Breast Cancer

October 29, 1999

Hi

Your antie has a great chance to live a long life now. there is literally

hundreds of mineral, vitamins and teas she can take to prevent. Stay in

this group and you will get to know it.

Mundo

(323)589-8942

(213)498-3126 pgr./voice mail

October 29, 1999

I am trully sorry that your aunt must go through this. Allot of women

beat it. What you have shared with her so far is a great beginning. In

your country you have a pharmacutical company with the distribution of

a profuct called Immunocal. The name of the company is Leader Express

Co. This product has seven patents on it, one from Canada pertaining to

immune response. One from Australia pertainlng strickly to cancer. And

five in the USA patent office. One for AIDS and three for immune

responce and as of this year one on Cancer.Anyone wanting to read the

cancer patent can e-mail me and I will e-mail it to you.

hamonicd@....

This is a natural product that is in phase III clinical studies at

Delhausie University in Nova Scotia on Brest Cancer,another on breast

cancer at Brooklyn Hospital Center in New York conducted by Dr.

Cook, Prostate Cancer at Harvard Medical Shool, Massachusetts, and By

Dr. Taguchi at McGill University, Montreal, Leukemia (acute leukemia

with Chemotherapy) by Dr. Bob , King Khalik Hospital, Saudi

Arabia. These are just a few of the different studies on cancer on

going right now. There are also studies on many other disease happening

with Immunocal. It continues to be proven to work over and over again

in the disease so far studied.

It is a undenatured whey protein full of all amino acids, impaticular

one called cystine. What is important about this is that we have a

protein in all of our cells. That proteins job is to be the antioxidant

and detoxifier of your body. It is made up of three amino acids,

glutamate, glycine and cysteine. We can get enough glutatmate and

glycine from our diets, but we cannot get cysteine in a way that it can

go intracellulor. Along comes cystine in this whey protein. Cystine is

two cysteine molecules joined by a disulfide bond, the proteins allow

it to piggy back into the cell once it gets into the cell, the bond

then breaks allowing it to become cysteine. Now glutathione has enough

glutatmate, glycine and cysteine to do its job.

What happens with cancer is the healthy cells are low in glutathione

because the cancer cells have stolen, and now there levels are very

high in glutathione so they are actually better protected, then the

goods ones left to fight the cancer. When you raise glutathione in the

good cells the cancerous one's respond to a hair-triger effect and shut

down the glutathione in themselves. They don't like to feel pushed or

bullied. Now that the good cells have glutathione operating again at

full speed go into what they call monalclonal expansion. Instead of

there being one there are now ten cells ready to go to bat for you. It

is the way the body is supposed to operated, and it is this lack of

operation that makes many become ill with cancer. It is not a cure but

proper nutrition for the cells and other systems within. Every organ

has glutathione to protect it. If you have a diseased organ then you

can bet glutathione is not working there.

I lost my mom to breast cancer, today your aunt has an actual real

chance at fighting it. There are so many ways to help the body help its

self. Glutathione being a big part of that picture.

Debbie

mustama-@... wrote:

original article:cures for cancer/?start=3260

> Dear Cancercure,

>

> My 52 year-old unmarried auntie has been diagnosed as having breast

> cancer two weeks ago. Three days later, she underwent surgery to

remove

> the affected breast. The doctors said she would have 3 months to live

> without a surgery and 3 to 5 years with one. I tried the best to give

> her all the support I could. So, I advised her to take plenty of

> pesticide-free organic vegetables and fruits (especially greens and

> and fruits). I also advised her to start juicing pesticide-free

greens

> and fruits. Of course, I also told her to consult the doctors first

> before taking my advice. Am I giving her the correct advice? Please

> help me, I don't want to lose my auntie, even 3 or 5 years from now.

I

> am writing from Malaysia.

>

> Sicerely,

> Mustafa

>

October 28, 2001

Breast Cancer

Awareness:

Looking behind the smokescreen of early detection reveals that seeing through

deception is your only protection.

68 ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE NOVEMBER 2001

Few women know that the originator and major funder of Breast Cancer Awareness

Month is one of the world's biggest producers of carcinogenic substances.

By Sherrill Sellman

Every October since 1985, the recognizable symbol of National Breast Cancer

Awareness Month (NBCAM), the Pink Ribbon, is seen everywhere. It is prominently

displayed in TV ads, on posters and in women's magazines. Women proudly pin the

Pink Ribbon to their blouses-synonymous with support, courage, caring,

activism, action and donations. Lots of donations.

During this " awareness " campaign, multitudes of fiindraising runs, hikes, walks

and various other events raise over a hundred million dollars towards the goal

of conquering that dreaded scourge of the modern woman, breast cancer.

High-profile companies like Avon, Lee Denim and Revlon have joined ranks with

the G. Komen Foundation's " Race for the Cure " and the L.A. City of Hope

Hospital's " Walk for Hope:' Major retailers like J.C. Penney and Hallmark

Cards and even the brokerage firm Schwab all get into the act by

donating a percentage of their profits from designated goods or services to the

cause.

Breast Cancer is a modern-day epidemic. Each year over 180,000 women in the

United States will be diagnosed with breast cancer. More than 44,000 will die of

the disease. The U.S. has one of the highest breast cancer rates in the world.

Fifty years ago the incidence for a woman's lifetime risk was one in 20. Now it

has skyrocketed to one in eight. The war on cancer is an empty promise as breast

cancer incidence continues to climb at the rate of I % annually.

NOVEMBER 200 ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE 69

Breast Cancer Awareness:

The motto of NBCAM is " Early Detection is Your Best Protection. The National

Cancer Institute stated in 1995 that " Breast cancer is simply not a

preventable disease. " A similar message was reiterated in 1997 by the American

Cancer Society' s announcement that " there are no practical ways to prevent

breast cancer-only early detection. " Therefore, mammograms become the front

line of defense. Celebrities like Rosie O'Donnell offer free t-shirts with the

honorable words " I've been Squished " if you'll make a date with your local x-ray

department. Bring a friend and get a two-for-the-price-of-one special.

So let's all join in and wave our pink ribbons, don those running shoes and

take to the roads, tight? Hang on a minute. Before you get swept up in the

emotional frenzy of this call to arms, there is something you must know.

Hidden agendas

National Breast Cancer Awareness Month's sole funder is Zeneca Pharmaceuticals,

now known as AstraZeneca. In 1984, Zeneca's parent company, Imperial Chemical

Industries (ICI), launched NBCAM. AstraZeneca is the world's largest

manufacturer of petrochemical and chlorinated organic products-including the

plastic ingredient vinyl chloride and the pesticide Acetochlor, both of which

have been directly linked to breast cancer. Zeneca, a bioscience corporation,

manufactures the controversial and most widely prescribed breast cancer drug,

tamoxifen. All NBCAM TV, radio and print media promotions are approved and paid

for by Zeneca.

It is less known that Zeneca also makes pesticides, herbicides and fungicides.

Unashamedly, ICI and Zeneca's chemical plants daily release potential

cancer-causing pollution into the environment. To round off their profitable

cancer investments, Zeneca also owns a growing chain of cancer care centers.

When it comes to the environmental carcinogens found in pesticides, herbicides,

plastics and other toxic chemicals, there is booming silence by all NBCAM

programs. Did the alarming increase of breast cancer rates just mysteriously

happen? Or, perhaps, the focus on the cure has created a distraction from the

cause? After all, if it became general knowledge that Zeneca's chemical products

and factories directly contribute to the breast cancer epidemic, it would

certainly sully their well-oiled PR campaign, which conveniently ignores telling

the public about avoidable environmental and chemical causes.

Many experts predicted as far back as 30 years ago that cancer rates would

increase due to an explosion of synthetic chemicals. From 1940 through the

early 1980's, production of synthetic chemicals increased by a factor of 350.

Billions of tons of substances that never existed before were released into the

environment. Yet only 30/0 of the 75,000 chemicals in use have ever been tested

for safety. These toxic time bombs are everywhere-in our water, air and food,

in our workplaces and schools, in household cleansers, cosmetics and personal

care products. It's no coincidence that women who live near toxic waste dumps

have 6.5 times the incidence of breast cancer.

A survey conducted by Dr. Wolff of Mt. Sinai Hospital, New York, found

that women with breast cancer had four times the levels of DDE found in

non-carcinogenic tumors. Another study investigated why upper class women in the

community of Newton, Massachusetts had higher breast cancer rates than women of

lower economic status. The researchers attributed the increase to greater use

of the carcinogenic chemicals used in professional lawn care and dry cleaning

services.

In 1993, Greenpeace reported that women with the highest concentrations of

chlorine-based pesticides and other chemicals in their blood and fat had breast

cancer risks four to ten times higher than women with lower concentrations. The

data suggested that these chemicals are among the strongest risk factors ever

identified.

The stark reality of irrefutable evidence linking chemical pollutants to breast

cancer is apparently not a reality shared by the American Cancer Society (ACS).

While the ACS represents itself as an advocate and resource for cancer

victims, the truth is that it has its own quite different agenda. The ACS

receives huge sums of money from chemical, pharmaceutical and other major

corporations. Members of these industries have long had places reserved for them

on the ACS's board.

Epstein, M.D., Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at

the University of Illinois School of Public Health, scathingly attacks the

cancer establishment. " Over recent decades, the incidence of cancer has

escalated to epidemic proportions while our ability to treat and cure most

cancers remains virtually unchanged. Apart from the important role of tobacco,

there is substantial and long-standing evidence relating this epidemic to

involuntary and avoidable exposure to industrial carcinogens in air, water, the

workplace and consumer products. Nevertheless, the priorities of the cancer

establishment, the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society,

remain narrowly fixated on damage control-diagnosis and treatment-and on basic

molecular research, with indifference to, if not always benign neglect of,

prevention. Concerns over this imbalance are further compounded by serious

conflicts of interest, particularly with the multi-billion-dollar cancer drug

industry. "

Toxic treatments

Perhaps we can forgive Zeneca's investment in carcinogenic chemicals, since it

researched and patented the most popular breast cancer treatment, tamoxifen,

manufactured under the name of Nolvadex, which grosses 500 million dollars

annually.

Or perhaps not.

On May 16,2000, The New York limes reported that the National Institute for

Environmental Health Sciences had added 14 substances to their list of known

carcinogens. Tamoxifen was included in that list. The government's announcement

confirmed what had already been known. In May 1995, California's expert

committee, established by Proposition 65, let the public know that tamoxifen use

is likely to cause endometrial cancer. It was also known that tamoxifen caused

uterine, liver, stomach and colorectal cancers. After just two to three years

of use, tamoxifen will increase the incidence of uterine cancer by two to three

times. The primary treatment for uterine cancer is a hysterectomy. In addition,

tamoxifen increased the risk of strokes, blood clots, eye damage, menopausal

symptoms and depression.

NOVEMBER 2001 ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE 71

Breast Cancer Awareness:

Creating an Alternative Breast Cancer Prevention Program

Even tamoxifen's role in preventing breast cancer is questionable for some

women. In a 1992 report, the New England Journal of Medicine stated that

tamoxifen may reduce the incidence of cancer to the opposite breast

(contralateral) but only in premenopausal women and only in three of eight

trials. In another 1992 study, tamoxifen not only failed to reduce contralateral

cancers in premenopausal women, it actually increased their incidence. In a

more recent study, published last year in The Lancet, women who had taken

tamoxifen for two to five years had twice the risk of cancer as women who had

not taken it. For women taking tamoxifen for five years or more, the risk of

endometrial cancer increased sevenfold! The researchers stated that they

seriously question widespread use of tamoxifen as a preventative agent. "

To sum it up, Zeneca, the originator of Breast Cancer Awareness month, is the

manufacturer of carcinogenic petrochemicals, carcinogenic pollutants and a

breast cancer drug that can cause at least four different types of cancer in

women, including breast cancer- the cancer it is supposed to cure. The cherry on

AstraZeneca's cake is another business division: their profitable cancer

clinics. Quite an impressive full-service operation! Is something wrong with

this picture?

The mammogram danger

Since the Breast Cancer Awareness Month spin doctors claim that breast cancer is

" simply not a preventable disease, " their focus has shifted to the theme of

early detection. Women are now encouraged to get their mammograms early. At one

time, screening was recommended to all women over the age of 50. Now the

campaign is targeting 40-year-olds and even women as young as 25. However,

detecting breast cancer with mammography is not the same as protection from

breast cancer. And serious questions are being raised about the validity of

mammograms. After all, a mammogram is an X-ray. The only acknowledged cause of

cancer according to the American Cancer Society is from radiation. And there is

no safe level of exposure.

In fact, the highly carcinogenic nature of radiation is not limited to x-ray.

Strontium-90, a waste product of nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons is a

severe form of radiation pollution in our atmosphere and water. It is known to

go into thebone marrow where it attacks white blood cells, thus presenting a

risk of all forms of cancer. Intentional exposure to repeated radiation in the

form of annual x-rays is simply unsound advice.

" There is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women,

is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of up to lOb

for every RAD (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. Even for low

dosage exposure of two RADs or less, this exposure can add up quickly for women

having an annual mammography, " notes Epstein. " More recent concern comes

from evidence that 10/0 of women, or over one million women in the United States

alone, carry a gene that increases their breast cancer risk from radiation

fourfold. "

According to Sharon Batt, author of Patient No More: The Politics of Breast

Cancer, " The depths of the mammography deceit began in the early 1970s. It was

concocted by insiders at the

72 ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE NOVEMBER 2001

Breast Cancer Awareness:

American Cancer Society (ACS) and their friends at the National Cancer

Institute (NCI). The number of women who were put at risk or who died as a

result of this nefarious scheme is not known but estimated to be huge. "

" In 1978, IrwinJ. D. Bross, Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial

Institute for Cancer Research, commented about the cancer screening program:

'The women should have been given the information about the hazards of

radiation at the same time they were given the sales talk for mammography.

Doctors were gung-ho to use it on a large scale. They went right ahead and

X-rayed not just a few women but a quarter of a million women. Ajump in exposure

of a quarter of a million persons to something which could do more harm than

good was criminal, and it was supported by money from the federal government and

the American Cancer Society. "

As far back as 1974, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) was warned by professor

Malcolm C. Pike at the University of Southern California School of Medicine that

a number of specialists had concluded that " giving a woman under age 50 a

mammogram on a routine basis is close to unethical. "

Dr. B. Simone, a researcher at the National Cancer Institute concurs.

" Mammograms increase the risk for developing breast cancer and raise the risk

of spreading or metastasizing an existing growth. " Hundreds of studies in

peer-reviewed journals demonstrate that mammograms are risky, that they often

misdiagnose or are incorrectly interpreted, with high percentages of false

negatives and false positives, and that statistically, they do not contribute

to survival rates.

In the face of all this evidence, why does the American Cancer Society

recommend annual or biannual mammography for all women ages 40 to 55 or even

earlier? And why is National Mammography Day the cornerstone of NBCAM? The

answer is obvious: Mammography is an $8 billion per year industry.

According to Dr. Epstein: " The ACS also has close connections to the

mammography industry. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents, and in

its every move the ACS reflects the interests of major manufacturers of

mammography machines and film including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric,

Eastman Kodak, and Piker. " Could that have something to do with the fact that

the American Cancer Society's latest report on cancer prevention makes no

mention of environmental factors, non-patentable, natural treatments or safer

screening protocols?

There is, in fact, a superior alternative to mammography called Digital Infrared

Thermography, which does not use mechanical pressure or ionizing radiation. It

is safe, non-toxic and painless. It can also detect signs of abnormalities years

earlier than either mammography or a physical exam.

In 95% of cancer diagnoses, physical exams or mammography can only detect

malignant tumors that have existed for eight years. Digital Infrared

Thermography is able to detect the possibility of breast cancer much earlier,

because it can image the early stages of angiogenesis-the formation of a direct

supply of blood to cancer cells, which is a necessary step before these cells

can grow into larger tumors.

It should come as no surprise that safer and more effective screening techniques

like Digital Infrared Thermography have been vigorously attacked by the NBCAM

organizations.

Challenging the agenda

So all the hullabaloo that comes each October, enlisting women's support and

hard-earned cash, does absolutely nothing to eliminate the cause of this

devastating disease. Instead, women s heartfelt desires and good intentions are

usurped by the hidden agendas of major cancer organizations and corporations

committed to pushing their toxic drug treatments, dangerous diagnostic tools

and anti-environmental pollutant platforms.

In truth, NBCAM is a public relations invention by a major polluter, which puts

women in the position of being unwitting allies of the very people who are

making them sick.

Women can make the difference in eliminating breast cancer. The breast cancer

epidemic is not some great mystery. The causes of cancer are already known:

Toxic diets, toxic lifestyles, toxic emotions, toxic environments, toxic

chemicals, toxic drug treatments and toxic diagnostic techniques cause cancer.

Corporations that are part of the cancer industry are more interested in

increasing their profits and ensuring their tentacles of control than in

creating actual solutions. When it comes to National Breast Cancer Awareness

Month, women must invest their time, energy and money into other projects,

initiatives and treatments that will truly create change.

Instead of allowing major corporations or other vested interests to define the

agenda, we can indeed use National Breast Cancer Awareness Month as a powerful

time to educate, awaken and empower women to the real causes, preventative

measures and effective cures for breast cancer.

If you're going to be racing for the cure, be sure to choose your race very

carefully.

Creating an Alternative Breast Cancer Prevention Program

Some immediate steps to take:

· Eat as many organic foods as possible. They are not only free of harmful

chemicals, but they also may have greater nutritional value.

· Drink pure filtered water.

· Eliminate all commercial household cleaning products, toxic garden

pesticides and non-organic personal care products. Replace them with safe,

organic and biodegradable brands.

· Refuse steroid hormone treatments such as HRT and the birth control

pill; these are known to initiate cancer, including breast cancer.

· See out the many natural approaches for regaining hormonal balance.

Detoxify the body and reduce stress.

· Investigate Digital Infrared Thermography, a safe screening technique,

especially if you are premenopausal.

· Become informed about your body and breast health.

Contact:

Shernll Sellman is the author of the best-selling book Hormone Heresy: What

Women Must Know About Their Hormones. She can be contacted at: www.ssellman.com

and email:golight@... or at 1-877-215-1721.

74 ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE NOVEMBER 2001

October 29, 2001

Thank you!! It's a little like Mcdonalds - the

dichotomy between selling the most deadly foods - meat

byproducts breaded and deep fried - and the Ronal

Mc House, which does wonderful things!

--- Phyllis <georgic@...> wrote:

> Breast Cancer

>

> Awareness:

>

> Looking behind the smokescreen of early detection

> reveals that seeing through deception is your only

> protection.

>

> 68 ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE NOVEMBER 2001

>

> Few women know that the originator and major funder

> of Breast Cancer Awareness Month is one of the

> world's biggest producers of carcinogenic

> substances.

>

> By Sherrill Sellman

>

> Every October since 1985, the recognizable symbol of

> National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (NBCAM), the

> Pink Ribbon, is seen everywhere. It is prominently

> displayed in TV ads, on posters and in women's

> magazines. Women proudly pin the Pink Ribbon to

> their blouses-synonymous with support, courage,

> caring, activism, action and donations. Lots of

> donations.

>

> During this " awareness " campaign, multitudes of

> fiindraising runs, hikes, walks and various other

> events raise over a hundred million dollars towards

> the goal of conquering that dreaded scourge of the

> modern woman, breast cancer. High-profile companies

> like Avon, Lee Denim and Revlon have joined ranks

> with the G. Komen Foundation's " Race for the

> Cure " and the L.A. City of Hope Hospital's " Walk

> for Hope:' Major retailers like J.C. Penney and

> Hallmark Cards and even the brokerage firm

> Schwab all get into the act by donating a percentage

> of their profits from designated goods or services

> to the cause.

>

> Breast Cancer is a modern-day epidemic. Each year

> over 180,000 women in the United States will be

> diagnosed with breast cancer. More than 44,000 will

> die of the disease. The U.S. has one of the highest

> breast cancer rates in the world. Fifty years ago

> the incidence for a woman's lifetime risk was one in

> 20. Now it has skyrocketed to one in eight. The war

> on cancer is an empty promise as breast cancer

> incidence continues to climb at the rate of I %

> annually.

>

> NOVEMBER 200 ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE 69

>

> Breast Cancer Awareness:

>

> The motto of NBCAM is " Early Detection is Your Best

> Protection. The National Cancer Institute stated in

> 1995 that " Breast cancer is simply not a

> preventable disease. " A similar message was

> reiterated in 1997 by the American Cancer Society'

> s announcement that " there are no practical ways to

> prevent breast cancer-only early detection. "

> Therefore, mammograms become the front line of

> defense. Celebrities like Rosie O'Donnell offer free

> t-shirts with the honorable words " I've been

> Squished " if you'll make a date with your local

> x-ray department. Bring a friend and get a

> two-for-the-price-of-one special.

>

> So let's all join in and wave our pink ribbons, don

> those running shoes and take to the roads, tight?

> Hang on a minute. Before you get swept up in the

> emotional frenzy of this call to arms, there is

> something you must know.

>

> Hidden agendas

>

> National Breast Cancer Awareness Month's sole funder

> is Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, now known as AstraZeneca.

> In 1984, Zeneca's parent company, Imperial Chemical

> Industries (ICI), launched NBCAM. AstraZeneca is the

> world's largest manufacturer of petrochemical and

> chlorinated organic products-including the plastic

> ingredient vinyl chloride and the pesticide

> Acetochlor, both of which have been directly linked

> to breast cancer. Zeneca, a bioscience corporation,

> manufactures the controversial and most widely

> prescribed breast cancer drug, tamoxifen. All NBCAM

> TV, radio and print media promotions are approved

> and paid for by Zeneca.

>

> It is less known that Zeneca also makes pesticides,

> herbicides and fungicides. Unashamedly, ICI and

> Zeneca's chemical plants daily release potential

> cancer-causing pollution into the environment. To

> round off their profitable cancer investments,

> Zeneca also owns a growing chain of cancer care

> centers.

>

> When it comes to the environmental carcinogens found

> in pesticides, herbicides, plastics and other toxic

> chemicals, there is booming silence by all NBCAM

> programs. Did the alarming increase of breast cancer

> rates just mysteriously happen? Or, perhaps, the

> focus on the cure has created a distraction from the

> cause? After all, if it became general knowledge

> that Zeneca's chemical products and factories

> directly contribute to the breast cancer epidemic,

> it would certainly sully their well-oiled PR

> campaign, which conveniently ignores telling the

> public about avoidable environmental and chemical

> causes.

>

> Many experts predicted as far back as 30 years ago

> that cancer rates would increase due to an

> explosion of synthetic chemicals. From 1940 through

> the early 1980's, production of synthetic chemicals

> increased by a factor of 350. Billions of tons of

> substances that never existed before were released

> into the environment. Yet only 30/0 of the 75,000

> chemicals in use have ever been tested for safety.

> These toxic time bombs are everywhere-in our water,

> air and food, in our workplaces and schools, in

> household cleansers, cosmetics and personal care

> products. It's no coincidence that women who live

> near toxic waste dumps have 6.5 times the incidence

> of breast cancer.

>

> A survey conducted by Dr. Wolff of Mt. Sinai

> Hospital, New York, found that women with breast

> cancer had four times the levels of DDE found in

> non-carcinogenic tumors. Another study investigated

> why upper class women in the community of Newton,

> Massachusetts had higher breast cancer rates than

> women of lower economic status. The researchers

> attributed the increase to greater use of the

> carcinogenic chemicals used in professional lawn

> care and dry cleaning services.

>

> In 1993, Greenpeace reported that women with the

> highest concentrations of chlorine-based pesticides

> and other chemicals in their blood and fat had

> breast cancer risks four to ten times higher than

> women with lower concentrations. The data suggested

> that these chemicals are among the strongest risk

> factors ever identified.

>

=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________

October 29, 2001

Thank you!! It's a little like Mcdonalds - the

dichotomy between selling the most deadly foods - meat

byproducts breaded and deep fried - and the Ronal

Mc House, which does wonderful things!

--- Phyllis <georgic@...> wrote:

> Breast Cancer

>

> Awareness:

>

> Looking behind the smokescreen of early detection

> reveals that seeing through deception is your only

> protection.

>

> 68 ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE NOVEMBER 2001

>

> Few women know that the originator and major funder

> of Breast Cancer Awareness Month is one of the

> world's biggest producers of carcinogenic

> substances.

>

> By Sherrill Sellman

>

> Every October since 1985, the recognizable symbol of

> National Breast Cancer Awareness Month (NBCAM), the

> Pink Ribbon, is seen everywhere. It is prominently

> displayed in TV ads, on posters and in women's

> magazines. Women proudly pin the Pink Ribbon to

> their blouses-synonymous with support, courage,

> caring, activism, action and donations. Lots of

> donations.

>

> During this " awareness " campaign, multitudes of

> fiindraising runs, hikes, walks and various other

> events raise over a hundred million dollars towards

> the goal of conquering that dreaded scourge of the

> modern woman, breast cancer. High-profile companies

> like Avon, Lee Denim and Revlon have joined ranks

> with the G. Komen Foundation's " Race for the

> Cure " and the L.A. City of Hope Hospital's " Walk

> for Hope:' Major retailers like J.C. Penney and

> Hallmark Cards and even the brokerage firm

> Schwab all get into the act by donating a percentage

> of their profits from designated goods or services

> to the cause.

>

> Breast Cancer is a modern-day epidemic. Each year

> over 180,000 women in the United States will be

> diagnosed with breast cancer. More than 44,000 will

> die of the disease. The U.S. has one of the highest

> breast cancer rates in the world. Fifty years ago

> the incidence for a woman's lifetime risk was one in

> 20. Now it has skyrocketed to one in eight. The war

> on cancer is an empty promise as breast cancer

> incidence continues to climb at the rate of I %

> annually.

>

> NOVEMBER 200 ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE 69

>

> Breast Cancer Awareness:

>

> The motto of NBCAM is " Early Detection is Your Best

> Protection. The National Cancer Institute stated in

> 1995 that " Breast cancer is simply not a

> preventable disease. " A similar message was

> reiterated in 1997 by the American Cancer Society'

> s announcement that " there are no practical ways to

> prevent breast cancer-only early detection. "

> Therefore, mammograms become the front line of

> defense. Celebrities like Rosie O'Donnell offer free

> t-shirts with the honorable words " I've been

> Squished " if you'll make a date with your local

> x-ray department. Bring a friend and get a

> two-for-the-price-of-one special.

>

> So let's all join in and wave our pink ribbons, don

> those running shoes and take to the roads, tight?

> Hang on a minute. Before you get swept up in the

> emotional frenzy of this call to arms, there is

> something you must know.

>

> Hidden agendas

>

> National Breast Cancer Awareness Month's sole funder

> is Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, now known as AstraZeneca.

> In 1984, Zeneca's parent company, Imperial Chemical

> Industries (ICI), launched NBCAM. AstraZeneca is the

> world's largest manufacturer of petrochemical and

> chlorinated organic products-including the plastic

> ingredient vinyl chloride and the pesticide

> Acetochlor, both of which have been directly linked

> to breast cancer. Zeneca, a bioscience corporation,

> manufactures the controversial and most widely

> prescribed breast cancer drug, tamoxifen. All NBCAM

> TV, radio and print media promotions are approved

> and paid for by Zeneca.

>

> It is less known that Zeneca also makes pesticides,

> herbicides and fungicides. Unashamedly, ICI and

> Zeneca's chemical plants daily release potential

> cancer-causing pollution into the environment. To

> round off their profitable cancer investments,

> Zeneca also owns a growing chain of cancer care

> centers.

>

> When it comes to the environmental carcinogens found

> in pesticides, herbicides, plastics and other toxic

> chemicals, there is booming silence by all NBCAM

> programs. Did the alarming increase of breast cancer

> rates just mysteriously happen? Or, perhaps, the

> focus on the cure has created a distraction from the

> cause? After all, if it became general knowledge

> that Zeneca's chemical products and factories

> directly contribute to the breast cancer epidemic,

> it would certainly sully their well-oiled PR

> campaign, which conveniently ignores telling the

> public about avoidable environmental and chemical

> causes.

>

> Many experts predicted as far back as 30 years ago

> that cancer rates would increase due to an

> explosion of synthetic chemicals. From 1940 through

> the early 1980's, production of synthetic chemicals

> increased by a factor of 350. Billions of tons of

> substances that never existed before were released

> into the environment. Yet only 30/0 of the 75,000

> chemicals in use have ever been tested for safety.

> These toxic time bombs are everywhere-in our water,

> air and food, in our workplaces and schools, in

> household cleansers, cosmetics and personal care

> products. It's no coincidence that women who live

> near toxic waste dumps have 6.5 times the incidence

> of breast cancer.

>

> A survey conducted by Dr. Wolff of Mt. Sinai

> Hospital, New York, found that women with breast

> cancer had four times the levels of DDE found in

> non-carcinogenic tumors. Another study investigated

> why upper class women in the community of Newton,

> Massachusetts had higher breast cancer rates than

> women of lower economic status. The researchers

> attributed the increase to greater use of the

> carcinogenic chemicals used in professional lawn

> care and dry cleaning services.

>

> In 1993, Greenpeace reported that women with the

> highest concentrations of chlorine-based pesticides

> and other chemicals in their blood and fat had

> breast cancer risks four to ten times higher than

> women with lower concentrations. The data suggested

> that these chemicals are among the strongest risk

> factors ever identified.

>

=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________

December 17, 2001

Thanks, Willard, good info. I still recommend mammos for patients over 40 because it's such a nasty disease I would rather be safe than sorry.

D Freeman Mailing address: 2480 Liberty Street NE Suite 180Salem, Oregon 97303phone 503 763-3528fax 503 763-3530pager 888 501-7328

breast cancer

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/17/health/17BREA.html

Int J Epidemiol 2000 Oct;29(5):803-6

Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

A study on effectiveness of screening mammograms.Ren JJ, Peer PG.Department of Mathematics, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA. renj@...So far, no randomized controlled trials with a mean mammographic screening interval of > or = 2 years has demonstrated statistically significant mortality reduction for women younger than age 50.

What about the value of support groups?

N Engl J Med 2001 Dec 13;345(24):1719-1726

Books, LinkOut

The Effect of Group Psychosocial Support on Survival in Metastatic Breast Cancer.Goodwin PJ, Leszcz M, Ennis M, Koopmans J, L, Guther H, Drysdale E, Hundleby M, Chochinov HM, Navarro M, Speca M, Masterson J, Dohan L, Sela R, Warren B, Paterson A, Pritchard KI, Arnold A, Doll R, O'Reilly SE, Quirt G, Hood N, Hunter J.Supportive-expressive group therapy does not prolong survival in women with metastatic breast cancer. It improves mood and the perception of pain, particularly in women who are initially more distressed.

Healthcare is an emerging science.

Willard

January 22, 2002

Dear Doctors,

This is a very interesting set of articles and opinions. As I read it ,not

to mention that the articles and opinions come out of socialist countries, I

thought I smelled an insurance rat. The following quote confirmed my

sense...

....' Our

calculations confirm others that the mean annual cost per life " saved "

is around $1-2 million (558,000 pounds). In the allocation of limited

resources, public health policy on a proposed mass population

intervention must be based on a critical analysis of benefits, harm, and

cost. Since the benefit achieved is marginal, the harm caused is

substantial, and the costs incurred are enormous, we suggest that public

funding for breast cancer screening in any age group is not justifiable.'

I hold by my prior commentary on the subject...let any woman who has been

diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer answer whether or not she would like

to have been diagnosed earlier and I'd bet she would answer 'yes'.

vty,

sharron fuchs dc

_____________________________________________________

Breast Cancer

Listmates,

Recently there was a discussion on mammograms and breast cancer.

Although this is a bit late, I am passing it along to those interested.

It is part of an e-mailing that Dr. Dan sends out by subscription.

Mike Underhill

******************************

Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography

The Lancet; Volume 358; 20 October 2001; Pages 1340-1342

Ole Olsen and C Gøtzsche

FROM ABSTRACT:

In 2000, we reported that there is no reliable evidence that screening

for breast cancer reduces mortality.

As we discuss here, a Cochrane review has now confirmed and strengthened

our previous findings.

The review also shows that breast-cancer mortality is a misleading

outcome measure.

Finally, we use data supplemental to those in the Cochrane review to

show that screening leads to more aggressive treatment.

THESE AUTHORS ALSO NOTE:

These authors previously assessed the results of the seven randomised

trials of screening mammography, and " concluded that screening is

unjustified because there is no reliable evidence that it reduces

mortality. "

(P.C. Gøtzsche and O. Olsen , Is screening for breast cancer with

mammography justifiable?. Lancet 355 (2000), pp. 129-134).

In this Cochrane review The authors paid close attention to the standard

dimensions of methodological quality of mammography screening trials, and

" confirmed and strengthened our original conclusion. "

This review " provided evidence that assessment of cause of death is

unreliable and biased in favour of screening, " because " uncertain causes

of death were significantly more commonly ascribed to breast cancer than

to other causes in the control group. "

" Treatment of early cancers by tumourectomy and radiotherapy might

increase the likelihood that deaths among screen-detected breast cancer

cases will be misclassified as deaths from other causes, particularly

other cancers. "

The authors " noted that the two trials with medium-quality data failed

to find an effect of screening on deaths ascribed to any cancer,

including breast cancer. "

" The greater use of radiotherapy in screened women than in controls is

expected to increase overall mortality because of cardiovascular adverse

effects. These deaths were not counted as deaths related to screening in

the trials we assessed. "

" The main outcome measure in the screening trials was breast-cancer

mortality. "

" However, we showed that the assumption that a demonstrated effect on

breast-cancer mortality can be translated into a reduction in overall

mortality rests on suppositions that are not correct. The only reliable

mortality estimates are therefore those for overall mortality. "

Therefore, using overall mortality, the authors conclude:

" The reliable evidence does not indicate any survival benefit of mass

screening for breast cancer. "

" The two best trials failed to find an effect of screening on deaths

ascribed to breast cancer after 13 years. "

" We have also confirmed, ... that screening leads to more aggressive

treatment, increasing the number of mastectomies by about 20% and the

number of mastectomies and tumourectomies by about 30%. "

" Screening identifies some slow-growing tumours that would never have

developed into cancer in the women's remaining lifetimes, as well as

cell changes that are histologically cancer but biologically benign. "

" Furthermore, carcinoma in situ does not always develop into invasive

cancer, but since these early lesions are often diffuse, women are

sometimes treated by bilateral mastectomy. "

" Therefore, the increase in surgery rates could also be an

underestimate, since reoperations and operations in the contralateral

breast seemed not to have been included. "

" Furthermore, 'better' diagnostic methods--eg, better mammograms--could

lead to additional over-treatment because of detection of even more

early or questionable lesions. "

Quality assurance programmes could possibly reduce the surgical activity

to

some degree, but the above problems cannot be avoided.

The authors note that their earlier report has been criticised, but that

now " all relevant criticism has now been addressed in our review, " and

they stand by their conclusions.

" We have provided detailed evidence on the mammography screening trials,

and hope that women, clinicians, and policy-makers will consider these

findings

carefully when they decide whether or not to attend or support screening

programmes. "

" Any hope or claim that screening mammography with more modern

technologies than applied in these trials will reduce mortality without

causing too much harm will have to be tested in large, well-conducted

randomised trials

with all-cause mortality as the primary outcome. "

Screeningmammography--an overview revisited: Commentary

The Lancet; Volume 358; 20 October 2001; 1284-1285

Horton

THIS AUTHOR NOTES:

" When Gøtzsche and Ole Olsen concluded last year that 'screening

for breast cancer with mammography is unjustified', there was a storm of

debate and criticism in national media and medical journals alike. "

" These investigators, working at the respected Nordic Cochrane Centre,

had conducted a systematic review of randomised trials of screening

mammography. Gøtzsche and Olsen found that the quality of many of these

trials was poor. The best trials, they claimed, did not provide evidence

of a reduction in either total or breast-cancer mortality. "

A crtitcism of the previous review by Gøtzsche and Olsen was that it was

not a Cochrane Collaboration systematic review.

In this Cochrane review, Gøtzsche and Olsen " summarise their findings

and write that they have confirmed and extended their earlier

conclusions. "

" The Cochrane Collaboration has a rigorous and well-developed method for

conducting systematic reviews. Cochrane reviews are of higher quality

than

reviews completed according to non-Cochrane protocols. It is for this

reason that The Lancet is an enthusiastic partner of the Cochrane

Collaboration. "

" But the process of collaboration within the Cochrane Breast Cancer

Group has broken down badly in the case of the Gøtzsche and Olsen

overview. The resulting tensions among colleagues indicate that even in

the best organisations raw evidence alone is sometimes insufficient to

influence opinion. When the Nordic investigators submitted their

systematic review to the editors of the Breast Cancer Group, they found

that their conclusions were unwelcome. Rather than supporting their

Nordic colleagues in the publication of their research, the Cochrane

Breast Cancer Group editors insisted that changes, which Gøtzsche and

Olsen disagreed with, be made to the review if it was to be published in

the Cochrane Library. These changes appear in the Cochrane review

against the authors' wishes, but not in the version posted on The

Lancet's website today. The Cochrane editors added statements in the

main results section of the abstract, which lent support to arguments in

favour of screening, and excluded data about the effects of screening on

subsequent

treatment despite the fact that inclusion of these data was envisaged in

the published protocol of the review. "

" According to its ten key principles, the Cochrane Collaboration bases

its scientific reputation on minimising bias and ensuring quality. But

interference by Cochrane editors to insert what the authors of the

overview believe to be invalid analyses erodes the academic freedom of

these investigators. Editors make recommendations to authors all the

time, but editors who insist on inappropriate analyses that seem to

support a particular point of view hurt not only themselves and the

institution they represent but also the credibility of the science they

claim to value. "

" At present, there is no reliable evidence from large randomised trials

to support screening mammography programmes. "

KEY POINTS FROM DAN MURPHY:

(1) There is no reliable evidence to support screening mammography in

order to reduce overall mortality.

(2) Screening mammography leads to more aggressive treatment

intervention, which may be unnecessary and /or actually harmful.

(3) By its very nature, earlier detection ac a consequence of advances

in technology will not alter the problem of more aggressive treatment

intervention, which again may be unnecessary and /or actually harmful.

(4) These conclusions remain extremely controversial and contentious

among experts in the field.

(5) For all of you whose life is affected by this article, you may be

interested to know that an article with similar conclusions, by a

different author, with more academic reasons for the finding, was

published in 1995. I have included the abstract, as follows::

Screening mammography and public health policy: the need for perspective.

The Lancet: 1995 Jul 1;346(8966):29-32

CJ, Mueller CB.

The early trials of screening mammography, reporting 30% relative

reduction in mortality from breast cancer in women over 50 years of age,

led to strong professional and public demand for screening programmes.

There has been little publicity about the subsequent trials showing no

significant benefit in any age group, or about the harm and costs

associated with screening mammography. For women under 50, there is a

reluctant consensus that screening is not beneficial, but there is

increasing pressure for publicly funded programmes for older women. When

analysed in terms of population benefit, the randomised controlled

prospective trials showed that the numbers of women screened to achieve

one less death per year ranged from 7086 (Health Insurance Plan of New

York), to 63,264 (Malmo), to infinity (Canadian National Breast

Screening Study). About 5% of screening mammograms are positive or

suspicious, and of these 80-93% are false positives that cause much

unnecessary anxiety and further procedures including surgery. False

reassurance by negative mammography occurs in 10-15% of women with

breast cancer that will manifest clinically within a year. Our

calculations confirm others that the mean annual cost per life " saved "

is around $1-2 million (558,000 pounds). In the allocation of limited

resources, public health policy on a proposed mass population

intervention must be based on a critical analysis of benefits, harm, and

cost. Since the benefit achieved is marginal, the harm caused is

substantial, and the costs incurred are enormous, we suggest that public

funding for breast cancer screening in any age group is not justifiable.

________________________________________________________________

GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!

Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!

Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:

http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

January 22, 2002

Yes, I agree and it is unfortunate that statistics can be swayed given a

financial bent one way or the other. In my mind however,apart from screening

for pathology, is the real (real) issue of cause and prevention whether it

be from environmental sources, nutrition or whatever...but that my friends

is another story altogether.

vty, sharron fuchs dc

Breast Cancer

sharron:

i agree with your observation on 'earlier' detection.......

one of the continually amazing elements of never-resolved debates in related

fields of health care, is EITHER side of any issue eventually resorts to a

financial red herring, ie

" it is NOT cost effective " if they are against [insert issue here];

and if they believe the opposite, this phrase becomes " it is a SMALL price

to pay for assurance [issue] will not affect [population] with a preventable

disease.......

the Hog of Social Welfare doesn't squeal loudly unless its on trough is

threatened....

for myself i wonder how many lives could be saved if we hadn't invested in

so much nuclear overkill armaments....

part of the benefit of the " health cost " has to be support for those 'health

facilities and personnel'......just as a single cruise missle may be used

effectively or (quoting our Top Dog) " wasted on an empty tent or hitting a

camel in the butt " .........

another issue off the point is the entire project, which may save " ONLY " one

life, this still remains LESS than a single 60-second SuperBowl advertising

spot.....so what is really the issue, is there is not enough grass roots

support demanding the availability of this service. Moving out of the

PUBLIC trough though, into PRIVATE coverage, what do the figures reveal?

Something quite different I would wager.....

J Pedersen DC