Month: October 2009

by: Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) In working to protect the business interests of vaccine manufactures, both the FDA and FTC have declared all-out war against any products that might offer consumers options other than vaccines. This week, that war against natural remedies reached the shores of Dr. Andrew Weil, who is perhaps the best-known alternative medicine doctor in America. In an intimidating, threatening letter jointly issued by the FTC and the FDA, these rogue government agencies threatened Dr. Weil with criminal prosecution for making true statements about his immune-boosting formula such as, "Astragalus … is … used traditionally to ward off colds and flu, and has demonstrated both antiviral and immune-boosting effects in scientific investigation."

This statement, although scientifically valid and true, is a threat to the profits of the vaccine industry, and so Dr. Weil's company is being targeted by the FTC / FDA vaccine racket tag-team for termination.

You can review the FTC threats against Dr. Weil on the FTC's own website: http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Enforcemen…

Some of the threats leveled against Dr. Weil by the FTC include:

• Forcing Dr. Weil's company to refund ALL customers who purchased his immune support formula. (For no apparent reason other than to burden his company with such costs.)

• Subjecting Dr. Weil's company with "legal action in the form of a Federal District Court injunction or Administrative Order."

• Gunpoint seizure of ALL of Dr. Weil's nutritional products: "If your firm fails to take corrective action immediately, FDA may take enforcement action, such as seizure or injunction for violations of the FFDC Act without further notice."

• Subjecting Dr. Weil and his company to criminal prosecution: "Firms that fail to take corrective action may also be referred to FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations for possible criminal prosecution for violations of the FFDC Act and other federal laws."

• Adding Dr. Weil's company to a list of companies that have been found in "violation" of the FFDC Act.

These threats are signed by the top fearmongers running the censorship racket at both the FTC and FDA:

Mary K. Engle
Associate Director, Division of Advertising Practices
Federal Trade Commission

Roberta F. Wagner
Director, Office of Compliance
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Food and Drug Administration

Do you now see what a criminal racket the vaccine industry is running in America by invoking these tactics of tyranny? This is the kind of thing you might expect to see in China, where government officials arrest Falun Gong members who attempt to meditate in public, but you wouldn't think that in the United States of America — "Land of the Free" — you'd be threatened with arrest and financial ruin for simply telling the truth about a powerful herb with scientifically-validated medicinal properties.

The FTC's dangerous double standard
This FTC / FDA letter claims Dr. Weil has been promoting his immune-boosting formula "…without rigorous scientific evidence sufficient to substantiate the claims."

This might be taken with some level of seriousness if, in fact, the vaccine makers had any such evidence to substantiate their own claims that flu vaccines work at all. But as NaturalNews readers have already learned, flu vaccines are a scientific hoax lacking any honest evidence that they actually work. In fact, all the evidence points to the reality that they don't work. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027239_v…)

The FTC, you see, applies a completely different standard of proof against dietary supplements than to vaccines. According to FTC staff, "…the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. SS 41 et seq., requires that claims that a dietary supplement can prevent, treat, or cure human infection with the H1N1 virus, must be supported by well-controlled human clinical studies at the time the claims are made."

And yet, at the same time, there are no well-controlled human clinical studies backing the efficacy of vaccines. They simply don't exist.

Thus, vaccines can be approved based on wishful thinking while dietary supplements must be subjected to "rigorous scientific study."

Enslaved by the medical regime
How is that fair? It isn't. The game is rigged from the start to allow drugs and vaccines to be sold based on the flimsiest of evidence while natural remedies are routinely suppressed by holding them to an impossible standard.

This is similar to the way in which blacks were prevented from voting in America throughout the 20th century. The people who controlled the voting booths would issue "IQ tests" to anyone who tried to vote. The tests were rigged to fail all blacks while allowing whites to easily pass (and therefore vote).

The whole system was rigged from the start to create the illusion of fairness even though the outcome had already been pre-decided. This same brand of racism is now operating in modern medicine, except it's drugism instead of racism. But the outcome has already been decided by the FDA just the same: All natural products will be denied, while all vaccines will be approved. This is how the system is rigged.

Just so you understand how ludicrous this is, what the FTC / FDA tag-team is saying is that herbs, superfoods and other natural substances that are naturally biocompatible with your body are, in essence, guilty until proven innocent. Meanwhile vaccines made in a lab with synthetic chemicals, mercury derivatives and DNA fragments from diseased animals are considered safe and effective by default, even in the absence of any real science. Do you see how twisted and dangerous this whole system has become?

Censoring true statements to silence natural health proponents
Both the FTC and FDA have a long history of using tactics of extreme intimidation in an attempt to censor people who provide natural remedies that compete with sales of pharmaceuticals. When a doctor can't even make a true scientific statement about the medicinal properties of an herb without being threatened by the FTC, it's a sure sign that what was supposed to be a regulatory agency has now become a criminal racket serving the interests of Big Pharma.

Here's one statement the FTC / FDA letter "accuses" Dr. Weil of making: "Astragalus … is … used traditionally to ward off colds and flu, and has demonstrated both antiviral and immune-boosting effects in scientific investigation."

Is there anything false in that statement? Anything misleading? Not in the least. It's a statement backed by reality. Astragalus does, indeed, have powerful antiviral and immune-boosting properties. It works better than vaccines, in fact, at protecting people from the flu. See a long list of supporting statements from experts on this very topic right here: (http://www.naturalnews.com/027302_a…)

And yet for daring to make this simple, true statement on the internet, Dr. Weil has been threatened by the FTC with criminal prosecution. Our own U.S. government has threatened to arrest him, destroy his business, criminally prosecute him, confiscate his products, financially ruin his company and add him to a list of "violators." That sounds more like Nazi Germany than America, doesn't it? Yet it's happening in America right now.

What other "crimes" has Dr. Weil committed? He dared to make a second true statement about astragalus:

"The synergistic combination of immune modulators [found in the Immune Support Formula] is especially useful for those who tend to get every bug that goes around during the winter."

Once again, another true statement. It's like saying "vitamin C boosts immune function," or "vitamin D helps prevent cancer." Both are true statements, but both have been outlawed in America by the FTC racket. The truth, simply put, has been outlawed in America (and in Europe, too, for the most part. This censorship of natural remedies is global…)

FTC / FDA thugs and crimes against humanity
If you really think about what's going on here with the FTC / FDA intimidation tactics, you realize that if a pandemic really does start to kill people, it is these FTC / FDA bureaucrats who will have blood on their hands.

Why? Because even in a time when prescription anti-virals don't work, and vaccines are in short supply (and don't work anyway), these government thugs are running around silencing and intimidating the very people offering real solutions for immune system protection. When the virus mutates, rendering the vaccines worthless, and the anti-virals are long gone, how are Americans supposed to protect themselves against a pandemic virus? The FTC and FDA have made certain that all available "natural" options have been eliminated! Hospitals have been instructed to turn people away. The CDC has instructed states to stop tracking the H1N1 swine flu altogether.

In other words, these health authorities are hanging the American people out to dry. They're betraying the very people they claim to serve.

Should a pandemic unfold that really starts to kill a large number of people, these two agencies will be directly contributing to the deaths of people who could have been saved by natural remedies like Astragalus, or Reishi mushrooms, or Vitamin D, or other nutritional products. And while you may not call that murder, it is precisely the definition of negligent homicide. FTC and FDA officials are killing Americans with their continued assault on natural medicine that saves lives. I call it a crime against humanity.

And they're doing it for one reason: To protect a corrupt, quack-science vaccine industry whose products were only approved via fraud, in direct violation of U.S. law (http://www.naturalnews.com/027258_v…).

The "protection" racket — it's all for your protection
To hear them say it, though, they're "protecting" people:

"FDA is taking urgent measures to protect consumers from products that, without approval or authorization by FDA, claim to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat or cure H1N1 Flu Virus in people."

At the same time, of course, the only products that receive approval from the FDA are vaccines and prescription medications. The FDA's official position is that there is no such thing as any herb, any plant, any nutrient or any dietary supplement that has any beneficial effect on the human body. As ridiculous as this sounds, it is precisely the current position of the FDA! Thus, no herb, plant, nutrient or supplement can EVER be approved by the FDA to protect against influenza.

As you've figured out, the whole game is rigged from the start. Herbs that have anti-viral properties will never be approved as anti-virals. And, frankly, for the people running natural product companies to try to play the "FDA game" is useless. You can never appease tyranny. Trying to "conform" to the requirements of the FDA and FTC is like Jewish prisoners trying to conform to the wishes of Hitler. You've been condemned from the start! Stop playing their game… stop bowing down to the false authority of the FTC and FDA. Only a handful of health product companies like Daniel Chapter One have demonstrated the courage to fight tyranny and take a stand for health freedom (http://www.naturalnews.com/026970_h…).

The FDA isn't interested in what works to stop the flu. It's is only interested in propping up the quack profits of one industry at any cost. And one day, that cost may be extracted in terms of dead Americans who could have been saved with natural remedies like Dr. Weil's immune support product.

And that, my friends, is what makes the FDA a criminal racket. It is being operated today as a blatant criminal enterprise that directly contributes to the suffering and death of the American people. These bureaucrats would rather see helpless victims die than lose a dollar of profit for Big Pharma. They have sold out the American people for the almighty dollar. Truth be damned.

It's time to end this medical police state

When true statements about botany are outlawed, and the only statements allowed to be made about H1N1 flu protection are based on profit-driven lies, and the very leaders who try to help the People (like Dr. Weil) are threatened with being arrested as criminals and having their companies shut down at gunpoint, that's when you know you live in a "1984"-style medical police state.

In American medicine today, you don't live in a free society. You don't have a free choice about medicine. You are given the false choice of which vaccine to take: Nasal or Injection. That's the choice you've been given. All other options (anti-viral herbs, homeopathy, vitamin D, etc.) are being eliminated "for your protection."

For all those who voted for Obama, by the way, keep in mind this criminal FDA racket continues to operate in full swing under the Obama administration, just as it did under the Bush Administration. Sadly, Obama has done absolutely nothing to halt the tyranny against natural product companies. In fact, under Obama, this action has been accelerated by the FTC and FDA. It's worse now than ever before, and with Big Government getting even bigger — and more lawmakers calling for increased FDA funding — this problem is only bound to get worse.

The U.S. Justice Department recently nailed Pfizer with a $1.3 billion criminal fine after prosecuting the company for paying kickbacks to doctors and committing marketing fraud (http://www.naturalnews.com/027276_P…). My only question is: When will the Justice Department investigate and prosecute the criminals at the FDA and FTC who are putting the lives of Americans at risk by destroying the natural product industry precisely as we face a global pandemic?

by: David Gutierrez

(NaturalNews) The pesticides used in industrial agriculture may eventually undermine its very existence by destroying the honeybees upon which the system depends, experts are warning.

"When I was teaching at Humboldt State University in northern California 20 years ago, I invited a beekeeper to talk to my students," wrote former Environmental Protection Agency analyst Evaggelos Vallianatos on the Web site Truthout.org. "He said that each time he took his bees to southern California to pollinate other farmers' crops, he would lose a third of his bees to sprays. In 2009, the loss ranges all the way to 60 percent."

Honeybees are responsible for pollinating more than 90 crops in the United States, for a total value of $15 billion per year in 2007 alone. Yet in the last 20 years, overall honeybee numbers have declined by 30 percent. The population collapse is so severe that U.S. agriculture now depends upon imported bees for pollination.

One of the primary culprits in this collapse is agricultural insecticides, to which bees are exposed every time beekeepers release them to pollinate a non-organic field. According to bee experts, insecticides are well known to cause brain damage and disorientation to bees, sometimes making it impossible for them to navigate back to the hive.

The hallmark feature of colony collapse disorder is hives entirely or almost entirely abandoned by their bees.

According to entomologist Carl Johansen of Washington State University-Pullman, "the most destructive bee poisoning insecticide ever developed" is a time-release chemical microcapsule known as methyl parathion.

Methyl parathion was first developed as a nerve gas by the Nazi company IG Farben in the 1940s. In its time-release formulation, it slowly releases poison gas over the course of several days. Bees that visit plants treated with the insecticide can bring back the still-releasing capsules to their hives, poisoning an entire colony.

It's not just the bees that suffer. Parathion also contaminates the honey produced by these bees, entering the human food supply.

Nevertheless, beekeepers regularly recycle the wax from parathion-contaminated hives, and sell the poisonous honey to the public.

by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) Everywhere you turn these days, drug companies are attempting to associate diseases with viruses as a preamble for a future vaccine push. For the last few years, Pharma-friendly researchers have been claiming prostate cancer might be caused by Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus (XMLV) because they've discovered such viruses in prostate cancer tumors.

Similarly, there was a recent push to claim that Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was caused by a virus for the same reason: CFS sufferers seem to have higher counts of the virus than healthy people. But as recently published in a NaturalNews article (http://www.naturalnews.com/027248_d…), it makes more sense that this viral count is a side effect of CFS than a root cause. (Unless, of course, a strange virus was introduced via a vaccine, which is one vector through which such a condition could have been forced onto victims.)

No link between XMRV and prostate cancer

Now, new research published in the journal Retrovirology which looked at the presence of the virus in 589 prostate cancer patients reveals that there is no link between XMRV and prostate cancer. Out of the 589 prostate cancer patients studied, DNA or RNA fragments of XMRV viruses were found in exactly zero patients.

None of the patients even had antibodies for XMRV.

This research reveals quite conclusively that XMRV is not "the" cause of prostate cancer. Obviously, prostate cancer can exist entirely without the presence of XMRV. This doesn't mean, of course, that XMRV doesn't contribute to cancer in some way in those patients where it shows a presence, but it does prove that XMRV is not a requirement for prostate cancer.

As with CFS, the more likely explanation here seems to be that XMRV is only found in prostate cancer patients because cancer is a disease that grows out of control in a suppressed immune system environment. The same immune system that fails to keep cancer in check is also likely to be a poor defender against invading viruses.

As a metaphor, consider this: Paramedics see blood at most traffic accidents. But do they leap to the conclusion that traffic accidents are caused by blood? Of course not. That would be silly.

The presence of blood is simply an unfortunate side effect of the root cause (someone driving on medications, perhaps). So why do prostate cancer researchers leap to the conclusion that the mere presence of a virus in cancer tumors describes a causal relationship between the two? It's an unscientific leap of logic that simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny. And this new German study provides yet more evidence calling into question any such link between XMRV and prostate cancer.

There is a much more horrible situation now.  The F.D.A. has been involved in a cover-up with industry to suppress public knowledge that deadly melamine is contaminating about 90% of all infant formulas.  One of its many side-effects is kidney failure, which can happen weeks or years later.  It is yet another example of poison coming from China combined with the greed of the chemical industry.  It is used by the Chinese to give bogus positive test results for the amount of milk protein in a product.  The Associated Press uncovered through a Freedom Of Information Act request that the F.D.A. actually had conference calls with infant formula manufacturers to discuss the public relations strategy for marketing melamine contaminated products, without notifying the public about them, of course.

It is easy to predict what will happen to children who eventually die of melamine exposure.  The clueless doctors will confidently proclaim that the children's deaths were obviously the result of a "genetic disorder", since they will not actually be able to explain anything about what happened, or be willing to admit it.  "Genetic Disorder" is the new code phrase for, "We do not know what killed that person, and it might have been us, so we'll just blame their DNA.".

Whenever we visit Walmart, we purchase natural spring water. Last night, we realized that not only did they not have spring water remaining, but the area was filled with 'Nursery' brand water. We almost bought it, realizing that it was steam distilled. Just before we placed it into the shopping cart, we saw upon it a notice which advertised, "With Added Fluoride". They were bold enough to boast about it.

Even the American Dental Association (A.D.A.) warns that bottled water with added fluoride may be harmful to infants, and they now advise parents and guardians against giving to infants, or using it in their food. What makes this all the more telling is that the A.D.A. is the nation's leading fluoride advocate. When I visited the ADA website, I found that they are concerned that children are getting too much fluoride.

"The ADA offers these recommendations so parents, caregivers and health care professionals who are concerned have some simple and effective ways to reduce fluoride intake from reconstituted infant formula. If liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula is the primary source of nutrition, it can be mixed with water that is fluoride free or contains low levels of fluoride to reduce the risk of fluorosis."

In fact, even the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) admits that there are no reasons to add fluoride to the water of infants, because it cannot decrease the risk of cavities in non-existent teeth. Moreover, there has never even been evidence that ingested fluoride can aid anything. On top of this, the product is given to children before they develop teeth, so the fluoride is all deposited into the bones where it is damaging. The effects of fluoride upon bones throughout the body have been dismissed by governmental agencies, and the results of independent studies have been conveniently discarded by the A.D.A. and F.D.A.. This is how the science of fluoridation operates. They ignore the fact that no studies have proven it to have any use when ingested, and they ignore 70 years of studies that prove it to be harmful. In fact, the same fluoride put into water supplies would be treated as toxic waste by the E.P.A. if it were spilled on the ground. Studies actually show either no relationship, or an inverse relationship between ingested fluoride and cavities. This means that either the fluoride does nothing, or it actually makes cavities more likely with populations ingesting it. If all of this is a little difficult to swallow (pardon the pun), then you are encouraged to review the governmental statistics yourself.

The website of Nursery fluorinated water absurdly claims that this toxin laced water can help prevent damage to the teeth "before the teeth appear", and the F.D.A. has done nothing to stop these ridiculous medical claims. The Lancet review described fluoride as an "emerging neurotoxic substance" due to evidence linking fluoride to lower IQs in children, and brain damage in animals. Please consider this before purchasing fluorinated water. If ingested fluoride really did prevent cavities, would you rather risk cavities for those non-existent baby teeth, or brain damage for your child?

This water is assumed to be safer than tap water by many consumers, but it includes the most dangerous substance found in tap water, and in greater concentrations. Fluoride embeds into and attacks the growing bones, causing a condition known as fluorosis. Please take the time to read through some of the links below.

Note: Most water filters do not remove fluoride.

By Tony Isaacs

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 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.

The Founding of Breast Cancer Awareness Month

Most people are unaware that the BCAM idea was conceived and paid for by the British chemical company Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), a company that both profited from the ever-growing cancer epidemic and contributed to its causes.  The American subsidiary of Imperial Chemical Industries, ICI/Astra-Zeneca manufactures tamoxifen, the world's top-selling cancer drug used for breast cancer. ICI itself is in the business of manufacturing and selling synthetic chemicals and is one of the world’s largest producers and users of chlorine.

Although BCAM was co-founded along with two non-profit organizations and some big name companies were quick to associate with BCAM, for the first several years, BCAM's bills were paid by ICI’s Zeneca Pharmaceuticals.  
As the controlling sponsor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM), Zeneca was able to approve—or veto—any promotional or informational materials, posters, advertisements, etc. that BCAM uses. The focus is strictly limited to information regarding early detection and treatment, avoiding the topic of prevention and the role toxins may play.  A further look at the major players in breast cancer awareness may give plenty of insight as to why a growing number of critics are asking why such is the case.

Take Zeneca for example, which later merged into Astra-Zeneca and in 2008, ICI/Astra-Zeneca changed its name to AzkoNobel and reported annual sales of over 22 Billion Dollars.  ICI has long been among the world’s largest manufacturers of pesticides, plastics, and pharmaceuticals. Its Perry, Ohio, chemical plant was once identified as the third-largest source of potential cancer-causing pollution in the United States, releasing 53,000 pounds of recognized carcinogens into the air in 1996.

After Zeneca acquired the Salick chain of cancer treatment centers in 1997 and then merged with the Swedish pharmaceutical company Astra to form AstraZeneca, creating the world's third-largest drug concern, Dr. Samuel Epstein, a professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health stated, “This is a conflict of interest unparalleled in the history of American medicine.”

“You've got a company that's a spinoff of one of the world's biggest manufacturers of carcinogenic chemicals, they've got control of breast cancer treatment, they've got control of the chemoprevention [studies], and now they have control of cancer treatment in eleven centers-which are clearly going to be prescribing the drugs they manufacture."

The breakdown of $14 Billion in profits for ICI in 1997 was 49 percent from pesticides and other industrial chemicals, another 49 percent from pharmaceutical sales, and the remaining 2 percent from health care services including 11 cancer treatment centers. Zeneca’s herbicide acetochlor, which is classified by the EPA as a "probable human carcinogen", and which AstraZeneca sold until a corporate reorganization in 2000, accounted for around $300 million in sales in 1997. Their product tamoxifen citrate (Nolvadex) accounted for $500 million in 1997 sales. Cancer prevention would clearly conflict with Zeneca’s business plan.

Quickly jumping onboard the tamoxifen bandwagon was the National Cancer Institute, which announced in April 1998 that breast cancer could be ‘prevented’ by treating women continuously with a powerful drug called tamoxifen. The New York Times editorialized on April 8th that treating women with tamoxifen is a ‘breast cancer breakthrough.’ However, The Times acknowledged that treating 1,000 women with tamoxifen for five years would prevent 17 breast cancers but would cause an additional 12 cases of endometrial cancer and 20 cases of serious blood clots in the same 1,000 women.

As recent studies have shown, the risks implied in those less-than breakthrough figures were vastly understated.  Last month, Natural News reported a study just published in Cancer Research which concluded that long-term use of tamoxifen increases the risk of getting aggressive cancer in the other breast by 440 percent.

See:

http://www.naturalnews.com/027123_cancer_Tamoxifen_brst_cancer.html

Other large corporations which contribute to breast cancer awareness also have a vested interest in breast cancer. General Electric sells upwards of $100 million annually in mammography machines.  General Electric has also been a major polluter of carcinogenic PCBs in the Hudson River. An estimated million pounds of PCBs lie buried at the bottom of a 40-mile stretch of the Hudson, where GE dumped PCB oil until the mid-1970s, contaminating the entire 200-mile length of the river below Hudson Falls

DuPont, another huge chemical company and major polluter, supplies much of the film used in mammography machines. Both DuPont and GE aggressively promote mammography screening of women in their 40s, despite the risk of its contributing to breast cancer in that age group. And while biotech giant Monsanto sponsors Breast Cancer Awareness Month’s high profile event, the Race for the Cure, it continues to profit from the production of many known carcinogens.

Another large player is Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), with their Tour of Hope and promotions such as 10 cent donations for drug store sales of selected BMS products.  BMS is also the manufacturer of Taxol (under the trade name of Paclitaxel), considered to be “the gold standard” of chemo drugs.  As Natural News reported earlier this month, the so-called “gold standard” has more than lost its luster, as was presented at 27th Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium:

"German investigators from Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena, have shown that taxol (the "gold standard of chemo") causes a massive release of cells into circulation.

"Such a release of cancer cells would result in extensive metastasis months or even years later, long after the chemo would be suspected as the cause of the spread of the cancer. This little known horror of conventional cancer treatment needs to be spread far and wide, but it is not even listed in the side effects of taxol."

See:

http://www.naturalnews.com/027028_cancer_health_cancer_cells.html

The list of corporate donors and players in Breast Cancer Awareness goes on and on, including other chemical and pharmaceutical companies, cosmetic companies, fast food restaurants, donut and cookie makers, and many more.  They all share the common traits of promoting “awareness” which does not include the role their own products play, and promoting early screening through mammograms.  Likewise, other charities and foundations – and their sponsors – have joined the pink bandwagon, and once again, they have common links of promoting early detection, primarily through mammograms, and remaining mostly silent about toxins and other environmental factors.

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;

See:

http://ww5.komen.org/breastcancer/loweryourrisk.html

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/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A3332  

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 am 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 has 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/8902C522F22BE4F05D7BB23676ADEB8B.map

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 worlds 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 benefitted those who profit from continuing the failed war on cancer while obscuring and protecting the roles of those who have caused it.

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.

See:

http://www.naturalnews.com/025170_cancer_thermograms_brst_cancer.html

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 involves 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 of which 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.

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–media/science-policy–government-affairs/advocacy-tools/federal-agencies.aspx

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 déjà 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 were air pollution, consumer exposures to carcinogens, occupational exposures, pesticides and radiation.

The Lack of Progress behind the Pink Curtain

There has been a great deal of glad handing and back slapping in recent years over what has been announced as a slight downward trend in the occurrence of breast cancer as well as annual breast cancer deaths, though black women, whose cancer rates and deaths continue to climb, likely find little solace in the announced trend.  When one peals back the veil of so-called progress, little credit can be given to the increased screenings and mammograms touted by so many of the breast cancer organizations.  Instead, most of the credit is likely due to decreased use of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT).

Further, when one subtracts the figures for DCIS, the much touted successes against breast cancer take on a complete different picture.  DCIS, which stands Ductal Carcinoma in Situ, is viewed as a stage 0 cancer, and has a cure rate of almost 100%.  At one time, DCIS was considered a pre-cancerous condition and was not included in cancer survival statistics.

Today, when we see 5 year survival figures of 96% quoted for localized breast cancers, those figures actually fall precipitously when the 60,000 annual DCIS diagnoses are removed.  A truer look at cancer survival rates would be the 77% five year survival for women whose cancer has spread locally and the dismal 5-10% five year survival rates for those whose cancers have metastasized beyond the original region.

Source: http://www.pdrhealth.com/disease/disease-mono.aspx?contentFileName=BHG01ON01.xml&contentName=Breast+Cancer&contentId=17

Though often equated as “cures”, survival of five years does not indicate that anyone has beaten cancer and will live a cancer free normal lifespan.  In fact, those who survive for five years frequently still have cancer and most of those who are cancer free can expect a return of cancer at some point in time.  The average survival time beyond five years is a mere 26 months.

Regardless of the figures quoted, breast cancer remains the number one cancer killer for Hispanic women and the number two cancer killer for Black and Anglo women.

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 other 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 permeates 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.

True Cancer Prevention and Cures

Meanwhile, while conventional funding continues down the same path of broken promises of imminent cures and breakthroughs that are just around the corner, the ways to avoid and beat cancer without harsh methods have been around for years. In particular, recent stories highlighted in Natural News have detailed how an apple a day can keep breast cancer away and how vitamin D3 is essential at warding off and beating breast cancer.

See:

“An Apple a Day Keeps Breast Cancer Away, Six Studies Conclude”
www.naturalnews.com/025685_cancer_breast_cancer_apples.html

and

“Vitamin D prevents breast cancer by Mike Adams the Health Ranger”
www.naturalnews.com/027204_cancer_Vitamin_D_brst_cancer.html

In addition, in a recent year rodent study, researchers were unable to induce breast cancer in mice given adequate iodine, while they were able to induce the cancer in every mouse in the control group.

Numerous other dietary, herbal and lifestyle changes have also proven beneficial for helping beat breast cancer and keep it at bay, yet virtually no major money is directed at such studies – because nature cannot be patented and there is little or no profit in telling someone to cleanse and avoid toxins, clean up their lifestyle, get adequate sunshine, fresh air and clean water, eat a health diet, avoid stress, etc.

For those who take the time to search, the internet abounds with real-life stories of women who have beaten breast and other cancers naturally and without the invasive and destructive therapies still employed by main stream medicine.  One of the most famous stories is that of Lorraine Day M.D. She was diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and had a lumpectomy of a small tumor. But the tumor soon recurred, became very aggressive and grew rapidly. Yet Dr. Day rejected standard therapies because of their destructive side effects and because those therapies often lead to death. She chose instead to rebuild her immune system using the natural, simple inexpensive therapies designed by God and available to everyone, so her body could heal itself.

Source: http://www.drday.com/tumor.htm

Another well known breast cancer survivor is Ann Fonfas, who now heads up the Annie Appleseed Project.

See: http://www.breasthealthproject.com/AnnFonfaInterview.html

Numerous other women have beaten their cancers with the famed Budwig flaxseed and cottage cheese protocol, with juicing such as used in the Gerson treatment method, with a highly successful oleander extract based protocol, with cesium chloride, medicinal mushroom products, Protocel and many other methods.

Yet you hear virtually nothing in the mainstream media about such successes and treatments and you will likely find few, if any, doctors who even know about such treatments, much less doctors who will ascribe to such treatments,  Again, they are not patentable, they are not approved by the powers that be, and, rather than being embraced and saving lives they are either ignored or suppressed as unwanted competition to the billions in profits from the mainstream cancer industries.

Alternative Charities and Organizations

Besides the aforementioned Breast Cancer fund, which appears to have fewer industry ties than most and actually devotes time to education about the roles of environmental toxins, other cancer organizations are out there who appear to be independent of ulterior influences and which might actually make a difference.  Along with the Breast Cancer Fund, a partial list includes:

The Independent Cancer Research Foundation – http://www.new-cancer-treatments.org/
The Annie Appleseed Project – www.annieappleseedproject.org/
The Cancer Prevention Coalition – www.preventcancer.com/  
The Breast Cancer Fund – www.breastcancerfund.org/

Conclusion

This year and other years, when we are besieged by a sea of pink merchants, charities, foundations, events, and celebrities, perhaps it is a good time to reflect back on how little progress we have made and upon the players who use cancer events and organizations to profit from cancer while hiding their contributions to its causes.

Instead of being taken in, once again, consider instead spending your money where it might make a real difference and at the same time send a message that it is past time to stop the decades of deception and failed research that has us looking at no end in sight to the horrors of breast and other cancers.

Other sources for this article included:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/05/16/mastectomies-on-the-increase.html
http://www.prn2.usm.my/mainsite/headline/health/nov2002.html
http://www.breastcancerfund.org/site/c.kwKXLdPaE/b.206137/k.9E15/State_of_the_Evidence_2008_Breast_Cancer_and_the_Environment.htm
http://www.corporations.org/cancer/boycottacs.html
http://www.safe2use.com/drsherman/life/15.htm
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-chemical-corporations-profit-off-breast-cancer
http://www.whale.to/cancer/breast6.html
http://www.preventcancer.com/patients/med_avoid/nbcam.htm
http://www.preventcancer.org/donate3c.aspx?id=3800
http://ww5.komen.org/Default.aspx
http://www.preventcancer.com/publications/pdf/Con_of_Int_030404.pdf
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/AA/content/AA_1_7_2008_Combined_Financial_Statements.asp

by Sarah Cain

Most people go to extremes ensuring a clean environment for themselves and their families.  In this quest, people tend to misguidedly trust in chemistry and their local retailers to provide them with an arsenal of tools, which supposedly will make their environment more hygienic.  While practically all of the retail products are effective, few people ever consider all of the new-age chemicals that are left behind, or how dangerous they are.  A few of the brighter people eventually figure it out, but usually only after being diagnosed with a "genetic disorder".  Some people get the hint after delivering a baby without legs.  Somehow the phrase 'buyer beware' hardly does the situation justice.

Our gym installed plug-in air fresheners designed to spray a mist of "air freshening" chemicals periodically.  One of them was attached near the ceiling, on a wall that was directly behind all of the treadmills, to ensure that those under the most physical stress, and those breathing the heaviest, would find themselves inhaling a massive blast of chemicals.  Did we mention that these things impair lung function to cause extreme shortness of breath, and potentially heart attacks?  These things are exactly what need to be placed above treadmills.

We experienced immediate difficulty in breathing when running the treadmills, despite all of us being in excellent condition.  We later experienced chest pains and other symptoms of heart problems in unison.  We decided that this madness could not continue any longer.  This article is comprised of our research efforts in pinning down the problem.

Unfortunately, the residual chemicals from common cleaning and deoderizing products often results in the accidental poisonings to the very people who were supposedly being protected.  These poisons can accumulate over a period of years, so the true causes, and the true health effects are rarely discovered.  The victims might suffer from a strange form of cancer, or they might have some new-age "disease" like "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome", and of course, there is the ever-more-popular "genetic disorders" (wink), for whenever the doctors are really confused about what happened.  Genetic disorder, by the way, is the secret code for "we're clueless".  Whatever the blame is, it will never be chemicals, because the doctors work for the chemical industry.  Their white lab coats are not mere coincidence.

Do you wish to know why your immune system is weak, why you are always fatigued, and why you and your family have all those mystery illnesses and/or "genetic" disorders; despite your best efforts?  You will find the answers in your cleaning products, your medicine cabinet, your laundry products, your foods, your "treated" water, in "healthy" products like soy, canola, margarine, and in your air fresheners.  There is so much poison, and such little lifetime to absorb them all.  It is a miraculous wonder that the average American does not live in the hospital, but plenty do.

There is an endless barrage of toxic unregulated retail chemical products ranging from Clorox wipes, to hand sanitizers and air fresheners.  The long term health consequences of these products invariably become much worse than any infection (and this includes the so-called "Swine Flu").

It is generally assumed that these products must go through rigorous safety testing before placement on store shelves, but this is not true.  The cleaning industry is practically self-regulated, which translates to not regulated.  Chemical companies do not have to go to any authoritative body before releasing the latest air freshener or cleanup wipe.  In fact, it took months for the F.D.A. to recognize and warn a major hand sanitizer company that bacteria was living inside its product.  The hand sanitizer was eventually voluntarily recalled, but only after the situation became a public relations problem for both organizations.  In other words, it was recalled due to the bad press: not because it was making people sick.

Air fresheners are thought to be even further outside the jurisdiction of regulators.  To its credit, the State of California forces labeling of ingredients that are known to cause cancer and reproductive harm, under Proposition 65, but that is the entirety of this industry's regulations.  Do not be fooled into thinking that you are safe just because your product appeared on your retailer's shelf.  To the contrary, cleaning agents are increasingly shown in studies to cause serious health problems, and it is impossible to test for truly long term problems.  Additionally "all natural" means nothing when found on products and foods, because the phrase is completely undefined by regulators.  This means that producers are legally allowed to call anything "all natural", and they do.

 

"Despite the industry’s size, it is minimally regulated, not having to meet any standards specific to their products. Air fresheners are not tested for a variety of chemicals, including phthalates, because the government does not require it."

— National Resources Defense Council

 

1,4-Dichlorobenzene (1,4,-DCB) is a chemical which can be found in the blood of 96% of Americans.  It has been linked to lung damage, is a known carcinogen, and it is actually an EPA-registered pesticide.  Studies found it to increase rates of asthma.  It can be found in the majority of air fresheners, toilet deodorizers, and mothballs.  It works by attacking the receptors in the nose, and thus eliminates the sense of smell.  This is how the new generation of air "fresheners", such as Febreze, function.  They are literally products using chemical warfare to destroy their customer's sense of smell, and thereby, this is where the illusion of "freshness" comes from.  The user only smells an air freshener for the first minute, or so, after spraying these chemicals, and then the nose cannot smell anymore.  This is not a normal adjustment to odors.  These chemicals cause intentional damage to the nose, which is claimed to be temporary.  No long term studies have been done to test the effect to one's senses with chronic exposure.  What is important to remember is that anything inhaled is immediately absorbed into the blood through the lungs.  Of course, no tests have been conducted for cancers or organ failure with extended usage.

The issues of synthetic "fragrances" have been around for years, and has led to many companies selling 'unscented' options.  These fragrances cause changes in blood flow, blood pressure, mood, and trigger migraine headaches.  A massive 72% of asthmatics cite these fragrances as a trigger in causing asthma attacks, and they have been implicated as a cause for the initial development of asthma.  Asthma rates in the United States have doubled since 1980, and the use of air fresheners has doubled, since just 2003.  Most synthetic fragrances are also known 'respiratory irritants', which means that they cause inflammation in the lungs, leading to an increased mucous production, and a greater vulnerability to other chemicals, allergens, and viruses.  Ninety-five percent of synthetic fragrances are derived from petroleum.  They include benzene and aldehydes; which are known to cause cancers, reproductive effects, and problems with the central nervous system.  These effects on the nervous system result in increased cases of Alzheimer's Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease and more.  A study from 1991 entitled, Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes, tested the effects of fragrances among test subjects.  When asthmatics were exposed to cologne for 10 minutes; their pulmonary functions dropped from 18% to a whopping 58%.  Of the 60 asthmatics that they surveyed, 57 complained of respiratory symptoms with exposure to common scents.

The Natural Resources Defense Council issued a press release about the presence of phthalates in air fresheners.  Phthalates are hormone disruptors which are known to cause birth defects, infertility and reduced sperm production.  Pregnant women and young children were described as being most at risk.  Phthalates are usually used in the production of P.V.C plastics.  All air fresheners containing phthalates lacked any labeling to indicate their presence.  Phthalates were also found in air fresheners that were labeled "unscented" and "all natural".  With an estimated 75% of consumers using air fresheners in their homes, the N.R.D.C. strongly recommended improving ventilation systems to dilute these chemicals as much as possible.  According to the Environmental Working Group, phthalates produce liver cancer, but of course, this link has not been 'officially confirmed'.  Notice that studies are not important until the right group in government says that they are, or the situation becomes a major public relations problem?  This is F.D.A. science in all its glory.

The chemicals which are emitted from air fresheners accumulate in the fatty tissues over time, so the dangers increase as they build up inside your body; and this also makes it more difficult to lose unwanted body fat.  Fat is always a self-defense mechanism, and a body will resist releasing the toxins stored inside fat, which means that a body tends to be very resistive toward eliminating fat.

If there are any remaining doubts about air fresheners being dangerous, consider the damage recently done to a car in Atlanta.  The air freshener was mistakenly placed upside down, so that it leaked its chemicals,  which then melted through the plastic automotive interior.  The company who made this "freshener" refused to tell FOX News which chemicals they were using, but it was noted that a poison control label was on the product.  Of course, poison control centers may not be able to help if the chemicals are not known.  The fact that a person is not orally consuming the product is no defense, because the fumes of these chemicals reach the blood through the lungs.

 

"I am shocked that an air freshener is out there and it can leak and cause that extensive damage to the vehicle and I worry about kids, children, dogs anybody in the car… because if it actually literally ate my dashboard. I can imagine what it does to your insides."

—  Pandie Napatilano, car owner

 

The E.P.A. may soon be enforcing its guidelines against air freshener companies for releasing excessive pollutants into the air.  A study at the University of California, Berkeley, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that air fresheners emitted controlled substances well above acceptable levels.

 

"Ethylene-based glycol ethers are common, water-soluble solvents used in a variety of cleaning agents, latex paints and other products. They are classified as hazardous air pollutants under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and as toxic air contaminants by California's Air Resources Board."

— Science Daily

 

It was also found that new pollutants are created whenever these chemicals mix with ozone.  The ozone is created by the sparking of electric motors, which are found in an increasing number of household devices.  Contrary to popular belief, ozone in itself is not a pollutant, and life could not exist without it.  However, the chemicals that are being released, when combined with ozone, are very dangerous, especially in an indoor atmosphere.  When terpene-containing air fresheners were mixed with ozone, they were found to release smog, haze, and formaldehyde fumes.

Sooner or later, society will have to step back and revert to old-fashioned means of cleaning, cooking, and keeping their homes smelling good.  That will include the removal of non-stick pans, air fresheners, and hand sanitizers.  While they may make certain tasks easier, avoiding them is an essential step to ensure a long, healthy life, for your family.  Since children are most at risk, we can only hope that those reading this article will dispose of their air fresheners, to minimize the exposure of those who are not able to protect themselves.

by: Ethan Huff

(NaturalNews) For years, the predominant cause of injury-related deaths in the United States has been traffic accidents. However, recent data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) indicates that 16 states now see more drug-related deaths than any other type of injury-related death and that number is rapidly growing.

Some of the key findings in the report include a more than tripling of opioid analgesic-induced deaths between 1999 and 2006. In 2006, roughly 40 percent of all poisoning deaths were caused by opioid analgesics. In the 35 to 54 age group, these drugs are the leading cause of death overall in the United States. Fatal opioid analgesic-related overdose poisonings represent the fastest increasing segment of overall deaths caused by poisonings.

Opioid analgesics are pain medications typically prescribed to treat temporary pain. Among those cited as embodying the greatest increase in deaths is methadone, a pain reliever that was responsible for the greatest increase in deaths between 1999 and 2006 and the one that witnessed a sevenfold increase in deaths. Other killers include benzodiazepine sedatives, OxyContin (oxycodone), and Vicodin (acetaminophen and hydrocodone).

While it is unclear in each specific case whether the drugs were obtained legally through prescription or illegally, the report does specify that at least half of the deaths were caused by legal opiate prescriptions. It also indicates that many deaths are caused by a combination of various opiates which may or may not include illegal opiates.

Beginning in the 1990s at the behest of drug company prodding, doctors began to increasingly prescribe painkillers to patients for all sorts of symptoms. As a result, one in five adults today and one in ten kids receive some sort of opiate prescription from their doctors every year. Interestingly, the corresponding data from this report and others concludes that the increase in opiate prescriptions is directly correlated with the increase in deaths from opiate overdoses, pointing the finger at pharmaceutical opiates rather than the illegal street kind.

A study published last December in the Journal of the American Medical Association examined the threat of prescription opiate abuse and subsequent injury and death statistics, implicating prescription opiates as the leading cause of drug overdose deaths in the U.S. Also specifying that legal purchases of methadone have increased more than 13-fold in the past ten years along with a nine-fold increase in OxyContin prescriptions, the study is a clear indictment not only of doctor abuse in over-prescribing drugs but in the inherently addictive nature of the drugs themselves.

Many young teens who become addicted to opiates such as OxyContin eventually progress to cheap forms of heroin that they can snort and even inject. For this reason, heroin has become a widespread problem both in suburban youth enclaves as well as in the inner city. Because prescription opiates are highly addictive, many people of all ages become "junkies" who are constantly looking for a fix, whether through a prescription or through an illegal street drug.

In a 2007 survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, it was discovered that 2.1 million people ages 12 and older who had tried an illicit drug in 2007 elected for prescription pain drugs as their drug of choice, a figure 57,000 higher than those who chose marijuana. Many of these same people graduate to heroin within just a few years.

During the same year, Purdue Pharma was charged by the FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations with a "conspiracy" to illegally market its drug using various fraudulent methods. One method included working with professional medical organizations to alter the prescription guidelines for OxyContin to include those with chronic pain in addition to those with temporary aches. Purdue Pharma was fined $700 million, an amount considered by many to be pittance when compared to the thousands of deaths that have been directly caused by the abuse of OxyContin. To this day, the drug remains on the market despite the fact that the company has been criminally convicted in U.S. Federal Court on felony charges for its illegal actions surrounding this dangerous drug.

The entire controversy is yet another case-in-point example of the deadly consequences of pharmaceutical drugs and the companies that produce them. What would immediately unleash the widespread confiscation and elimination of all natural herbs and supplements warrants only appeasement fines by the very agencies that are sworn to protect the people, not the drug lords. Until pharmaceutical companies are held responsible for the damage caused by their products, states will continue to ratchet up drug-induced fatalities as their number one cause of death.

by: Dana Ullman

(NaturalNews) Health and medical journalists are not presently providing the public with what might be the most important health advice that they should be given during the flu season: people with the flu should avoid taking fever-reducing drugs, such as aspirin or acetaminophen (aka Tylenol), except in rare situations.

It is widely recognized that fever is a vital defense of the body in its efforts to fight infection. A fever enables the body to increase its production of interferon, an important antiviral substance that is critical for fighting infection. Fever also increases white blood cell mobility and activity, which are instrumental factors in fighting infection. Jane Brody, a long-time respected health columnist for the New York Times, reported back in 1982 on the healing benefits of fever. She noted, "A number of physicians, including pediatricians, are now suggesting that moderate fevers be allowed to run their course, for they may shorten the illness, potentiate the action of antibiotics and reduce the chances of spreading the infection to others."(1)

Recognition that fever is beneficial has been known for more than 2,000 years, and historically, the healing benefits of fever are so substantial that many patients have actually been treated with ''fever therapy'' to aid their recovery from such ailments as cancer, syphilis, tuberculosis and even mania.(2)(3) However, in the 1800's, aspirin compounds that rapidly reduced fevers became commercially available, and the medical view of fever changed dramatically. Since the mid-1800s, drug companies have successfully convinced conventional physicians and the general public to become vigilant in bringing down fevers, even sometimes using such drastic measures as cold baths and alcohol rubs along with aspirin.

In reference to the flu and fever, the bottom line is that it makes little sense to aggressively suppress the body's natural defenses against viral infection. There are, of course, some exceptions here. For instance, it may make sense to seek medical care if one's fever is above 104 degrees for over six hours or in any fever in an infant under four months of age.

Calling Dr. Gupta: CNN's Correspondent Gives Himself Questionable Medical Advice

"Fever phobia" is so rampant that many usually intelligent people, including physicians and medical reporters, forget what they know about the inherent defenses of the body when they become sick.

On September 23, Sanjay Gupta, MD, CNN's chief medical correspondent, described his own experience in getting the H1NI flu while reporting from Afghanistan.(4) Although Dr. Gupta reported that he experienced a "high fever," he never gave specifics, but it is unlikely that over 104 degrees. The fact that Dr. Gupta was away from home and in war zone probably led him to want some relief of his fever, and because of this, he chose to take Tylenol. However, he certainly didn't help himself by taking this drug to suppress his fever.

It is therefore no wonder that he became the sickest he has ever become. Taking drugs that suppress fever disables the body's own defenses in fighting infection. It is akin to unscrewing the warning oil pressure light in your car as a way to get rid of that irritating red signal. Such "treatment" is not curative, and in fact, it can lead to much more serious problems.

Ironically, the word "symptom" derives from the words "sign" or "signal"…and just turning "off" a sign or signal is simply not smart, even if double-blind studies show that unscrewing the warning bulb is "effective" in turning the light off.

Ultimately, Dr. Gupta missed a great opportunity to educate the public about not taking fever-reducing drugs, except in certain extreme fevers. Perhaps this article will "light a fire" underneath him to do so.

The New Drug Pushers: Parents

In a 2007 survey of Australian parents published in a pediatrics journal, a shocking 91% of parents used fever-suppressing drugs in the treatment of their children's fever.(5) Even more startling is the fact that this survey found that the medications were refused or spat out by the child in 44% of the cases, and yet, 62.4 of the parents actually used force to get their child to take these drugs, using different methods of ingestion (29.5%) or by using a suppository (20.8%).

It is interesting to note that children tend to have an inherent fear of doctors, and this fear may not simply be the result of getting injections from them. This fear may be an instinctual fear that what doctors offer them may not really be good for them, despite the seemingly short-term benefits of many drugs. It may be time for us to listen to our children.

Serious Problems from Aspirin and Acetaminophen

Many people minimize the problems from these common drugs, but do so at their own and their family's peril.

Children who get a viral infection and are given aspirin can lead to Reye's syndrome, a serious neurological condition that can cause death. Aspirin is also known to thin the blood and increase the chances of various bleeding disorders. Its use more or less doubles the risk of a severe gastrointestinal event, which in most cases can lead to hospitalization. Lower doses that people take to reduce heart problems only seem to decrease these risks by a small amount.

Many people take acetaminophen because it is not associated with increased bleeding. However, the general public is usually not aware of the fact that poison control centers in the US receive more calls as a result of an overdose of this drug than any other drug.(6) This same problem exists in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Most commonly, overdoses of acetaminophen can lead to acute liver failure. In children, it has been associated with increased asthma and eczema symptoms.

Safer Solutions for the Flu…

Instead of using conventional drugs that suppress fevers or that inhibit other important defenses of the body, it makes more sense to use some type of natural medicines that mimic and augment the wisdom of the body.

Homeopathic medicines are a wonderful method to augment the body's own defenses so that they can more effectively heal themselves from various ailments, including the flu. Because of the similarity between the 1918 flu and the H1N1 flu, it may be helpful to reference homeopathy's impressive successes in treating people during the 1918 flu.(7) The death rates in the homeopathic hospitals in the US were only around 1%, while the death rates in conventional hospitals were closer to 30%. Another important fact from that era is that New York City had the lowest mortality rate during the 1918 flu than any city in the U.S., and this impressive statistic is primarily due to the fact that this city's health commissioner at that time was Royal Copeland, MD, a renowned homeopathic physician, who later became a thrice-elected U.S. Senator. (Franklin D. Roosevelt was even his campaign manager during his first election as senator.) (8) Copeland asserted, "There can be no doubt that the superiority of homeopathy in a purely medical condition is just as great as it was fifty years ago."

One of today's most popular homeopathic medicines for the flu is the popular Oscillococcinum, a medicine that has been used by homeopaths since the 1920s. There have been four controlled studies that have shown that this medicine is effective in reducing the symptoms of influenza as compared with those people given a placebo.(9)

The effectiveness of another homeopathic remedy, called Gripp-Heel, was compared with that of conventional treatments in a prospective, observational cohort study in 485 patients with mild viral infections and symptoms such as fever, headache, muscle pain, cough or sore throat.(10) As evaluated by the practitioners, 67.9% of patients were considered asymptomatic at the end of Gripp-Heel therapy vs. 47.9% of patients in the control group. Practitioners judged homeopathic treatments as 'successful' in 78.1% of cases vs. 52.2% for conventional therapies. Tolerability and compliance were 'very good' given for 88.9% of patients in the homoeopathic group vs. 38.8% in the conventional treatment group.

The above homeopathic medicines are primarily helpful during the first 48 hours of onset of the flu. Other homeopathic medicines to consider during this time and afterwards include: Gelsemium, Bryonia, Ipecacuanha, Arsenicum album, Eupatorium perf., Rhus toxicodendron, and Baptisia (homeopathic medicines are traditionally listed by their Latin names so that consumers and doctors will know the precise plant, mineral, or animal species of every medicine). Each of these medicines has a history of efficacy in homeopathic doses for treating the specific syndrome of symptoms that each has been found to cause when given experimentally in overdose to healthy people. To determine the details of each of these medicines, please consult a homeopathic guidebook.