q-1 and Q-10 – 800 mgs. dailyN-acetyl-cysteine – 500 mgs 6x to 9x a dayGSH or glutathione sulfhydryl – 500 mgs 6x to 9x a day Sodium and Potassium bicarbonate - 1000 mgs in 3 to 4 ounces of water 6x a day Sodium Chlorite - 10 grams a day. For more information go to: http://www.phmiracleliving.com/phlavor.htmb) Dry heat infared sauna is a wonderful way to activate the lymphatic system and remove acidic wastes through the pores of the skin. I would suggest that a thirty minute dry heat sauna everyday can be helpful in removing acids through perspiration preventing the build up of acids that can lead to cancerous tissue. For more information go to: http://www.phmiracleliving.com/saunas.htmc) The lymphatic system is the vacuum cleaning of acids in the tissues. This is why I recommend a 2 hour lymphatic massage to help remove acidic cancerous acids out of the tissues and back into general circulation to be eliminated through urination.d) Hydration is one of the most important keys to alkalinity and preventing or reversing cancerous tissue. I have suggested for years that one should be drinking at least 1 quart per 30 pounds of weight. The water should have a pH of at least 9.5 and an ORP of -250 mV. For more information go to: http://www.phmiracleliving.com/melody.htme) Make sure you are drinking your greens. Build up to it gradually if necessary.Drink at least 1 liter of green drink at least 30 minutes before exercising.f) Exercise more often or for longer periods of time. Do 30 minutes instead of 15, or do your 15-minute routine twice a day. In general, more often is better than longer. If you can’t exercise, you can still sweat: take a 30 minute infrared dry heat sauna at 140 degrees F. Be sure to hydrate yourself with green drink. This kind of sauna is the best passive exercise you can get. It will increase blood circulation, begin the movement of lymphatic fluids, and increase your hearth rate as if you were moving. And you will sweat! For more information go to: http://www.phmiracleliving.com/saunas.htmg) Dry brush your skin daily to open pores. You can do this in the shower after a workout.h) Take an Epsom salts or pHlavor bath to open the pores and draw out acidic toxins. For more information go to: http://www.phmiracleliving.com/phlavor.htm4) What is the formula for preventing and/or reversing cancerous tissue?Here is the secret formula -- and please do not keep it a secret any longer! Pass it on to your friends and loved ones.I call this formula the five (5) "B's":A healthy BASE diet and lifestyle = healthy BOWELS = healthy BLOOD = healthy BRAIN = healthy BODY.A healthy BASE diet gives rise to healthy BOWELS.Healthy BOWELS creates healthy BLOOD.Healthy BLOOD creates a healthy BRAIN and a healthy BRAIN creates a healthy BODY.

New Blood Test for Detecting Breast Cancer Coming Soon

(NaturalNews) Ah ... ladies ... can you imagine the freedom of life without mammograms? That yearly dread - the compression, the anxiety, the direct radiation to delicate tissue - may all be a thing of the past. A new blood test is in development that may prove to be even more effective than mammograms. Mammograms give false negatives 10% of the time, false positives 20% of the time. In addition to false positives, there is increasing concern regarding possible harm from mammograms. In a study involving 5,685 women, published in the July 15, 2000 issue of the International Journal of Cancer, the association between diagnostic radiation exposure and breast cancer was examined. The results of this study conclude that some forms of low-dose radiation may increase the risk of breast cancer. The study also found that women who underwent diagnostic chest x-rays for pneumonia or tuberculosis had more than twice the normal risk of breast cancer. An article published in the January 28, 2009 Journal of the American Cancer Institute goes so far as to say that early mammograms may actually harm women who carry the BRCA gene."The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer may outweigh the benefits of mammography in women under the age of 30 who carry a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2, according to a mathematical modeling study."Dr. Russell L. Blaylock estimates that annual mammograms increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year. So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent.An authority on the negative health effects from ionizing radiation, Dr. John W. Gofman estimates that 75% of breast cancer cases can be prevented my limiting or avoiding exposure to such radiation procedures such as mammography and x-rays.The debate over whether mammograms save lives rages on. If you or someone you know had a lump discovered and subsequently removed after discovery by a mammogram, no doubt, you know there is value in screening. That is the beauty of this new blood test. Women can continue to be screened, without the risk of added radiation.This new blood test, called the BC-SeraPro, measures the concentration of certain proteins in the blood that indicate breast cancer. These proteins, "blood markers," can indicate whether or not a system is functioning properly. This test may offer the opportunity to treat breast cancer at its earliest stage. Researchers are hoping that this test will catch breast cancer even before it shows up on a mammogram. "This is a test for measuring the concentration of proteins in the blood and how they differ from the normal state will tell is about the presence of disease," says Ira Goldknopf, Ph.D., director of proteomics at Power3 Medical in the Woodlands, Texas. Dr. Goldknopf further states: "The method analyzes specific proteins and these proteins show what is going on with the patient in terms of the disease and how the disease is playing out on the patient."The BC-SeraPro has a 90% success rate. The test should be available in breast cancer clinics early next year. Provista Life Sciences is already offering a blood screening called the BT Test, or Biomarker Translation Test. The BT test screens for multiple cancer-related proteins. Will Gartner, President and CEO of Provista Life Sciences states: "With an accuracy rate above 80 percent, the BT Test gives women and their doctors another crucial measure for early breast cancer detection. We are thrilled to be able to offer more women the opportunity to catch the disease in its treatable phase, when life-saving treatment is most effective."Currently, the BT Test is prescribed by doctors to be used in conjunction with annual mammograms. The BT test is strongly recommended for women at heightened risk for breast cancer, along with women with dense breast tissue.In a previous study reported in the August 4, 2006 issue of the ACS` Journal of Proteome Research, 250 breast cancer patients and 95 patients without breast cancer were administered a blood test measuring the presence of breast cancer. The results of test had demonstrated that they could recognize the presence of breast cancer in the blood about 95 percent of the time. The researchers state: "Better blood-based testing may aid in early diagnosis, may reduce the need for open biopsy and could provide new modalities for monitoring of therapy."

Breast Cancer Deception Month, part 4

(NaturalNews) As we near the end of Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) most people are unaware of the dark history of BCAM and of the players past and present who have misused it to direct people and funds away from finding a true cure, while covering up their own roles in causing and profiting from cancer. In this installment of the series we will examine the role of misdirected research into the real causes for breast cancer and the safety and wisdom of mammograms and mastectomies.Misdirected Research into Cancer Prevention and Cures Thanks to the control of the boards of government institutions, charities, foundations and other agencies by members of the pharmaceutical and cancer treatment industries and by others who either profit from cancer or else have reasons to hide their products that contribute to cancer, research into cancer prevention and cures has changed little since Breast Cancer Awareness Month was formed. Prevention still focuses mainly on early screening and detection, including extensive use of mammograms, some attention to diet and lifestyle and precious little on toxins and environmental factors. Likewise, research into cures continues to pour into surgery, patentable chemo drugs and radiation - the same methods that have been used since the inception of the War on Cancer. Despite some optimistic juggling of statistics, the fact remains that more people are acquiring and dying of cancer each year by relying on such tried and failed methods. Lest one point fingers only at Breast Cancer Awareness shortcomings, it should be pointed out that the deception and misdirection that permeate much of BCAM are merely the latest chapter in a very old story when it comes to avoiding and beating cancer. A striking example is the "Council for Tobacco Research" (CTR). Over a period of about 42 years, the tobacco companies pumped about $300 million dollars into the CTR. Its public purpose was to find out if there was a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer. Its real purpose was to flood the medical journals with bogus scientific studies which could not seem to find a relationship between tobacco and lung cancer.1,500 "scientists" took money from the CTR. They had to know exactly what was going on because they knew they had to design a study which pretended to find a relationship, but in fact totally failed to find a relationship. Mammograms and the Dangers of Radiation A study by researchers from the University of Nebraska and the John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County, Ill cast fresh doubt on the widespread assumption that regular mammograms save lives, showing that 2,970 women must be screened for breast cancer in order to prevent even one death. "For a woman in the screening subset of mammography-detectable cancers, there is a less than 5 percent chance that a mammogram will save her life," wrote the researchers. In 2001, a study known as the Cochrane analysis found that if 2,000 women underwent regular screening for 10 years, one life would be saved but another 10 women would undergo unnecessary treatment such as surgery or radiation. Noting that it was difficult to determine which cancers would have led to death or even symptoms in the absence of treatment, the researchers concluded that it is "not clear whether screening does more harm than good. "Few will debate the value of early screening and detection, but what most doctors will not tell you, and many are unaware of, is that there is a much safer and more effective tool for early screening: thermography. As was reported in Natural News last December, a breast thermogram has the ability to identify a breast abnormality five to ten years before the problem can be found on a mammogram. Furthermore, a thermogram does not use radiation, and can be done as frequently as anyone thinks is necessary. Thermograms work by creating infra-red images (heat pictures) that are then analyzed to find asymmetries anywhere in the chest and underarm area. Breast thermography detects patterns of heat generated by the increased circulation produced by abnormal metabolic activity in cancer cells. This activity occurs long before a cancer starts to invade new tissue. As a result of mammograms and MRI`s, many women, with the advice and consent of their doctors, opt to have radical mastectomies, which involve removal of one or both breasts along with underlying muscle tissue and lymph nodes under the arm. However, many researchers say that mastectomies are unnecessary for most women suffering from breast cancer. Two studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 showed cutting out just the lumps of diseased tissue can save as many lives as removing the whole breast. Findings of the studies showed similar death rates after 20 years for large groups of women who underwent either mastectomies or breast-saving surgery.A study of 1,851 women at the University of Pittsburgh found little survival differences between two similar groups. A similar study was done at the European Institute of Oncology in Milan where 701 women were split into two groups: one received mastectomies and the other had lumps removed and radiation treatment. About a quarter of each group died of breast cancer over 20 years. According to researchers, survival does not depend on such surgery because breast cancer is fundamentally a systemic disease, not one that simply spreads from an initial site."Many women who could have undergone more narrow surgery have chosen mastectomies on the theory that you get it out, and you`re not going to have any trouble," stated Dr. Bernard Fisher, who led the Pittsburgh study. In the next installment of this series we will take a look at the dangers of over-screening for cancer and the lack of progress in breast cancer prevention and cures.

Nine Ways to Reduce the Rate of Breast Cancer

(NaturalNews) October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, but the media focus of this month tends to be about curing breast cancer, with little said about how to prevent breast cancer. The bad news is that we`re no closer to a cure for breast cancer than we were 50 years ago. We have somewhat more effective chemotherapies for treating breast cancer, but they all can have terrible, even deadly, side effects and hardly qualify as a cure. The good news is that we know a lot more about how to prevent breast cancer than we did 50 years ago.1) Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy (HRT). In 2003, the Women`s Health Initiative Study (WHI) showed a 24% increased risk of breast cancer for women using synthetic HRT such as Provera. This was followed closely by the British Million Women Study, which showed a 66% increased risk of breast cancer among women using synthetic HRT. Next came the French E3N Study, which showed a 60% increased risk. As a result of these studies, millions of women quickly stopped using synthetic hormones. In November 2006, research was released by cancer centers around the U.S. showing that breast cancer rates had dropped dramatically (7 to 15%) for the first time in decades, and in 2009 an article in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the drop was due to the millions of women who stopped using HRT. 2) Get some exercise. There`s no need to run marathons or climb mountains; even a 20-minute walk three times a week can make a difference. A 30-minute walk 6 times a week makes a much bigger difference. According to the Nurses` Health Study, walking two miles a day cuts your risk of breast cancer in half. There are literally dozens of studies showing that regular physical exercise dramatically reduces the risk of breast cancer. 3) Minimize sugar and refined carbohydrates. White foods are out; whole grains, fresh veggies and fruits, nuts, seeds, eggs and fish are in. Too much sugar and simple carbs in the diet keeps insulin levels high, which sets up a cascade of events in the body that predisposes a woman`s body to breast cancer. 4) Use alcohol in moderation. Moderate use of alcohol, such as a glass of wine a few times a week, reduces the risk of breast cancer. Anything more increases the risk of breast cancer. 5) Avoid environmental toxins. This is easier said than done these days, but take note of some of the toxins to be minimized or avoided: pesticides and herbicides, many cleaning products, nail polish and nail polish remover, oil-based paints and paint thinners, eating or drinking from soft plastic containers, cosmetics that contain parabens, fake fragrances such as air fresheners, scented laundry soaps and most perfumes, and pressed wood and particle board furniture that off-gasses formaldehyde. Tap water from a municipal water supply or well water in a farming community can be loaded with toxins; use a water filter if necessary. 6) Manage stress. Chronic, unremitting stress, such as is often experienced by women who juggle the roles of wife, mother and employee, takes a heavy toll on the body, and in particular keeps the hormone cortisol high. When cortisol is chronically elevated, the risk of breast cancer is significantly increased. Find an activity (or inactivity) that is relaxing, and take time for it daily. 7) Get plenty of sleep in a dark room. This is one of the best ways to manage stress! Sleep gives the body time to rest, repair and heal. Sleeping in a dark room encourages the production of the hormone melatonin, which reduces the risk of breast cancer. Plenty of sleep might be 7 hours for some women and 9 hours for others. 8) Avoid chemical contraceptives if at all possible. Birth control pills, patches, shots and implants impart a modestly higher risk of breast cancer, which increases the longer they are used. Teens who use chemical contraceptives have triple the lifetime risk of breast cancer. Chemical contraceptives contain the same synthetic hormones as synthetic HRT (see #1), often in higher doses. The barrier methods of contraception such as the diaphragm, cervical cap and sponge, use gels and creams that aren`t entirely safe, but appear to be safer than chemical contraceptives when it comes to breast cancer risk. 9) Keep the vitamin D tank full. By now the research is indisputable that women with vitamin D deficiency have a significantly higher risk of breast cancer. Get some sun, take a vitamin D supplement, and if in doubt, test your vitamin D levels. And by the way, vitamin D is also very protective against the flu!

Breast Cancer Deception Month, part 3

(NaturalNews) As we near the end of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, once again our country has been awash from shore to shore in a sea of pink - from pink ribbons and donation boxes to pink products, charity promotions, celebrities by the score and even pink cleats on NFL players. Tragically, most people are unaware of the dark history of Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) and of the players past and present who have misused it to direct people and funds away from finding a true cure, while covering up their own roles in causing and profiting from cancer. In this installment of the series we will examine the role of government institutions and the misdirected research into the real causes for breast cancer. The Role of Government Institutions in the National Cancer Act of 1971, the National Cancer Institute NCI was given the authority to prepare and submit an annual budget proposal directly to the President for review and transmittal to Congress. This authority is unique to NCI and allows it to "bypass" the traditional approvals that all other NIH Institutes and Centers must get for their budget requests. As noted above, the NCI was one of the first agencies to sign onboard with the Breast Cancer Awareness movement and its actions are greatly controlled and influenced by the American Cancer Society.Other Federal Government agencies, including other NIH Institutes and Centers, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Department of Defense, fund cancer research. In addition, state and local governments, voluntary organizations, private institutions, and industry also spend substantial amounts of money on cancer-related research. For a list of some of the federal agencies involved in cancer research and funding. A 2004 press release from the Cancer Prevention Coalition detailed how President Nixon appointed a three-member NCI executive Cancer Panel following passage of the 1971 National Cancer Act, inaugurating the War Against Cancer. Benno Schmidt, its first Chairman, was a senior drug company executive with close ties to chemical, oil, and steel industries. He was followed in the 1980`s by Armand Hammer, the late oil magnate, and Chairman of Occidental Petroleum, a major manufacturer of industrial chemicals involved in the Love Canal disaster. Not surprisingly, Schmidt and Hammer ignored cancer prevention and the major role of industrial carcinogens, focusing instead on the highly profitable development and marketing of cancer drugs. This fox guarding the chicken coop relationship was mirrored in the MSK`s Board of Overseers, most of whom were chief executives of drug, petrochemical, and steel industries. In a 1998 Washington Post interview this relationship was admitted by Samuel Broder, former NCI Director, when he stated that "The NCI has become what amounts to a government pharmaceutical company."Despite the escalating incidence over the last three decades of childhood cancers and adult cancers unrelated to smoking, and despite substantial evidence relating these cancers to avoidable exposures to industrial carcinogens, NCI`s conflicts of interest have remained unchanged. Misplaced Research into the Causes of Cancer. The incidence of breast cancer has been increasing about 1 percent a year since 1940. In the 1940`s, a woman`s chance of developing breast cancer in her lifetime was 1 in 22. Today that number is 1 in 8, a risk that has increased over 40% since 1973. In the intervening years since 1973, more American women have died from breast cancer than all Americans killed in World Wars I and II, the Korean War, and Vietnam. Breast cancer has both lifestyle and environmental causes. In particular, toxins accumulate in breast tissues, but research into the environmental links has received little funding or attention by corporate and governmental entities. Hormones have been at the center of breast cancer research for decades. In the mid-1990`s researchers began to consider the possibility that chlorinated chemicals might contribute to the rising occurrences of breast cancer and researchers Devra Lee Davis and Leon Bradlow hypothesized that environmental and pharmaceutical estrogens were likely culprits. Seen as a threat by chemical interests, the Chemical Manufacturers Association and the Chlorine Chemistry Council banded together to develop a strategy to discount Davis and Bradlow`s hypothesis, including hiring a public relations firm to discredit Davis personally.This must have seemed like deja vu to Davis, who had performed extensive research into the cozy role between industry and the War on Cancer, especially the 4 decades long effort of the tobacco industry to cover up their role in the increase in lung cancer. Davis later published the results of her research in the acclaimed book "The Secret History of the War on Cancer". In 2002, Dr. Ana Soto, a scientist at the Tuft`s School of Medicine, testified that the swift increase in breast cancer could not be attributed to mere genetics, which had long been believed to be the major factor in whether women developed breast cancer. Soto - who has researched cell proliferation and breast cancer for more than 2 decades -- was one of several experts to testify at an informational hearing on breast cancer and the environment, jointly sponsored by the Senate Health and Human Services Committee and Assembly Health Committee in California."While many breast cancer studies focus on genetics, or lifestyle factors such as reproductive history, alcohol use and exercise, Soto said there was little being done to assess how environmental toxins may be causing cancer," reported ABC News.According to the Tufts professor of cell, molecular, and developmental biology, there is already some evidence to suggest a link:"The increasing risk of breast cancer and other cancers has paralleled the proliferation of synthetic chemicals since World War II," said Soto. The Tufts professor added that only 7 percent of the estimated 85,000 chemicals registered for use in the United States have been reviewed for toxicity."State of the Evidence 2008: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment", which was edited by Janet Gray, Ph.D., was published by the Breast Cancer Fund, an organization which appears to have less industry influence than most others. The comprehensive report detailed the environmental exposures linked to increased breast cancer risk: including natural and synthetic estrogens, xenoestrogens and other endocrine-disrupting compounds, carcinogenic chemicals and radiation. Among the environmental factors identified that combined with genes and lifestyle factors, air pollution, consumer exposures to carcinogens, occupational exposures, pesticides and radiation were identified.In the next installment of this series, we will look at the role of misdirected research into the real causes for breast cancer and the safety and wisdom of mammograms and mastectomies.

Breast Cancer Deception Month, part 2

(NaturalNews) It`s Breast Cancer Awareness Month again and from shore to shore the country is awash in a sea of pink - from pink ribbons and donation boxes to pink products, charity promotions, celebrities by the score and even pink cleats on NFL players. Tragically, most people are unaware of the dark history of Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) and of the players past and present who have misused it to direct people and funds away from finding a true cure, while covering up their own roles in causing and profiting from cancer. In this second installment of the six part series we will take a look at the some of the other foundations and charities that have become involved in Breast Cancer Awareness, including The American Cancer Society - "the world`s wealthiest non-profit organization". The Foundations and Charities A pink giant among breast cancer foundations is the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, famous for their annual Race for the Cure, and which has a huge list of corporate sponsors, including such notables as General Mills and Mars Snackfoods among their Million Dollar Elite club. The Komen Foundation has a lengthy list of risk factors, yet does not list exposure to toxins among them. As noted in the 2003 article "Compromised", "Participants in the Race for the Cure are often greeted as they cross the finish line with live music, inspirational speakers and acres of colorfully adorned corporate booths. Pink, the chosen color of the international breast cancer movement, is everywhere, on hats, T-shirts, teddy bears and ribbons. A sense of community and camaraderie pervades the celebration by thousands of breast cancer survivors and friends of survivors.""What`s missing is the truth," says Judy Brady of the Toxic Links Coalition in San Francisco. She wants to see a cure for breast cancer as much as anyone, but she and her group, along with several other activist breast cancer groups, have something to point out about the Susan G. Komen Foundation`s activities: "There`s no talk about prevention except, in terms of lifestyle, your diet for instance. No talk about ways to grow food more safely. No talk about how to curb industrial carcinogens. No talk about contaminated water. "Though giving some lip service to the "debate over mammograms", the Komen Foundation nevertheless promotes mammograms as an important screening tool and recommends that women get regular mammograms starting at age 40, stating that "despite some ongoing debate, mammography is still the best screening tool widely used today for the early detection of breast cancer."The Komen Foundation owns stock in General Electric, one of the largest makers of mammogram machines in the world. It also owns stock in several pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca (now AzkoNobel).AstraZeneca has long been a Komen booster, making educational grants to Komen and having a visible presence at the Race For the Cure. At the 1998 Food and Drug Administration hearings, the Komen Foundation was the only national breast cancer group to endorse the AstraZeneca cancer treatment drug tamoxifen as a prevention device for healthy but high-risk women, despite vehement opposition by most other breast cancer groups because of its links to uterine cancer.Another prominent breast cancer organization is The National Breast Cancer Foundation, whose stated mission is "to save lives by increasing awareness of breast cancer through education and by providing mammograms for those in need." Their National Mammography Program includes the "Donate a Free Mammogram Program". Their education includes nothing about the toxins and environmental causes of cancer.Similarly, the Prevent Cancer Foundation, gives advice on how to prevent and detect cancer, but fails to include toxins and environmental factors and is yet another foundation which heavily promotes mammograms. Currently, they are promoting their "Pledge to Screen Your Boobs & Enter to Win a Pink Vespa" program, seeking donations and stating that "early detection and screening can help to stop breast cancer before it strikes". In other words, according to the various foundations and organizations which advocate screening and mammograms, the way to "stop cancer before it strikes" is to detect it after it has already struck.The American Cancer Society - The World`s Most Profitable Non-ProfitIf the Komen Foundation is a giant among breast cancer charities, the true 800 pound gorilla in all of the cancer non-profit organizations is the highly profitable American Cancer Society (ACS).As reported in "American Cancer Society: The World`s Wealthiest `Non-profit` Institution`` in the International Journal of Health Services, the ACS "is fixated on damage control - screening, diagnosis and treatment, - and genetic research, with indifference or even hostility to cancer prevention. Together with the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the ACS has failed to provide Congress, regulatory agencies and the public with the strong body of scientific evidence clearly relating the escalating incidence of non-smoking related cancers to involuntary and avoidable exposures to industrial carcinogens in air, water, the workplace, and consumer products - food, cosmetics and toiletries - so that appropriate corrective and legislative regulatory and action has not been taken."Like the other foundations mentioned earlier, the ACS has myriad ties to industries which profit from and contribute to cancer. One such relationship is the one they have maintained with AstraZeneca. Together with the NCI, in 1992 the ACS launched an aggressive "chemo prevention" program aimed at recruiting 16,000 healthy women who were supposedly at "high risk`` of breast cancer into a 5-year clinical trial of Zeneca`s tamoxifen. The women were told that the drug was essentially harmless, and that it could reduce their risk of breast cancer. What the women were not told was that tamoxifen was well-known to induce aggressive human uterine cancer or that it had previously been shown to be a highly potent liver carcinogen in rodent tests.Other ties include board members tied to such companies as Glaxo-SmithKline Smith, Glaxo Welcome, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Block Drug Company, Reliant Pharmaceuticals, OSI Pharmaceuticals, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Various Lobbying Firms, Venture Capitalists, Sherwin-Williams Company and many others.To get a better picture of some of the interlocking relationships between ACS board members and the corporations and institutions they are connected with. Among a great many questionable actions by the ACS that have been interpreted to be favorable to such institutions and industries in the past are:* The ACS opposed proposed regulations in 1977-78 for hair coloring products that contained dyes suspected of causing breast cancer. In so doing, the ACS ignored the fact that these chemicals were proven liver and breast carcinogens.* In 1982, the ACS adopted a highly restrictive cancer policy that insisted on unequivocal human evidence of carcinogenicity before taking any position on public health hazards. Accordingly, the ACS still trivializes or rejects evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, and has actively campaigned against laws that ban deliberate addition to food of any amount of any additive shown to cause cancer in either animals or humans.* In 1992, the ACS issued a joint statement with the Chlorine Institute in support of the continued global use of organochlorine pesticides despite clear evidence that some such pesticides were known to cause breast cancer. In the joint statement, ACS Vice President Clark Heath, M.D., dismissed evidence of the risks as "preliminary and mostly based on weak and indirect association."* In September 1996, the ACS, together with a diverse group of patient and physician organizations, filed a "citizen`s petition" to pressure FDA to ease restrictions on access to silicone gel breast implants. What the ACS did not disclose was that the gel in these implants had clearly been shown to induce cancer in several industry rodent studies, and that these implants were also contaminated with other potent carcinogens such as ethylene oxide and crystalline silica. The ACS is called "the world's wealthiest non-profit" for good reason. Despite annually pleading poverty and huge fundraising efforts across the nation, at the end of 2008, the combined ACS financial statements reflected net assets of over $1.5 Billion.A 1992 article in the Wall Street Journal by Thomas DiLorenzo, professor of economics at Loyola College and veteran investigator of nonprofit organizations, revealed that the Texas affiliate of the ACS owned more than $11 million worth of assets in land and real estate, as well as more than fifty-six vehicles, including eleven Ford Crown Victorias for senior executives and forty-five other cars assigned to staff members. Arizona`s ACS chapter spent less than 10 percent of its funds on direct community cancer services. In California, the figure was 11 percent, and under 9 percent in Missouri. Thus for every $1 spent on direct service in 1992, approximately $6.40 was spent on compensation and overhead. In all ten states, salaries and fringe benefits are by far the largest single budget items, a surprising fact in light of the characterization of the appeals, which stress an urgent and critical need for donations to provide cancer services. Nationally, only 16 percent or less of all money the ACS raised was spent on direct services to cancer victims, like driving cancer patients from the hospital after chemotherapy, and providing pain medication.In the intervening years, the ACS has reported spending a larger percentage of the money it raises on program services, with 26% going to direct services and another 47% being spent on research, prevention and detection/treatment services. Unfortunately, the research funds are directed almost entirely to the same surgery, chemo and radiation therapies that have failed to win the war on cancer for almost four decades now. Likewise, prevention and detection/treatment services overlook toxins and environmental causes and promote more screening and mammograms.It is a tried and failed program of the same forms of prevention, treatment and research that has benefited those who profit from continuing the failed war on cancer while obscuring and protecting the roles of those who have caused it.In part three of this series we will examine the role of government institutions and the misdirected research into the real causes, prevention and cures for breast cancer.

Breast Cancer Deception Month, Hiding Behind a Sea of Pink--part one

(NaturalNews) It's Breast Cancer Awareness Month again and from shore to shore the country is awash in a sea of pink - from pink ribbons and donation boxes to pink products, charity promotions, celebrities by the score and even pink cleats on NFL players. Tragically, most people are unaware of the dark history of Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) and of the players past and present who have misused it to direct people and funds away from finding a true cure while covering up their own roles in causing and profiting from cancer. Most people are unaware that the BCAM idea was conceived and paid for by the British chemical company Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), a company that both profited from the ever-growing cancer epidemic and contributed to its causes. The American subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries, ICI/Astra-Zeneca, manufactures tamoxifen, the world`s top-selling cancer drug used for breast cancer. ICI itself is in the business of manufacturing and selling synthetic chemicals and is one of the world's largest producers and users of chlorine. Although BCAM was co-founded along with two non-profit organizations and although some big name companies were quick to associate with BCAM, for the first several years, BCAM`s bills were paid by ICI's Zeneca Pharmaceuticals.As the controlling sponsor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM), Zeneca was able to approve - or veto - any promotional or informational materials, posters, advertisements, etc. that BCAM uses. The focus is strictly limited to information regarding early detection and treatment, avoiding the topic of prevention and the role toxins may play. A further look at the major players in breast cancer awareness may give plenty of insight as to why a growing number of critics are asking why such is the case. Take Zeneca for example; it later merged into Astra-Zeneca and in 2008, ICI/Astra-Zeneca changed its name to Azko Nobel and reported annual sales of over 22 Billion Dollars. ICI has long been among the world's largest manufacturers of pesticides, plastics, and pharmaceuticals. Its Perry, Ohio, chemical plant was once identified as the third-largest source of potential cancer-causing pollution in the United States, releasing 53,000 pounds of recognized carcinogens into the air in 1996. After Zeneca acquired the Salick chain of cancer treatment centers in 1997 and then merged with the Swedish pharmaceutical company Astra to form Astra Zeneca, creating the world`s third-largest drug concern, Dr. Samuel Epstein, a professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health stated, "This is a conflict of interest unparalleled in the history of American medicine.""You`ve got a company that`s a spin off of one of the world`s biggest manufacturers of carcinogenic chemicals, they`ve got control of breast cancer treatment, they`ve got control of the chemo prevention [studies], and now they have control of cancer treatment in eleven centers - which are clearly going to be prescribing the drugs they manufacture."The breakdown of $14 Billion in profits for ICI in 1997 was 49 percent from pesticides and other industrial chemicals, another 49 percent from pharmaceutical sales, and the remaining 2 percent from health care services including 11 cancer treatment centers. Zeneca's herbicide acetochlor is classified by the EPA as a "probable human carcinogen", and Astra Zeneca sold it until a corporate reorganization in 2000, accounted for around $300 million in sales in 1997. Their product tamoxifen citrate (Nolvadex) accounted for $500 million in 1997 sales. Cancer prevention would clearly conflict with Zeneca's business plan. Quickly jumping onboard the tamoxifen bandwagon was the National Cancer Institute, which announced in April 1998 that breast cancer could be "prevented" by treating women continuously with a powerful drug called tamoxifen. The New York Times editorialized on April 8th that treating women with tamoxifen is a "breast cancer breakthrough." However, The Times acknowledged that treating 1,000 women with tamoxifen for five years would prevent 17 breast cancers but would cause an additional 12 cases of endometrial cancer and 20 cases of serious blood clots in the same 1,000 women. As recent studies have shown, the risks implied in those less-than breakthrough figures were vastly understated. Last month, Natural News reported a study just published in Cancer Research which concluded that long-term use of tamoxifen increases the risk of getting aggressive cancer in the other breast by 440 percent.See:http://www.naturalnews.com/027123_c...Other large corporations which contribute to breast cancer awareness also have a vested interest in breast cancer. General Electric sells upwards of $100 million annually in mammography machines. General Electric has also been a major polluter of carcinogenic PCBs in the Hudson River. An estimated million pounds of PCBs lie buried at the bottom of a 40-mile stretch of the Hudson, where GE dumped PCB oil until the mid-1970s, contaminating the entire 200-mile length of the river below Hudson Falls. DuPont, another huge chemical company and major polluter, supplies much of the film used in mammography machines. Both DuPont and GE aggressively promote mammography screening of women in their 40s, despite the risk of its contributing to breast cancer in that age group. And while biotech giant Monsanto sponsors Breast Cancer Awareness Month's high profile event, the Race for the Cure, it continues to profit from the production of many known carcinogens. Another large player is Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), with their Tour of Hope and promotions such as 10 cent donations for drug store sales of selected BMS products. BMS is also the manufacturer of Taxol (under the trade name of Paclitaxel), considered to be "the gold standard" of chemo drugs. As Natural News reported earlier this month, the so-called gold standard has more than lost its luster, as was presented at 27th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium:" German investigators from Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena, have shown that taxol (the "gold standard of chemo") causes a massive release of cells into circulation."Such a release of cancer cells would result in extensive metastasis months or even years later, long after the chemo would be suspected as the cause of the spread of the cancer. This little known horror of conventional cancer treatment needs to be spread far and wide, but it is not even listed in the side effects of taxol. "See:http://www.naturalnews.com/027028_c... The list of corporate donors and players in Breast Cancer Awareness goes on and on, including other chemical and pharmaceutical companies, cosmetic companies, fast food restaurants, donut and cookie makers, and many more. They all share the common traits of promoting "awareness" which does not include the role their own products play, and promoting early screening through mammograms. Likewise, other charities and foundations, and their sponsors, have joined the pink bandwagon. Once again, they have common links of promoting early detection, primarily through mammograms, and of remaining mostly silent about toxins and other environmental factors. In part two of this series we will take a look at the some of the other foundations and charities that have become involved in Breast Cancer Awareness, including The American Cancer Society - "the world`s wealthiest non-profit organization".
Other sources for this article included: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-fundinghttp://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/05/16/mastectomies-on-the-increase.htmlhttp://www.prn2.usm.my/mainsite/headline/health/nov2002.htmlhttp://www.breastcancerfund.org/site/c.kwKXLdPaE/b.206137/k.9E15/State_of_the_Evidence_2008_Breast_Cancer_and_the_Environment.htmhttp://www.corporations.org/cancer/boycottacs.htmlhttp://www.safe2use.com/drsherman/life/15.htmhttp://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-chemical-corporations-profit-off-breast-cancerhttp://www.whale.to/cancer/breast6.htmlhttp://www.preventcancer.com/patients/med_avoid/nbcam.htmhttp://www.preventcancer.org/donate3c.aspx?id=3800http://ww5.komen.org/Default.aspxhttp://www.preventcancer.com/publications/pdf/Con_of_Int_030404.pdfhttp://www.cancer.org/docroot/AA/content/AA_1_7_2008_Combined_Financial_Statements.asp