Categories
The Best Years In Life

Breast Cancer Deception Month: Hiding the Truth Beneath a Sea of Pink, Part IV

by: Tony Isaacs

(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.

Mastectomies – Prevention or Unnecessary Mutilation?

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.

Categories
Featured Articles

Natural Consumer Products Found Contaminated with Cancer-Causing Agent

by: Mike Adams

A cancer-causing compound called 1,4-dioxane has been found in some of the most commonly used petroleum-based cosmetics by a study commissioned by the Organic Consumers Association, including products from Kiss My Face, Nutribiotic, Jason, Ecover, Citrus Magic, 365, Alba, Lifetree, Giovanni, Seventh Generation, Method, Earth Friendly Products, Sea-Chi Organics and many other brands . 1,4-dioxane (often just called dioxane) is a clear, colorless, organic compound that's a liquid at room temperature and is a known human carcinogen.

The study was conducted by the Organic Consumers Association (www.OrganicConsumers.org) in conjunction with Dr. Bronner's (www.DrBronner.com) and David Steinman, author of The Safe Shopper's Bible. It sought to determine the levels of 1,4-Dioxane in one hundred different consumer products, ranging from dish soaps to shower gels. Around fifty of the products tested were found to be contaminated with 1,4-Dioxane, while another fifty (or so) were found to be free of the cancer-causing chemical.

Companies whose products were found to be free of 1,4-Dioxane include Dr. Bronner's, Aubrey Organics, Burt's Bees, Desert Essence, Dr. Hauschka, EO, TerrEssential, Zia Fresh, Avalon Organics and other companies.

Some companies had products in both categories, meaning some of their products were found to be contaminated with 1,4-Dioxane while other products from the same company were found to be free of 1,4-Dioxane. These companies included Alba, Jason, Kiss my Face, Method, Nature's Gate, Origins, Shikai and others.

In response to the results indicating the contamination of many consumer care products, the Organic Consumers Association's Executive Director, Ronnie Cummins, said, "The labeling and formulation practices of these companies are so unsupportable, we wonder sometimes if the garbage manager is in charge of the products development and R&D."

Ronnie Cummins took part in a press conference yesterday that announced the findings. NaturalNews was there to record the press conference, and we've posted the 28-minute announcement as an audio file (MP3) at: http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Po… (see Health Ranger Report #12). We also took numerous photos, which we'll be posted in a follow-up article on this topic. Also, we're conducting a live interview with Ronnie Cummins today, and we'll be posted the complete audio of that interview shortly.

The toxicity of 1,4-Dioxane
1,4-Dioxane is classified as an ether and is a known eye and respiratory tract irritant that readily penetrates the skin. The chemical is primarily used in solvent applications during manufacturing. Most notably, it appears as an accidental byproduct of the ethoxylation process in cosmetics manufacturing. It often appears as a chemical contaminant in cosmetics and personal care products such as deodorants, shampoos, toothpastes and mouthwashes.

The National Toxicology Program considers dioxane to be a known animal carcinogen. The Environmental Protection Agency classifies this cancer-causing petrochemical as a probable human carcinogen, based on the "induction of nasal cavity and liver carcinomas in multiple strains of rats, liver carcinomas in mice, and gall bladder carcinomas in guinea pigs," according to a 2003 EPA report. Common sense tells us that the chemical is also carcinogenic to humans. Conducting such tests on humans to determine the actual level of carcinogenicity, however, would be highly unethical, so those tests have not been done. That's why 1,4-Dioxane is technically called a "probable" human carcinogen. But everybody in the industry knows it's a cancer-causing chemical.

Dioxane is on California's Proposition 65 list of chemicals known or suspected by the state to cause cancer or birth defects. According to researchers at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a recent assessment of ingredients in 15,000 cosmetics and other personal care products found that 22 % of all products may be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane. The group's research on personal care products is available at http://www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep

Cosmetics: An industry of death
Based on the presence of dioxane in common ingredients of a wide array of products that the cosmetics industry uses, an EWG analysis of government and industry sources shows that at least 146 cosmetic ingredients may contain harmful impurities linked to systematic cancer and other serious health impacts.

A 2004 online survey found that 20% of people who use cosmetics and personal care products every day are potentially exposed to all of the top seven carcinogenic impurities — hydroquinone, ethylene dioxide, 1,4-dioxane, formaldehyde, nitrosamines, PAHs, and acrylamide.

All of these chemicals are common in personal care products, yet none are restricted by government safety standards. In other words, it's perfectly legal for cosmetic companies to poison the population with known cancer-causing chemicals, all with the nod of approval from the FDA.

Of the potential contaminants in cosmetic products, hydroquinone was ranked the leader in impurities, as it is often found in products used daily by 94% of women and 69% of men. This chemical is currently under review by the FDA.

Cancer-causing chemicals in "organic" and "natural" products
What these recent findings by the Organic Consumers Association reveal, however, is that 1,4-Dioxane is not only found in conventional consumer care products; it's also found in so-called "natural" or "organic" products. Even the Whole Foods 365 brand was found to be contaminated with 1,4-Dioxane, along with the Jason brand, Kiss My Face and many others.

This, says Cummins, is a great disservice to the natural products industry and the consumers who support the industry. When consumers shop for "natural" or "organic" products, they pay a premium, and they expect those products to be free of cancer-causing chemical contaminants like 1,4-Dioxane.

These findings underscore the importance of researching the companies and products you're buying, even if they claim to be "organic" or "natural."

How to tell if they're safe
How can consumers tell if products are truly free from 1,4-Dioxane? As David Steinman noted in the press conference, all the products tested that carried the USDA Organic seal of approval were found to be free from 1,4-Dioxane. So looking for the USDA certified organic seal is currently the best way to protect yourself from this cancer-causing chemical.

Also, the OCA has urged consumers to read ingredients labels, and avoid all consumer care products made with the following ingredients (or words in the ingredients):

• Myreth
• Oleth
• Laureth
• Cateareth (or other "eth")
• PEG
• Polyethylene
• Polethylene Glycol
• Polyoxyethylene
• Oxynol

Read more from the OCA at www.OrganicConsumers.org

Zero safety testing required for cosmetic ingredients
The FDA currently does not require safety testing of cosmetic products or their ingredients. The cosmetic industry polices the safety of its own products, and this safety panel is run and funded by the industry's trade association. In other words, very little testing actually occurs because the government does not mandate this testing, and potentially hazardous ingredients can slip through the cracks. There is also no financial incentive for the cosmetic industry to raise questions about the safety of its own products.

Contamination with 1,4 dioxane is shockingly widespread. It is found in:

• 97% of hair relaxers
• 82% of hair dyes and bleaching
• 66% of hair removers
• 57% of baby soap
• 45% of sunless tanning products
• 43% of body firming lotion
• 36% of hormonal creams
• 36% of facial moisturizers
• 35% of anti-aging products
• 34% of body lotion
• 33% of around-eye creams

Recent laboratory tests "revealed the presence of 1,4-Dioxane in products such as Hello Kitty Bubble Bath, Huggies Baby Wash, Johnson's Baby Wash, Scooby-Doo Bubble Bath and Sesame Street Bubble Bath. The tests also found the carcinogen in Clairol Herbal Essences Shampoo, Olay Complete Body Wash and many other personal care products," according to a Feb. 2007 EWG press release.

The FDA has been measuring 1,4-dioxane levels since 1979, but because the agency has little authority or enforcement capacity over the cosmetics industry, it has worked with manufacturers to reduce levels on a voluntary basis only.

"Regrettably, 1,4-Dioxane contamination is just the tip of the iceberg," said Jeanne Rizzo, R.N., executive director of the Breast Cancer Fund which is a founding member of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. "Because the FDA does not require cosmetics products to be approved as safe before they are sold, companies can put unlimited amounts of toxic chemicals in cosmetics."

I strongly recommend that consumers choose products free of these chemicals and impurities. To avoid 1,4-dioxane, read the ingredients and avoid any of the 56 cosmetic ingredients that can contain the contaminant, including "sodium laureth sulfate" and ingredients whose names include "PEG," "xynol," "ceteareth," and "oleth."

Be sure to listen to the full press conference of this groundbreaking announcement at: http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Po…

Straight talk: the Health Ranger's opinion on all this
Let's be honest here: Many of the so-called "organic" product companies are frauds. They put the word "organic" or "natural" in their company name or product names, but in reality, they're using cheap, low-grade, contaminated ingredients that actually promote cancer. These companies should be ashamed of their behavior.

I urge NaturalNews readers to boycott the companies whose products were found to be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane. When these companies apologize for their behavior, recall their products, and reformulate their products to be free of this cancer-causing chemical, then we can lift the boycott on their products. But for now, I urge all NaturalNews readers to boycott the Jason brand of products, Earth Friendly Products, Alba, Method, Giovanni and even Nutribiotic (which is a company that makes other products I fully support, actually). These companies need to clean up their act and eliminate 1,4-dioxane from their consumer products.

There is no excuse for putting "natural" products on the market that are contaminated with 1,4-dioxane. These companies have been caught like Gov. Spitzer, except that their products are screwing everybody! They need to apologize, announce programs to eliminate 1,4-dioxane, and work to regain consumer trust. Until they are willing to do that, I say avoid their products.

In the mean time, use the soap I've always recommended: Dr. Bronner's. There no soap more honest, pure and natural. Dr. Bronner's has remained on the top of my list of recommended products for years, and as these recent test results show, Dr. Bronner's soap is not contaminated with 1,4-dioxane.

Categories
Featured Articles

The Bitter Side of a Sweet Treat: Giving Candy to Kids may Lead to Violent Crimes

by: Elizabeth Walling

(NaturalNews) Most parents are aware that too much refined sugar isn't good for their kids. Now a new study indicates that children who are given sweets on a daily basis are more likely to end up as violent adults. The Welsh study, published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, examined data on more than 17,000 children born in April of 1970. The data was derived from the British Cohort Study, which provided detailed information about the participants at points throughout their childhood and adulthood.

When questioned at age 34, there were 35 participants who reported being convicted of a violent crime. Out of these, 69 percent reported eating candy daily as a child, while 42 participants without a history of violence reported consuming daily sweets as children. These statistics occur after accounting for factors such as gender, education, family income and parenting styles.

Researchers, however, are not entirely sure how to interpret the results of this preliminary study. Study author Simon Moore, a senior lecturer in the Violence and Society Research Group at Cardiff University in Wales, says sugar is not entirely to blame. Children who receive sugary treats every day may not learn to delay gratification and could develop poor impulse control. These traits are linked to delinquency later in life.

"We think that it is more to do with the way that sweets are given to children rather than the sweets themselves. Using sweets to quiet noisy children might just reinforce problems for later in life," adds Moore.

Experts like Melinda Johnson, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association, agree that the study doesn't prove sugar is the true cause behind violence in adulthood. She says the children in the study may have experienced violence at home, and suggests the possibility that children who receive candy on a daily basis may suffer from poor overall nutrition.

In fact, Simon Moore discovered the link between childhood nutrition and adult behavior before he participated in this study. "Kids with the worst problems tend to be impulsive risk takers, and these kids had terrible diets – breakfast was a Coke and a bag of chips."

We know that sugar weakens the immune system in children and also prevents some nutrients from being properly utilized, which means limiting refined sugar is a definite part of providing children with a nutritious diet. But in response to the results of this study, Moore is quoted saying, "It's not fair to blame it on the candy."

Not fair to whom? Since its doubtful candy itself will suffer hurt feelings, perhaps this means it would be unfair to the commercialized food industry if suddenly parents stopped buying sodas, fruit drinks, sugary cereals, cookies and candy to pacify their children in an effort to prevent violent behavior. The effect would likely be profound, as you could imagine.

Would it solve all violence issues? Of course not. We know that sugar is not to blame for all of our problems, but if the use of refined sugar was greatly reduced in our society we would notice two things: first, a broad improvement in behavior and health in both children and adults. And secondly, commercial food companies would notice their fat wallets slimming down considerably. Neither the food or pharmaceutical industries are quite ready for an outcome such as this, so the real effects of refined sugar on children continues to be played down by experts of the industry.

Admittedly, the study in question is far from extensive and can't be considered a clear conviction against sugar. What we can infer from this study is that when parents take a more conscientious approach toward their children when it comes to food, it can have a positive effect on the lives and future of their children. Nutrition is not the only important aspect of raising children, but good nutrition is a solid foundation which parents can build upon to help their children grow into productive, mindful adults.

Categories
The Best Years In Life

Breast Cancer Deception Month: Hiding the Truth Beneath a Sea of Pink, Part III

by: Tony Isaacs

(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, see;
http://www.aacr.org/home/public–me…

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.

Categories
Ask Utopia Silver

Chemotherapy

Q:
Dear Utopia Silver,
Should I discontinue use of colloidal silver externally and internally while receiving brain radiation for prevention of small cell lung cancer spreading to brain?  This is an urgent question.  I have been using [silver] to control Candida, and cellulitis and lower limb skin problems due to type 2 diabetes (non-insulin use). The help for the neuropathy has been very good; open ulcers have healed, and some bad discoloration has decreased, with just a few weeks of treatment.

Eva
A:
Hi Eva,
I talked to our naturopathic consultant and he says there are no contra-indications involving silver and radiation that he is aware of. Silver is simply a mineral nutrient and is ingested in very minute’ (20 ppm) quantities in the form of colloidal silver. He did suggest reading the following articles and think they may be of tremendous benefit to you.

Selenium- http://silverbulletin.utopiasilver.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=730&Itemid=5

Chromium- http://silverbulletin.utopiasilver.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=565&Itemid=5

IP6/Inositol- http://silverbulletin.utopiasilver.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=459&Itemid=5

Ben in Utopia

Categories
Ask Utopia Silver

Bladder Infections

Q:
Hi Utopia,
Which one of your products should I start with? I am prone to bladder infections.  I have to use intermitten catheters.  Does Colloidal Silver cause diarrhea?  Thanks

Ben in Texas

A:
Hi Ben,
For that I would use the Advanced Colloidal Silver, a primarily particle silver. If larger quantities are used, it can cause a generally mild diarrhea.

For more information on the use of silver.
http://utopiasilver.com/laymansguide.htm
http://utopiasilver.com/faq/index.htm
http://utopiasilver.com/vaccineprotocol.htm

Ben in Utopia

Categories
Customer Testimonials

Sam and Family in Pennsylvania

Hi Utopia,
I love the LIQUID LIFE product and my family and I use about six bottles a month.

Thank You
Sam and family in Pennsylvania

Categories
Customer Testimonials

Eileen

Colloidal Silver is GREAT for periodontitis. Your Colloidal Silver is FANTASTIC for periodontitis. Swishing a capful thoroughly for a few minutes kills germs and bacteria wonderfully, without the burning of alcohol rinses. Also LOVE how good skin feels after using this soap (Utopia Naturals Skin Therapy Soap).

Eileen

Categories
Featured Articles

Obama’s 1- World Government

by Chuck Norris

Halloween just got scarier – much scarier.
I'm not talking about a new Hollywood slasher film or a new line of grotesque costumes, but a possible political nightmare scenario in which the White House could be positioned to sell out U.S. sovereignty, shred the Constitution and leave you and yours to the whims of foreign powers.

Flying deep under Washington's radar is an upcoming (December) global climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, under the guise of the "United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change." Virtually nothing has been said about it from the White House. But then again, I'm sure they think, who could be against working together for climate change? It all sounds pretty politically benign, doesn't it?

"Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change"
Not according to Lord Christopher Monckton, once science policy adviser to Lady Margaret Thatcher, who read the treaty and said the Copenhagen conference is a cover for the beginnings of a one-world government. Monckton spoke to the Minnesota Free Market Institute in St. Paul, Minn.:

I have read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word "government" actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, "climate debt" – because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. And we've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement. How many of you think the word "election," or "democracy" or "vote," or "ballot" occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn't appear once.

Monckton then warned, if Obama signs the treaty, he would be flushing U.S. sovereignty down the global toilet. He cautioned, "But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever – and neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect would have any power whatsoever to take it back again."

Monckton further pointed out that, even though ratification of our president's signature on that treaty would take a 67 supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate, it could pass a simple majority as an amendment to the cap-and-trade bill.

Politifact.com (as well as many Left-leaning blogs) quickly criticized Monckton's conclusions as conspiratorial and climate-skepticism rhetoric, based upon the notion that the treaty is a draft and not a finalized document. But the apologetic of Politifact.com leaves the impression that the current draft is the roughest of cuts, when in reality it is the result of seven sessions of deliberations and revisions from several subgroups, including representatives from developed and developing countries ("parties"), "with a view to modifying it in the direction of consolidation and convergence."
(Column continues below)

Like with Congress' drafts of Obamacare, should we not be concerned because the current draft of the treaty may not be the final version, especially when the present language smacks of an abandonment of the principles upon which our republic was founded? As I myself read through the latest draft of the 181-page treaty, I noticed many lines that could warrant Monckton's and others' concerns (I've added italics for emphasis):

PP.6 Intending to renew and strengthen the global partnership through the creation of new levels of cooperation among Parties, according to the principles of the Convention. (Page 6)

PP.7 Affirming a Shared Vision of a long-term goal to equitably, successfully and coherently integrate the ambitious efforts of all Parties. (Page 6)

PP.8 Recognizing that sustainable development is the first priority for developing countries. Therefore, that our commitment to a low carbon society would have to be linked to our development priorities, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. (Page 6)

PP.13 Recognizing that current and potential climate change impacts require a shift in the global investment patterns and that criteria for financing allocation shall clearly respond to the priorities identified by the international community, with climate change stabilization being one of these priorities. (Page 6)

10. Led by developed country Parties, an economic transition is needed that shifts in order to adjust global economic growth patterns towards a sustainable low-emission economy … (Page 8)

20. In order to fulfill this shared vision, Parties have agreed to establish a coherent, cohesive and integrated system of financial and technology transfer mechanisms under the Convention and a follow up/compliance mechanism. (Page 10)

… ensuring that global crises, such as the financial crisis, should not constitute an obstacle to the provision of financial and technical assistance to developing countries in accordance with the Convention. (Page 11 – Please read that one again!)

… all developed country Parties should then be increased to achieve the global goal without the contribution of developing country Parties. (Page 13)

36. The new agreed post-2012 institutional arrangement and legal framework to be established for the implementation, monitoring, reporting and verification of the global cooperative action for mitigation, adaptation, technology and financing, should be set under the Convention. It should include a financial mechanism and a facilitative mechanism drawn up to facilitate the design, adoption and carrying out of public policies, as the prevailing instrument, to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate, in order to assure the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention. (Page 18)

37. The new institutional arrangement will provide technical and financial support for developing countries in the following areas: (a) preparation, implementation and follow-up through monitoring, reporting and verification of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) by developing countries. These activities could include options to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD); (b) preparation, implementation and follow-up of national adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs) or national communications in developing countries; (c) technology needs assessments (TNAs) for adaptation and mitigation under the NAMAs and the NAPAs or national communications of developing countries; (d) capacity-building and enabling environments for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries; (e) education, awareness raising and public participation, focused on youth, women and indigenous peoples; (f) design and implementation of adaptation programmes and projects; (g) support for all technological cycle phases: research and development (R&D), diffusion and transfer, including acquisition of technologies for adaptation and mitigation, including the purchase or flexibility of patents. (Page 18)

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following … (Page 18)

52. Particular effort should be taken to enhance cooperation amongst intergovernmental organizations. (Page 47)

28. A global fund shall be established to support a global feed-in tariff programme, providing guaranteed purchase prices, over and above the retail energy price in developing countries. … The Global Fund shall aim at both inducing a shift to renewable energy without compromising development momentum in developing countries, and achieving economies of scale and a sustained reduction in the costs of generating renewable energy. (Page 138)

29. A special fund shall be established: (a) For the economic and social consequences of response measures … (b) To assist countries whose economies are highly dependent on income generated from the production, processing and export, and/or on consumption of fossil fuels … (Page 138)

That last point (No. 29) is one of the most shocking. Not only are developed countries (like the U.S.) mandated in this treaty to provide for developing countries despite global or financial crises (p. 11). After becoming the wealthiest nations on the planet from the production and sale of oil, like those in the Middle East, this global governing body will establish a "special fund" to give them financial aid when the world is no longer dependent upon their commodities! Are they kidding?!
Now, if that isn't one powerful intergovernmental or global-governmental group overseeing and manipulating ours and others economic and political conditions, I don't know what is. Even if some of Lord Christopher Monckton's claims about the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are overstated, concerns about the extent of this body's political power and global economic sway are no more conspiratorial than the concern for Al Gore's comments in July (2009) at Oxford that change will be driven through "global governance."

And does anyone doubt that our president, as a Nobel peace laureate who believes he can negotiate with terrorists and dictators, has a global desire for international coalescence? Or should it not concern us that at the G-20 conference he would push world leaders to reshape the global economy? If he is already selling our nation to communist countries like China via our skyrocketing national debt, how much more difficult would it be to progressively replace the tenets of our Constitution with principles of "The Communist Manifesto"? Have we already started?

I've been so flabbergasted lately by Washington's abandonment of our founder's vision and principles that I expanded (to more than 300 pages) the new paperback version of my No. 14 New York Times best-seller, "Black Belt Patriotism" (available in Jan. 2010). It includes new materials in every chapter explaining how, in just one year, the Obama administration has progressively dismantled our Constitution, buried our economy, forsaken our posterity, disintegrated our borders, abandoned our godly heritage, impaled the traditional family and crippled America's health and future. (Amended are also copies of the Ten Commandments, the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.)

One thing is certain: Obama wasn't kidding on the campaign trail when he said it's time for the U.S. to "turn the page" on its trivial culture wars. But who knew just how many pages he would be turning, even in his first year in office? Who knew he would actually swap the play books?
But then again, I'm sure the White House just thinks I've been watching too much Fox News

Categories
The Best Years In Life

Breast Cancer Deception Month: Hiding the Truth Beneath a Sea of Pink, Part II

by: Tony Isaacs

(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."

Source: http://tampa.creativeloafing.com/gy…

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-Profit

If 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 "chemoprevention" 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, see:
http://www.muckety.com/8902C522F22B…

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.