Category: The Best Years In Life

by: Tony Isaacs

(NaturalNews) A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the antidepressant drugs paroxetine and imipramine do not help patients with mild, moderate and even severe depression much more than an inactive placebo.

"They would have done just as well or just about as well with a placebo," concluded Robert DeRubeis, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia who performed the meta-analysis along with colleagues.

The meta-analysis combined data from six studies with over 800 combined patients. Those with initial depression scores of 23 or below dropped an averaged 8 points when given antidepressants compared to a drop of 7 points for those given a placebo. According to DeRubeis, the study should give pause to doctors and patients weighing antidepressants, and he suggested that consideration be given to other alternatives such as exercise, psychotherapy, and even "self-treatment".

Paroxetine is one of a widely sold class of drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and is better known as the brand name sold by GlaxoSmithKline: Paxil. Imipramine is an older tricyclic antidepressant drug which was developed in the 1950s.
Glaxo spokeswoman Sarah Alspach responded by saying that the study "contributes to the extensive research" into antidepressants, noting that Paxil received U.S. government approval in 1992. She continued to maintain that Paxil has helped "millions of people battling mental illness".

The study is the latest in a long string of bad news that has been reported about Paxil. Since Paxil`s introduction on the market in 1993, the potentially dangerous drug has been plagued with complaints of serious adverse medical events including an increase in suicide rates and attempts, addiction, and birth defects.

In 2005, after Glaxo had denied repeated reports of Paxil causing addiction and severe withdrawal effects, a federal judge ordered the maker to stop all television commercials nationwide that say the drug is not habit-forming. The ruling came after a class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of 35. According to the judge`s ruling, the commercials were "misleading and created inaccurate expectations about the ease of withdrawal from the drug". It is reported that Glaxo has settled nearly 3,200 cases involving addiction-related complaints and complications.

Glaxo has also reportedly settled 150 Paxil-related suicide cases and 300 Paxil-related suicide attempts thus far. In most instances, Glaxo attempted to blame the suicides on the underlying depression and not the drug itself. Paxil has also been linked to severe birth-defects in children whose mothers took the antidepressant while pregnant. Last October, a Philadelphia jury found that Glaxo negligently failed to warn doctors of Paxil`s risk to pregnant women and awarded $2.5 million to the parents of a three year old boy. According to reports, this case was the first of some 600 lawsuits against Glaxo for failing to warn of Paxil`s dangers to pregnant women. Reports also indicate that Glaxo has settled at least 10 other birth-defect cases to date.

Paxil lawsuits and settlements have been estimated to cost Glaxo a staggering $1 Billion in settlements thus far, an amount that is nevertheless dwarfed by the many billions of dollars in profits Glaxo has received from Paxil sales.

Meanwhile, despite all the deaths, injuries and lawsuits, Paxil continues to have FDA approval, continues to downplay harmful side effects and continues to be highly promoted, the same as happened in the Vioxx scandal and with other harmful drugs. The Associated Press reported in August of last year that GlaxoSmithKline commissioned sales reps to recruit doctor-authors for ghostwritten articles supporting Paxil use. Glaxo even named the program after everyone`s favorite friendly ghost and called it the "CASPPER" program..

Advanced Colloidal Gold

by Tony Isaacs

Are mainstream drugs really safer and more effective than natural alternative such as man has used for healing for thousands of years? We are constantly told by mainstream medicine that only their drugs have been thoroughly tested for safety and effectiveness. Likewise, we are also told that herbs and other natural alternatives are unproven, usually of little or no value and often may be dangerous. But, does history and the record really support that?

Citing the lack of studies on herbs and natural alternatives brings two questions that may belie the idea of studies being a reliable guideline – namely how many studies are actually conducted on herbs and alternatives and how reliable are the studies conducted on mainstream drugs? By and large, most studies are conducted on patentable items that can be controlled and profited from. The only FDA approved medications are those owned and controlled by the pharmaceutical companies because no one can afford to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on something they can not uniquely control. It has been shown that studies tend to return positive results for the funders up to eight times more often than independent studies on the same item.

A growing number of people believe that the system is both deeply flawed and rigged in favor of those who have the money. Despite all the claimed validity of mainstream studies, that did not prevent us from having rigged studies on Vioxx. Nor did it prevent rigged studies for decades on the safety and even claimed health benefits of smoking cigarettes. Those are just two examples in a very long list of drugs and other items mainstream science told us were safe but turned out to be anything but. Thalidomide, heroin, opium, cocaine, Avandia, Fosamax, Prozac, Paxil, Aleve, Bextra, Aspartame . . the list goes on and on.
Another problem with mainstream medical studies is the apparent lack of quality standards employed by pharmaceutical companies in selecting doctors who oversee drug testing.  A New York times investigation in 2007 found that in Minnesota alone at least 103 doctors who had been disciplined or criticized by the state medical board received a total of $1.7 million from drug makers between 1997 to 2005. The median payment over that period was $1,250; the largest was $479,000.

One such doctor was Dr. Faruk Abuzzahab, whom the Minnesota Medical board accused of a “reckless, if not willful, disregard” for the welfare of 46 patients, 5 of whom died in his care or shortly afterward. The board suspended his license for seven months and restricted it for two years after that. One of Dr. Abuzzahab’s patients was David Olson, whom the psychiatrist tried repeatedly to recruit for clinical trials. Drug makers paid Dr. Abuzzahab thousands of dollars for every patient he recruited. In July 1997, when Mr. Olson again refused to be a test subject, Dr. Abuzzahab discharged him from the hospital even though he was suicidal, records show. Mr. Olson committed suicide two weeks later.

The drug industry has been riddled with scandal again and again – including faked studies, rigged studies, hidden evidence of dangers, ghostwriten articles, fake medical journals, sex scandals, and much more. Merck, Vioxx. Pfizer, Avantis, GlaxoKilineSmith, Baxter Labs, the list goes on and on and on and leaves virtually no major pharmaceutical company untouched:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/feb/07/research.health1

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/329/7460/247

Look at all the hits and damning evidence you get when you search for "drug company scandals". Absolutely shameful!
The latest example:

http://www.healthiertalk.com/pfizer-caught-faking-it-again-1280
Another problem with mainstream drugs is the influence peddling of the pharmaceutical companies to get doctors to prescribe their medicines. Many doctors receive incentives for prescribing drugs – such as honorariums, free lunches and other gifts, and even free massages and cruise trips, to name a few. There have been a number of scandals concerning drug companies essentially bribing doctors to prescribe their drugs and many cries for reform to insure that drugs are prescribed according to the patient’s best interests and not the financial interests of doctors and drug companies.
Besides all the incentives, some doctors make profits directly from the drugs they prescribe, often with unhealthy consequences for their patients.  In an article that appeared in the New York Times in May 2007 it was revealed that to of the world’s largest drug companies are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to doctors every year in return for giving their patients anemia medicines, which regulators now say may be unsafe at commonly used doses.
The same article noted that:
"Federal laws bar drug companies from paying doctors to prescribe medicines that are given in pill form and purchased by patients from pharmacies. But companies can rebate part of the price that doctors pay for drugs, … which they dispense in their offices as part of treatment. … Doctors receive the rebates after they buy the drugs from the companies. But they also receive reimbursement from Medicare or private insurers for the drugs, often at a markup over the doctors’ purchase price."
See:  http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/doctors-getting-paid-to-prescribe-drugs/

No wonder a Harris Poll found that only 13% of Americans believe that pharmaceutical companies are "generally honest and trustworthy."

Over 95% of the 15,000 plus approved medicines have side effects and in many instance those side effects lead to further conditions requiring still more drugs with more side effects in a never ending cycle.  As noted when millions of serious adverse reactions are reported each year and when over 140,000 deaths in hospitals and homes happen each year even when the drugs have been properly prescribed and administered? Risk versus reward? Yes, a reward in profits just like we saw the makers of Vioxx reap in billions of dollars while the body count piled up even higher than all the lives we lost in the Vietnam War. Just like has been happening and continues to happen with Paxil:

http://www.tbyil.com/Depression_Drugs_Bare.htm

Meanwhile, major side effects caused by natural herbs are rare and deaths almost non-existent.

Often we see the supporters of mainstream medicine refer to natural healing as "woo" and sometime they liken belief in natural herbs as more akin to some kind of religion instead of "real science".  Is that really true?  True science is based on observation. Mankind has observed nature to work and has used nature for healing for thousands of years, just as most of the people in the world continue to do and as the majority of people in most countries continue to do.  Among those countries are several countries ranked above the U.S. (the world's most medicated country) in health rankings, including two of the top three ranked countries. Despite all of the15,000 plus approved drugs, our life expectancy ranks below 40 plus other countries and is closer to that of Mexico than it is the top 10 countries.

To claim that nature, from whence life itself came, is "woo" is patently absurd. Of course most of us would like to see scientific proof that anything we take is safe and effective, but when medical science has been sold off to the highest bidder far too often, I will choose what has been observed to work and what I myself have observed to work over and do my own homework before I accept anything that what medical science tells me will work and is safe.
When you combine the record of safety and effectiveness of approved drugs with the fact that history has taught us again and again that the science of today has but a fraction of the answers and is often overturned tomorrow, I would say that blind belief in mainstream medicine is far more of a religion than belief in nature.

I readily agree that just because something is natural does not mean that it will work or that it is safe, but I like the comparative safety records of nature versus approved drugs. And when it comes to what really works or not, the pharmaceutical industry itself admits that most of its drugs do not work for most people.  According to Doctor Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline and academic geneticist from Duke University, "The vast majority of drugs – more than 90 per cent – only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people."

Despite the claims that herbs, natural remedies, vitamins and minerals have little or no effectiveness, one thing the studies do largely agree on:  a great many of our health problems can be traced to vitamin and mineral deficiencies.  On the other hand, no one ever became ill due to a deficiency in pharmaceuticals.

by Tony Isaacs

In what has become a repeated pattern of mainstream drugs being found to be mostly useless or harmful only after billions of dollars in profits have been reaped, a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that antidepressant drugs do not help patients with mild, moderate and even severe depression much more than an inactive placebo.

"They would have done just as well or just about as well with a placebo," concluded Robert DeRubeis, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia who performed the meta-analysis along with colleagues.

The two anti-depressants studied were paroxetine and imipramine.  Paroxetine is one of a widely sold class of drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and is better known as the brand name sold by GlaxoSmithKline: Paxil. Imipramine is an older tricyclic antidepressant drug which was developed in the 1950s.

The meta-analysis combined data from six studies with over 800 combined patients.  Those with initial depression scores of 23 or below dropped an averaged 8 points when given antidepressants and 7 points when given a placebo. According to DeRubeis, the study should give pause doctors and patients weighing antidepressants, and he suggested that consideration be given to other alternatives such as exercise, psychotherapy, and even "self-treatment".

Glaxo spokeswoman Sarah Alspach responded by saying that the study "contributes to the extensive research" into antidepressants, noting that Paxil received U.S. government approval in 1992 and claimed that Paxil has helped "millions of people battling mental illness.
The study was far from the only bad news that has been reported about Paxil.  Since Paxil's introduction on the market in 1993, the potentially dangerous drug has been plagued with complaints of serious adverse medical events including an increase in suicide rates and attempts, addiction, and birth defects.

In 2005, after Glaxo had denied repeated reports of Paxil causing addiction and severe withdrawal effects, a federal judge ordered the maker of the popular anti-depressant Paxil to stop all television commercials nationwide that say the drug is not habit-forming. The ruling against GlaxoSmithKline came after a class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of 35 patients who said they suffered various withdrawal symptoms. According to the judges ruling, the commercials were "misleading and created inaccurate expectations about the ease of withdrawal from the drug". It is reported that Glaxo has settled nearly 3,200 cases involving addiction-related complaints and complications.

Glaxo has reportedly settled 150 Paxil-related suicide cases and 300 Paxil-related suicide attempt cases thus far, though in most cases Glaxo has attempted to blame the suicides on the underlying depression and not the drug itself.  Paxil has also been linked to severe birth-defects in children whose mothers took the antidepressant while pregnant.  Last October, a Philadelphia jury found that Glaxo negligently failed to warn doctors of Paxil's risk to pregnant women and found that Paxil caused a heart defect in a three-year-old boy.  The jury awarded $2.5 million to the parents.  According to reports, this case was the first of some 600 lawsuits against Glaxo for failing to warn of Paxil's dangers to pregnant women.  It has also been reported that Glaxo has settled 10 other birth-defect cases to date.
 
Paxil lawsuits and settlements have been estimated to cost Glaxo a staggering $1 Billion in settlements thus far, an amount that is nevertheless dwarfed by the many billions of dollars in profits Glaxo has reaped off Paxil sales.

Meanwhile, despite all the deaths, injuries and lawsuits, Paxil continues to have FDA approval, continues to downplay harmful side effects and continues to be highly promoted, the same as happened in the Vioxx scandal and with other harmful drugs. The Associated Press reported in August of last year that GlaxoSmithKline commissioned sales reps to recruit doctor-authors for ghostwritten articles supporting Paxil use. Glaxo even named the program after everyone’s favorite friendly ghost and called it the "CASPPER" program.

Sources included:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34712755/ns/health-mental_health/
www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-08-20-paxil-ads_x.htm
www.usatoday.com/news/…/2002-07-08-antidepressants.htm
http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/ap-glaxo-reps-aided-paxil-ghostwriting/2009-08-20
http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/ap-glaxo-reps-aided-paxil-ghostwriting/2009-08-20#ixzz0bxWSdXd6
http://www.flainjurylawyerblog.com/2009/12/paxil-lawsuits-costing-manufac.html

by Tony Isaacs

In what has become a repeated pattern of mainstream drugs being found to be mostly useless or harmful only after billions of dollars in profits have been reaped, a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that antidepressant drugs do not help patients with mild, moderate and even severe depression much more than an inactive placebo.

"They would have done just as well or just about as well with a placebo," concluded Robert DeRubeis, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia who performed the meta-analysis along with colleagues.

The two anti-depressants studied were paroxetine and imipramine.  Paroxetine is one of a widely sold class of drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and is better known as the brand name sold by GlaxoSmithKline: Paxil. Imipramine is an older tricyclic antidepressant drug which was developed in the 1950s.

The meta-analysis combined data from six studies with over 800 combined patients.  Those with initial depression scores of 23 or below dropped an averaged 8 points when given antidepressants and 7 points when given a placebo. According to DeRubeis, the study should give pause doctors and patients weighing antidepressants, and he suggested that consideration be given to other alternatives such as exercise, psychotherapy, and even "self-treatment".

Glaxo spokeswoman Sarah Alspach responded by saying that the study "contributes to the extensive research" into antidepressants, noting that Paxil received U.S. government approval in 1992 and claimed that Paxil has helped "millions of people battling mental illness.

The study was far from the only bad news that has been reported about Paxil.  Since Paxil's introduction on the market in 1993, the potentially dangerous drug has been plagued with complaints of serious adverse medical events including an increase in suicide rates and attempts, addiction, and birth defects.

In 2005, after Glaxo had denied repeated reports of Paxil causing addiction and severe withdrawal effects, a federal judge ordered the maker of the popular anti-depressant Paxil to stop all television commercials nationwide that say the drug is not habit-forming. The ruling against GlaxoSmithKline came after a class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of 35 patients who said they suffered various withdrawal symptoms. According to the judges ruling, the commercials were "misleading and created inaccurate expectations about the ease of withdrawal from the drug". It is reported that Glaxo has settled nearly 3,200 cases involving addiction-related complaints and complications.

Glaxo has reportedly settled 150 Paxil-related suicide cases and 300 Paxil-related suicide attempt cases thus far, though in most cases Glaxo has attempted to blame the suicides on the underlying depression and not the drug itself.  Paxil has also been linked to severe birth-defects in children whose mothers took the antidepressant while pregnant.  Last October, a Philadelphia jury found that Glaxo negligently failed to warn doctors of Paxil's risk to pregnant women and found that Paxil caused a heart defect in a three-year-old boy.  The jury awarded $2.5 million to the parents.  According to reports, this case was the first of some 600 lawsuits against Glaxo for failing to warn of Paxil's dangers to pregnant women.  It has also been reported that Glaxo has settled 10 other birth-defect cases to date.

Paxil lawsuits and settlements have been estimated to cost Glaxo a staggering $1 Billion in settlements thus far, an amount that is nevertheless dwarfed by the many billions of dollars in profits Glaxo has reaped off Paxil sales.

Meanwhile, despite all the deaths, injuries and lawsuits, Paxil continues to have FDA approval, continues to downplay harmful side effects and continues to be highly promoted, the same as happened in the Vioxx scandal and with other harmful drugs. The Associated Press reported in August of last year that GlaxoSmithKline commissioned sales reps to recruit doctor-authors for ghostwritten articles supporting Paxil use. Glaxo even named the program after everyone’s favorite friendly ghost and called it the "CASPPER" program.

Sources included:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34712755/ns/health-mental_health/
www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-08-20-paxil-ads_x.htm
www.usatoday.com/news/…/2002-07-08-antidepressants.htm
http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/ap-glaxo-reps-aided-paxil-ghostwriting/2009-08-20
http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/ap-glaxo-reps-aided-paxil-ghostwriting/2009-08-20#ixzz0bxWSdXd6
http://www.flainjurylawyerblog.com/2009/12/paxil-lawsuits-costing-manufac.html

by Tony Isaacs

In yet another example of deceptive marketing of less than healthy products to natural and health conscious foods consumers by major food and beverage companies, 7Up is heavily marketing a new product named "Antioxidant Cherry 7Up" in both regular and diet versions.

One might ask what could be so bad about a soft drink that contains "natural flavors", no caffeine and now Antioxidants too?  Perhaps taking a close look at what the "antioxidant" content is, and the rest of the ingredients that make up regular and diet Antioxidant 7Up might shed some light.

Most people likely assume that Antioxidant Cherry 7Up gets it's "antioxidant" power from cherries, which are known to be powerful sources of antixodants, but such is not the case. What 7UP bases its "antioxidant" claim on is the inclusion of a tiny amount of a synthetic form of Vitamin E (dl-alpha Tocopherol Acetate) that provides a mere 10% of the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of vitamin E.

The RDA of natural Vitamin E is only 22 International Units (IU) per day to begin with, which is extremely small compared to the most commonly recommended amount of supplemental vitamin E for adults of 400 to 800 IU per day.  On top of that, synthetic Vitamin E is 33% less bioavailable than natural Vitamin E.  Recent studies have indicated that the natural forms of Vitamin E, such as d-alpha Tocopherol or the even better mixed tocopherols that contain alpha, beta, gamma and delta tocopherols, are not only more bioavailable but also more biologically active than the synthetic forms.

It is the synthetic form of Vitamin E that has been used in mainstream studies which purport to disprove the benefits of natural Vitamin E which have been reported in other studies.  In one highly publicized mainstream study, the Select" study, we were even warned about dangers of taking Vitamin E.  So, with a mere 2.2 iu (0.0022 grams) of a synthetic form of Vitamin E that mainstream medicine has told us has no proven benefits and might even be harmful, 7Up is telling consumers that they have a healthy "antioxidant" drink.

Besides the tiny amount of synthetic Vitamin E, Antioxidant Cherry 7Up also includes carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup (from GMO corn of course), citric acid, natural flavors", potassium benzoate, and red dye #40.

The dangers of high fructose corn syrup have been well chronicled in recent months, as have the dangers of GMO corn.  Though 7Up lists 8 ounces as a normal serving size, the most commonly sold size is the 20 ounce bottle and its high fructose corn syrup content is equivalent to 15 teaspoons of sugar.  Dietary guidelines recommend that we limit added sugars to about 8 tsp a day for an average 2000-calorie diet.

Red dye #40, also known as Red 40, has been shown to produce toxic psychological and behavior results such as extreme hyperactivity to psychotic behavior and extreme mood swings.  In the past, Red Dye #40 was made from coal tar, now it is made from petroleum. It's chemical name is 6-hydroxy-5-(2-methoxy-5-methyl-4-sulfophenylazo)-2-naphtalenesulfonic acid sodium salt".

Citric acid and potassium benzoate in combination can create the toxic chemical compound known as benzene, a known human carcinogen (cancer causing agent) that has been linked to leukemia.

It gets even "better" with the diet version of Antioxidant Cherry 7Up. Instead of the usual Splenda used to sweeten regular Diet 7Up, Diet Antioxidant Cherry 7Up uses Aspartame.

Drink up!

Grape Seed Extract

(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.

n this concluding installment of the series, we will take a look at true breast cancer prevention and cures and some alternative charities and organizations that have no cozy relationship with those who profit from cancer and contribute to its causes.

True Cancer Prevention and Cures

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_b…

and

"Vitamin D prevents breast cancer by Mike Adams the Health Ranger"
www.naturalnews.com/027204_cancer_V…

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 keeping 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 the Annie Appleseed Project.

See: http://www.breasthealthproject.com/…

Numerous other women have beaten their cancers with the famed Budwig flaxseed and cottage cheese protocol, with a highly successful oleander extract based protocol, with juicing such as used in the Gerson treatment method, with cesium chloride, medicinal mushroom products, Protocel and with 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/
Breast Cancer Choices – http://www.breastcancerchoices.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. Stop the decades of deception and failed research that have us looking at no end in sight to the horrors of breast and other cancers.

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 dangers of over-screening for cancer and the lack of progress in breast cancer prevention and cures.

The Dangers of Over-Screening for Cancer

A new analysis published this month in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that screening for both breast and prostate cancer both have a problem that runs counter to everything people have been told about cancer: The screenings are resulting in finding cancers that do not need to be found because they would never spread and kill or even be noticed if left alone. That has in turn led to a huge increase in diagnoses of innocuous cancers that would have otherwise gone undetected.

At the same time, the analysis, "Rethinking Screening for Breast Cancer and Prostate Cancer" also found that both screening tests are not making much of a dent in the number of cancers that actually are of a deadly variety. In the instance of breast cancer, that could be because many lethal breast cancers gain a foothold and spread rapidly between mammograms. The dilemma for breast and prostate screening is that it is not usually clear which tumors need aggressive treatment. Many believe that a major reason that is not clear is because studying it has not been much of a priority.

"The issue here is, as we look at cancer medicine over the last 35 or 40 years, we have always worked to treat cancer or to find cancer early," Dr. Barnett Kramer, associate director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health, said. "And we never sat back and actually thought, `Are we treating the cancers that need to be treated?` "

Finding insignificant cancers is the reason the breast and prostate cancer rates soared when screening was introduced, Dr. Kramer said. And those cancers, he said, are the reason screening has the problem called overdiagnosis – labeling innocuous tumors cancer and treating them as though they could be lethal when in fact they are not dangerous.

"Overdiagnosis is pure, unadulterated harm," he said.

Dr. Peter Albertsen, chief and program director of the urology division at the University of Connecticut Health Center, said this has not been an easy message to get across. "Politically, it`s almost unacceptable," Dr. Albertsen said. "If you question overdiagnosis in breast cancer, you are against women. If you question overdiagnosis in prostate cancer, you are against men."

The Lack of Progress behind the Pink Curtain

There has been quite a bit of publicity in the mainstream medicine and mainstream media in recent years over what has been announced as a slight downward trend in the occurrence of breast cancers and 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 peels back the veil of so-called progress, little credit can be given to increased screenings and mammograms. Instead, most of the credit is likely due to the decreased use of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT).

Further, when one subtracts the figures for DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma in Situ), the much touted successes against breast cancer take on a complete different perspective. DCIS, is categorized 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 one figures in the 60,000 annual DCIS diagnoses. 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/di…

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 overall survival time for women with breast cancer 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.

In the final installment of this series, we will take a look at true breast cancer prevention and cures and some alternative charities and organizations that have no cozy relationship with those who profit from cancer and contribute to its causes.

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.

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.

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.