Filed under: Breast Cancer, Cancer
Breast Cancer Tests Cause Breast Cancer
The August 24, 2010 issue of the journal RADIOLOGY
reveals that new sophisticated breast cancer tests
can cause cancer.
I am no fan of early detection tests. Why? The
New York Times reported the results of an autopsy
study of women who had died pre-maturely, primarily
in car accidents. The November 8, 1994 Times article
(Page C-1) revealed that 39.6 percent of women
between the ages of 40 and 50 actually have breast
cancer although only one percent of women in that
same age group are clinically diagnosed with
That same study demonstrated that virtually every
adult over age 50 has thyroid cancer, although
these cancers are rarely clinically diagnosed.
In other words, cancer is quite common. The key to
cancer, since everybody has it, is not what causes
it, but what makes it grow. IGF-I is what makes
it grow. See:
New sophisticated techniques have four horrible
1) They scare the hell out of women, sometimes
2) The add unnecessary financial burdens on
individual health care costs;
3) The sometimes induce women to have unnecessary
surgery and mutilation;
4) The tests themselves cause cancer.
The RADIOLOGY publication abstract:
The author’s conclusion:
“A single BSGI (breast-specific gamma imaging test)
or PEM (positron emission mammography test) study is
associated with a fatal radiation-induced cancer risk
higher than or comparable to that of annual screening
mammography in women aged 40–80 years.”
Will such absurdities never end?
Filed under: Uncategorized
KFC and Komen – What the Cluck? (Take action now!)
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
(NaturalNews) We’ve exposed the marketing fraud behind the Susan G. Komen “Buckets For the Cure” sham and we’ve satirized it with a hilarious online video and lots of editorial, but today it’s time to take action to let Susan G. Komen know their pinkwashing campaign has gone too far.
To help us accomplish this, we’ve teamed up with Breast Cancer Action (www.BCaction.org), which is one of the very few honest non-profits out there. Barbara Brenner, the executive director of Breast Cancer Action, said this about Komen for the Cure: “This [partnership with KFC] will keep them in business for years. They talk about a cure, but this partnership will create more breast cancer. And Komen knows this.”
So Breast Cancer Action has launched a “Stop the Pinkwashing” campaign. You can join in and let your voice be heard right here:http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o…
Breast Cancer Action explains their take on the “Buckets for the Cure” sham as follows:
We’ve seen a lot of outrageous stuff here at BCA, but we’ve never seen pink buckets of fried chicken being sold to “cure breast cancer”. KFC and Susan G. Komen for the Cure have started a campaign telling us to buy buckets of unhealthy food to cure a disease that kills women.
This pinkwashing is especially egregious because KFC, like most fast food chains, is overwhelmingly present in communities that have poor health outcomes. Susan G. Komen for the Cure knows that social inequities affect breast cancer mortality rates. Given this disconnect, we are especially disturbed by this partnership. It’s preposterous, and we have to tell them to stop.
Every bucket makes a difference? Only to KFC’s bottom line.
KFC is pinkwashing to make a profit, and Susan G. Komen for the Cure is accepting KFC’s bad-for-your-health money. Tell them to rethink this partnership.
Say it to their face: The P.R. spinmeisters at Susan G. Komen
You can also send emails directly to Andrea Rader and Emily Callahan, who are two of the top public relations executives at Komen for the Cure.
Their direct emails are:
It’s okay that we’re publishing their emails because this is exactly what their job call for: Relating to the public. That’s why they call it “public relations.”
If you send an email to these P.R. people, please respect the following guidelines:
• Do NOT send threatening, insulting or otherwise spammy emails.
• It is fine to express your displeasure or disagreement with the Bucket for the Cure program, but please do so with the support of reasoning that explains your position. (I.E. Fried chicken cannot cure cancer…)
• Remember that if you email THEM, they will now have YOUR email address and they may send you back Susan G. Komen propaganda.
• Once you email them, you can expect a canned reply containing yet more spin. It will explain, for example, that KFC has “healthy menu options” for people at the Komen for the Cure helps low-income women. (Actually, they primarily just go into black neighborhoods and irradiate the breasts of the women there.) But be prepared for a pretty hefty serving of pinkwashing B.S. when you receive your canned email reply.
Also remember that their reply will seem genuine. You have to remember that all the people working at Susan G. Komen for the Cure actually believe they’re helping people. They “drank the kool-aid” so to speak, and they don’t see anything wrong with selling buckets of greasy fried chicken laced with MSG to African American women who will later be diagnosed with breast cancer. To them, that’s just their way of “helping women.”
It’s sick and perverted, yes, but this is what they believe. So you’re probably not going to change their minds with one email, especially when their own salaries depend on keeping up the illusion that if people just buy more pink products, somehow a cure for breast cancer will be found.
Here’s the take action petition again: http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o…
Sources for this story include:
original article: http://www.naturalnews.com/028679_Komen_for_the_Cure_KFC.html
Filed under: Cancer, Uncategorized
Good health is no accident
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
(NaturalNews) Those who seek answers for their health outside the realm of their own decisions are looking in the wrong place. Health is no accident. Lasting health can only appear as the result of a lifetime of informed, deliberate decisions aligned with nature’s principles of health, not the distorted version of health promoted by our backward system of mainstream medicine.
And yet many people still believe that health is something that is bestowed upon them by some mysterious exterior force. The whole effort to raise money to find “the cure” for cancer, for example, is a powerful demonstration of misplaced faith in external healing. This idea that a cure for cancer must come from outside one’s self rather than from within is perhaps the greatest conceptual sleight of hand that has yet been pulled off by the sick-care industry.
The cure for cancer is already programmed within. Each person is born with a highly-advanced cellular nanotechnology that already knows how to cure cancer. Activating this inner healing potential is all that’s necessary to prevent and cure cancer everywhere around the world, starting right now.
Health happens through you, not to you
And yet the masses continue to eat cancer-causing foods and pursue cancer-causing lifestyles even while blindly handing over their money in the form of donations to organizations that they naively hope will come along and “save them” someday.
Think carefully about this dynamic: The person believes health is something that happens TO them rather than something that happens THROUGH them. And so they remain stuck, floundering in a pattern of self-inflicted sickness and disease while hoping that some other organization, government or health care plan will somehow save them.
While they wait for that external solution, disease and sickness creeps up on them.
Obesity is what happens when a person spends each day imagining how much they’re going to start exercising tomorrow.
Cancer is what happens when a person spends each day eating cancer-causing foods and donating money to Komen for the Cure rather than just getting some sunshine to boost their own vitamin D.
Disease is what happens when people believe they have no role in their own health outcome. So they eat for entertainment rather than for nourishment, and they live for product-induced external stimulation rather than internal fulfillment.
Woosh — right over their heads!
At this point in this article, by the way, we’ve already lost 99 out of 100 mainstream people. These concepts — that health is no accident — are so foreign to the average pre-programmed consumer that they are incapable of recognizing them, much less embracing them. They’ve been told so many times that health comes through intervention (vaccines, pharmaceuticals, chemotherapy, etc.) that the idea of health being created from within just doesn’t compute for them.
And that’s the way mainstream medicine likes it. A population that believes it has no control over its own health is ripe for exploitation by a highly interventionist medical industry. Those who have lost hope in their own inner health potential tend to place their hope in things like silly pink-ribbon fundraisers that promise to “end breast cancer forever” — a wishy-washy idea that lies somewhere between poetic fiction and outright marketing fraud.
Cancer can never be “cured” through any external, artificial means, regardless of how many billions of dollars are thrown at it. Trying to cure cancer with synthetic medications makes about as much sense as trying to cure illiteracy by feeding children “reading pills.”
Health is a determined path, not an accidental occurrence
Health, like learning to read, is something that must be pursued through dedicated self-advancement. Neither literacy nor health can be endowed upon you with the flick of a magic (medication) wand. They cannot be injected into you through a needle. They can only be achieved by teaching each person how to own their results.
If you wish to learn how to read, for example, you must first accept responsibility that no one else can read for you. YOU must go through the learning and advancement curve if you wish to experience the positive results of being literate.
It’s the same with health: If you wish to express health literacy, no one else can do it for you — no doctor, no vaccine, no cancer non-profit group and certainly not pink buckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken. You must grasp the controls over your own health destination. Take responsibility for the results you are creating with each and every decision you make: Decisions about food, stress, sleep, the use of your mind, the use of your free time, the personal care products you use, etc.
Be an adult
If you accept responsibility for your own health, then you are an adult. Children, on the other hand, take no responsibility for themselves and instead rely on outside factors to determine their experience. A child’s happiness, sadness and other circumstances depend almost entirely on what’s happening externally at that moment.
Adulthood is only achieved when a person grasps the level of maturity necessary to allow their inner expressions to override external influences. An adult is someone who can achieve their own health, learning, happiness or bliss without needing to turn to external (artificial) stimulations to mimic such conditions.
A child mind, for example, uses food as entertainment, television as distraction and condescension as an affirmation of self importance. This is the role of much of reality television, for example: To allow the viewing audience to feel important by offering them a visual forum through which they can express judgmental views at the inadequate people being paraded in front of them through artificial constructs of staged emotional drama.
In other words, you get to judge people and hurl verbal insults at them. “She’s got fake boobs! My gosh!”
Consumption is a one-way street
As you’ve probably already noticed, most of the mainstream population operates from the child mindset. They are consumers, begging to be distracted, injected, entertained, medicated and told how to live, think and feel (and vote). The idea of stepping outside this preprogrammed existence and exploring the world from an adult mindset is downright frightening to these people.
Approaching the world from a point of view that acknowledges self-responsibility means casting aside all the convenient comforts of living life as a child and instead bracing yourself for the harsh reality of taking responsibility for your own decisions. Being a child is so much easier, isn’t it? If you’re just a child, you can’t be blamed for bad results. It’s always someone else’s fault. (How long do I have to wait for Komen to actually FIND the cure, anyway? Can I keep eating bacon in the mean time?)
Most people, no matter what their age, have still not achieved self-responsibility. Most people are engorged in their television, gossip, fast food, chemical addictions and illusions of health that they’ve acquired by purchasing “trans fat free” processed foods or “high fiber” breakfast cereal laced with sugar. They are the minds of children living in deteriorating adult bodies while begging for magical medical interventions that will never exist.
My greatest wish is that our population of humans on our planet will grow up and embrace adulthood. Only through educated, responsible decisions that consider the long-term consequences of our immediate actions can individuals — or humanity — hope to evolve into a sustainable species. The failure of mainstream humans to understand simple concepts like “health is no accident” are merely a reflection of the far wider and more dangerous failures to understand the dynamics of sustainable life on a self-contained planet in a vast and formidable universe.
If we cannot attain the level of adulthood to take care of our own bodies, how on earth can we expect to achieve the level of consciousness necessary to function as stewards for the only habitable planet we know of in our entire universe?
Humanity remains in its infancy. Those of us who accept responsibility for our own actions are living as rare observers in a world run by children, populated by children and now being destroyed by children — all in adult bodies, of course. The childish concepts of selfish thinking and “that’s MINE!” are the lifeblood of our world’s largest corporations which seek to own everything they touch, much like little children licking all the cookies to claim them as personal property.
Corporations, for the most part, are immature expressions of economic selfishness that cater to immature consumers who have not yet decided to embrace adult-class self responsibility. The entire free market, in fact, is driven primarily by childish selfish greed rather than ideas of compassion for fellow human beings or business models based on determined sustainability rather than consumption gullibility.
Even most of the non-profits, which are supposed to be based on compassion, have turned into childish, greed-driven money expansion machines that only seek to rake in more profits at any cost to society. Nowhere is this more evident than in the cancer industry, where both the American Cancer Society and Komen for the Cure have become financial juggernauts by promising cures for cancer but delivering nothing but more disease to the people. (Mammograms cause cancer, for example.)
It is no accident, either, that in our time of the greatest disease ever witnessed on planet earth, we also live among the most powerful and exploitative “disease non-profits” that promise health salvation if we would only give them another few billion dollars.
As long as childish thinking dominates modern society, such fraudulent non-profits will continue to prey upon the externalization of healthtendencies of the population. The greatest fear of every disease non-profit front group is that mainstream consumers might wake up, take charge of their own health, begin to make informed decisions about preventing disease and thereby make the disease non-profits largely irrelevant.
How convenient it is, then, that the very products now used to raise money for the cancer industry non-profits are the same ones that promote cancer, heart disease, obesity and dull minds.
Filed under: Cancer | Tags: Cancer, HPV Vaccine, side effects
Now they tell us!
My niece felt sick after taking this so she quit. So glad she did… Are the side effects worth the risk? Not if your dead!
Gardasil Researcher Speaks Out
Health Freedom Alliance have been skeptical in the past about giving young girls the new HPV vaccine. It now seems we are joined in our criticism by one of the lead researchers for the Merck drug who is speaking out about its risks, benefits and aggressive marketing.
Dr. Diane Harper says young girls and their parents should receive more complete warnings before receiving the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Dr. Harper helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved, and authored many of the published, scholarly papers about it. She has been a paid speaker and consultant to Merck. It’s highly unusual for a researcher to publicly criticize a medicine or vaccine she helped get approved. Dr. Harper joins a number of consumer watchdogs, vaccine safety advocates, and parents who question the vaccine’s risk-versus-benefit profile. She says data available for Gardasil shows that it lasts five years; there is no data showing that it remains effective beyond five years. This raises questions about the CDC’s recommendation that the series of shots be given to girls as young as 11-years old. “If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn’t last… we’ve put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit,” says Dr. Harper. “The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated.” She also says that enough serious side effects have been reported after Gardasil use that the vaccine could prove riskier than the cervical cancer it purports to prevent. Cervical cancer is usually entirely curable when detected early through normal Pap screenings.
Dr. Scott Ratner and his wife, who’s also a physician, expressed similar concerns as Dr. Harper in an interview with CBS News last year. One of their teenage daughters became severely ill after her first dose of Gardasil. Dr. Ratner says she’d have been better off getting cervical cancer than the vaccination. “My daughter went from a varsity lacrosse player at Choate to a chronically ill, steroid-dependent patient with autoimmune myofasciitis. I’ve had to ask myself why I let my eldest of three daughters get an unproven vaccine against a few strains of a nonlethal virus that can be dealt with in more effective ways.”
Merck and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention maintain Gardasil is safe and effective, and that adequate warnings are provided, cautioning about soreness at the injection site and risk of fainting after vaccination. A new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found while the overall risk of side effects appears to be comparable to other vaccines, Gardasil has a higher incidence of blood clots reported. Merck says it continues to have confidence in Gardasil’s safety profile. Merck also says it’s looking into cases of ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease, reported after vaccination. ALS is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that attacks motor neurons in the brain and spinal cord. Merck and the CDC say there is currently no evidence that Gardasil caused ALS in the cases reported. Merck is also monitoring the number of deaths reported after Gardasil: at least 32. Merck and CDC says it’s unclear whether the deaths were related to the vaccine, and that just because patients died after the shots doesn’t mean the shots were necessarily to blame.
According to Dr. Harper, assessing the true adverse event risk of Gardasil, and comparing it to the risk of cervical cancer can be tricky and complex. “The number of women who die from cervical cancer in the US every year is small but real. It is small because of the success of the Pap screening program.”
“The risks of serious adverse events including death reported after Gardasil use in (the JAMA article by CDC’s Dr. Barbara Slade) were 3.4/100,000 doses distributed. The rate of serious adverse events on par with the death rate of cervical cancer. Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year. Indeed, the risks of vaccination are underreported in Slade’s article, as they are based on a denominator of doses distributed from Merck’s warehouse. Up to a third of those doses may be in refrigerators waiting to be dispensed as the autumn onslaught of vaccine messages is sent home to parents the first day of school. Should the denominator in Dr. Slade’s work be adjusted to account for this, and then divided by three for the number of women who would receive all three doses, the incidence rate of serious adverse events increases up to five fold. How does a parent value that information,” said Harper.
Dr. Harper agrees with Merck and the CDC that Gardasil is safe for most girls and women. But she says the side effects reported so far call for more complete disclosure to patients. She says they should be told that protection from the vaccination might not last long enough to provide a cancer protection benefit, and that its risks – “small but real” – could occur more often than the cervical cancer itself would.
“Parents and women must know that deaths occurred. Not all deaths that have been reported were represented in Dr. Slade’s work, one-third of the death reports were unavailable to the CDC, leaving the parents of the deceased teenagers in despair that the CDC is ignoring the very rare but real occurrences that need not have happened if parents were given information stating that there are real, but small risks of death surrounding the administration of Gardasil.”
She also worries that Merck’s aggressive marketing of the vaccine may have given women a false sense of security. “The future expectations women hold because they have received free doses of Gardasil purchased by philanthropic foundations, by public health agencies or covered by insurance is the true threat to cervical cancer in the future. Should women stop Pap screening after vaccination, the cervical cancer rate will actually increase per year. Should women believe this is preventive for all cancers – something never stated, but often inferred by many in the population– a reduction in all health care will compound our current health crisis. Should Gardasil not be effective for more than 15 years, the most costly public health experiment in cancer control will have failed miserably.”
CDC continues to recommend Gardasil for girls and young women. The agency says the vaccine’s benefits outweigh its risks and that it is an important tool in fighting a serious cancer.
Dr. Harper says the risk-benefit analysis for Gardasil in other countries may shape up differently than what she believes is true in the US. “Of course, in developing countries where there is no safety Pap screening for women repeatedly over their lifetimes, the risks of serious adverse events may be acceptable as the incidence rate of cervical cancer is five to 12 times higher than in the US, dwarfing the risk of death reported after Gardasil.”
Filed under: Alternative Healing, Breast Cancer, Cancer | Tags: Alternative Healing, Breast Cancer, false positives, mammograms, mammography
Another article questioning mammography.
No one should have to go through a false positive… If you do though, it’s a wake up call- check out a raw food diet for cleansing and healing. For more info see http://www.raw-wisdom.com or http://www.healingtalks.com/category/health/diet-and-nutrition/raw-food-diet/
Mammograms cause 7,000 women to receive false positives each year in the UK
by E. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) Experts from the Nordic Cochrane Centre (NCC) in the U.K. have estimated that about 7,000 British women are improperly diagnosed for breast cancer each year because of mammography. The group is urging the National Health Service (NHS) to reevaluate its breast cancer screening program, citing a failure of mammography to properly diagnose patients.
Controversy over the legitimacy of mammography has been heating up worldwide as increasing numbers of medical professionals, industry watchdogs, consumer advocates, and others are recognizing that mammography is failing to achieve what it was intended to do. Not only does it improperly detect cancer cells, but it often subjects women to needless treatments that end up causing them more harm than good.
Official British mammography rhetoric claims that 1,400 deaths are prevented every year from mammography screenings, however there is no evidence to back up this claim. The NCC article, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine explains that many of the claims made by the NHS about its screening program are not backed up by evidence.
Take, for instance, the fact that mortality rates from breast cancer were steadily dropping before the screening program was implemented in the late 1980s. Even amongst women too young for screenings, a reduction in breast cancer deaths was taking place, indicating that the screening program had nothing to do with it.
On the contrary, mammography screening often misdiagnoses women with cancer, causing them to undergo dangerous treatments like chemotherapy, radiation, and biopsy surgery which end up taking a big toll on their bodies. The screenings themselves also inflict routine doses of toxic radiation that can encourage the growth and spread of malignant cancer cells, defeating the point.
Representatives from NHS were quick to defend the screening process, claiming that critics are not properly interpreting data and statistics concerning breast cancer mortality rates. According to them, women who are screened have a 35 percent less chance of dying from breast cancer.
It is difficult to pinpoint just how many women get breast cancer from screenings. There are also no statistics on how many women die from chemotherapy and radiation treatments that they did not actually need or for cancers that they would not have gotten would they not have been screened. One thing is for sure; the cancer industry continues to insist that mammography screening is safe and effective at preventing breast cancer deaths, despite evidence that indicates otherwise.
Filed under: Cancer | Tags: Alternative Healing, breast cancer information, chemotherapy, molecular Fluorescence Imaging for Cancer
When I was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2002, I remember thinking that if there were a medication other than chemotherapy that only targeted the cancer cells I might be more inclined to go with it. Now there is one on the horizon- Molecular Fluoresence Imaging Guidance. I don’t totally understand it but the Nobel Prize- winning scientist who discovered the Green Fluroescent Protein in jellyfish via genetic modification is now trying to reproduce a synthetic version for humans. (Nobel laureate brings hope for cancer patients)
That still makes me antsy. I believe we need to cultivate our gut with good flora and not introduce extraneous organisms into our bodies that we are not sure what they will do to the fragile ecosystem of our inner terrain. Our immune systems have enough toxins to deal with. That’s why I believe everyone needs to cultivate the art of detoxification
What we do to the terrain of our guts parallels what we do to the terrain of our gardens. The following article from the Farmer’s Guardian argues that our government is deluded to think that GM food production will solve our food problems caused by increasing earth population.
This all reminds me of the story about cattle ranching so wonderfully told by Howard Lyman in his book The Mad Cowboy. Mr. Lyman came from a family of organic farmers. He studied agriculture at the university and learned the latest techniques and came home and applied them to the family farm. For each new scientific farming application he found out there were side effects and then had to apply a different treatment to overcome the new symptoms. (Sound familiar?) Yes, for every new treatment he used, he had to keep trying a new chemical to counter the side effects until finally, he threw the towel in, became a vegetarian and went back to organic farming. His book is a classic and a must read for everyone. He is well known for sharing on the Oprah Winfrey Show. He’s the reason why the meat industry sued Oprah (and lost) for saying she would never eat meat again on her program — read about it here!