This forum address has been redirected temporarily, for now it includes [slarti] this may be due to the forum upgrading to phbb3 or the forum being moved to our newer server. You do not need to take any action, your forum address will revert back to normal in a day or two. In the mean time please do not bookmark or publish the temporary link.
Pink Ribbons, cancer, ChemotherapyPink Ribbons Inc ~ THE MOVIE
Breast cancer has become the poster child of corporate cause-related marketing campaigns. Countless women and men walk, bike, climb and shop for the cure. Each year, millions of dollars are raised in the name of breast cancer, but where does this money go and what does it actually achieve? Pink Ribbons, Inc. is a feature documentary that shows how the devastating reality of breast cancer, which marketing experts have labeled a "dream cause," becomes obfuscated by a shiny, pink story of success.
You can't walk into a store these days without being inundated by the ubiquitous pink ribbons adorning every sort of product from food stuffs to clothing to automobiles. You've probably purchased something that promised a donation towards the "fight' against breast cancer. Maybe you've even participated in a 5K run to support family or friends dealing with the disease. You have the best intentions, and you're not alone. One organization has raised over 1.9 billion dollars via this method. So what has the real impact been of this phenomenon?
Sadly, not much. This disturbing fact, along with many others of equal discomfort, are at the heart of "Pink Ribbons, Inc.," a new documentary now in general release. Director Lea Pool takes Dr. Samantha King's 2006 book "Pink Ribbons, Inc. - Breast Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy" and expands upon it via interviews, documentary footage, and current data.
Here are three facts gleaned from the film that should give everyone cause to pause:
* Since 1940, the chances of a woman developing some form of breast cancer have gone from 1 in 22 to 1 in 8.
* Only 5% of the money spent on breast cancer research goes into researching environmental causes.
* A large number of products sold that donate a portion of their proceeds towards breast cancer organizations contain ingredients known or suspected to cause cancer.
The film traces the transmogrification of the "fight" against breast cancer from political activism to consumer activism. Remember the days when you just wrote a check to The American Cancer Society? Or you joined a protest march against a corporate polluter? Now you can spend 50 cents on a container of yogurt, peel off the lid, wash it, stick it in an envelope, spend 45 cents on a stamp, and mail it back to the company so that they will make a 10 cent donation. Do the math.
And what about companies that "enlist in the war on cancer" that are on one hand developing pharmaceutical treatments for breast cancer but on the other hand sell pesticides containing cancer-causing agents?
As good as this film is in exposing the issues surrounding cause marketing, it fails to answer one simple question (though apparently not from trying. Companies are notoriously tight-lipped on the subject.) -- How much do these companies profit from the sale of these products versus how much do they contribute to the cause? As one of the members of a Stage IV Cancer Support group asks, "Are they profiting from my disease?" If the answer is yes, would you still buy that paper towel?
The film's bottom line is this - Has the cheerful, fuzzy pink aura built around breast cancer to facilitate "awareness" and charitable giving obfuscated the harsh realities of the disease? We still don't know what causes it; the treatments are pretty much the same as they were 50 years ago, mortality rates are the same as they have been. Has the "branding" of the cause led us to fail to ask the tough questions? Where is the money going? How is it being spent? What exactly is being researched?
See this film. It may give you something to think about before you sign up for that next run...
Mammograms a medical hoax
Nov. 2012 (NaturalNews) A million American women maimed by unnecessary treatment for cancer they never had.
Mammography is a cruel medical hoax.
A new scientific study has confirmed most women diagnosed with breast cancer via mammography never had a cancer problem to begin with!
93% of early detection has no benefit to the patient is the conclusion of a groundbreaking new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
The conclusion from the study authors
Despite substantial increases in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer detected, screening mammography has only marginally reduced the rate at which women present with advanced cancer. Although it is not certain which women have been affected, the imbalance suggests that there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer.
Millions Wrongly Treated For ‘Cancer,’ National Cancer Institute Panel Confirms
A devastating new report commissioned by the National Cancer Institute reveals that our 40-year long ‘War on Cancer’ has been waged against a vastly misunderstood ‘enemy,’ that in many cases represented no threat to human health whatsoever.
If you have been following our advocacy work on cancer, particularly in connection with the dark side of breast cancer awareness month, you know that we have been calling for the complete reclassification of some types of ‘breast cancer’ as benign lesions, e.g. ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), as well as pointing out repeatedly that x-ray based breast screenings are not only highly carcinogenic but are also causing an epidemic of “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” in US women, with an estimated 1.3 million cases in the past 30 years alone.
This week, a National Cancer Institute commissioned panel’s report published in JAMA online confirmed that we all – public and professionals alike – should stop calling low-risk lesions like DCIS and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) ‘cancer.’
There are wide-reaching implications to this recommendation, including:
•Millions of women in this country have been diagnosed with DCIS, and millions of men with HGPIN, and subsequently [mis]treated. Are they now to be retroactively reclassified as ‘victims’ of iatrogenesis, with legal recourse to seek compensation?
•Anyone engaged in a cancer screening will now need to reconsider and weigh both the risks and benefits of such a ‘preventive’ strategy, considering that the likelihood of being diagnosed with a false positive over 10 years is already over 50% for women undergoing annual breast screening.
•The burgeoning pink ribbon-bedecked ‘breast cancer awareness’ industry will be forced to reformulate its message, as it is theoretically culpable for the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of millions of US women by propagating an entirely false concept of ‘cancer.’
As reported by Medscape:
The practice of oncology in the United States is in need of a host of reforms and initiatives to mitigate the problem of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of cancer, according to a working group sanctioned by the National Cancer Institute.
Perhaps most dramatically, the group says that a number of premalignant conditions, including ductal carcinoma in situ and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, should no longer be called “cancer.”
Instead, the conditions should be labeled something more appropriate, such as indolent lesions of epithelial origin (IDLE), the working group suggests. The Viewpoint report was published online July 29 in JAMA.
Fundamentally, overdiagnosis results from the fact that screen-detected ‘cancers’ are disproportionately slower growing ones, present with few to no symptoms, and would never progress to cause harm if left undiagnosed and untreated.
As you can see by the graph above, it is the fast-growing tumors which will be more difficult to ‘detect early,’ and will progress rapidly enough to cause symptoms and perhaps even death unless treated aggressively. But even in the case of finding the tumor early enough to contain it through surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation, it is well-known that the minority subpopulation of cancer stem cells within these tumors will be enriched and therefore made more malignant through conventional treatment. For instance, radiotherapy radiation wavelengths were only recently found by UCLA Jonnsson Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers to transform breast cancer cells into highly malignant cancer stem-cell like cells, with 30 times higher malignancy post-treatment.
What this means is that not only are millions of screen-detected abnormalities not ‘cancer’ in the first place but even those which can be considered fast-growing are often being driven into greater malignancy by the conventional chemotherapy, radiation and surgery-based standard of cancer care itself.
Our entire world view of cancer needs to shift from an enemy that “attacks” us and that we must wage war against, to something our body does, presumably to survive an increasingly inhospitable, nutrient-deprived, carcinogen- and radiation-saturated environment, i.e. Cancer As An Ancient Survival Mechanism Unmasked.
When we look at cancer through the optic of fear and see it as an essentially chaos-driven infinitely expanding mass of cells, we are apt to make irrational choices. The physiological state of fear itself has been found to activate multidrug resistance proteins within cancer cells, explaining how our very perception of cancer can influence and/or determine its physiological status and/or trajectory within our body.
The NCI panel report opined:
The word “cancer” often invokes the specter of an inexorably lethal process; however, cancers are heterogeneous and can follow multiple paths, not all of which progress to metastases and death, and include indolent disease that causes no harm during the patient’s lifetime.
For more details on what GreenMedInfo.com’s founder Sayer Ji calls the “Cancer Malignancy Meme,” see his video presentation at the Mind Body Week DC conference, wherein he discuss the ‘Rise of Biomedicine’ within the context of the mind-body connection, and breast cancer overdiagnosis in particular.
We must keep in mind that this proposed redefinition of cancer is no small academic matter, but will affect the lives of millions of women. Consider that every year, approximately 60,000 women in this country are diagnosed with DCIS, a diagnosis so traumatic that it results in significant psychiatric depression 3 years after even a ‘false positive’ diagnosis. For those less fortunate women, numbering in the millions over the past 30 years, who were told they had ‘cancer’ and needed to undergo lumpectomy, radiation, chemotherapy and/or mastectomy, the NCI panel’s recommendation is a hard pill swallow after the damage has already been irrevocably done.
So, what’s the solution? There is a growing movement towards the use of thermography as a primary diagnostic tool, as it uses no ionizing radiation, and can detect the underlying physiological processes that may indicate inflammation, angiogenesis, cancer-specific metabolic changes, etc., many years before a calcified lesion would appear within an x-ray mammogram. Also, the mainstay of any truly preventive strategy against cancer is diet, nutrition, exercise and avoiding chemical and radiation exposures – the things that we can do in our daily lives to take back control of and responsibility for our health.
Of course it isn't, b/c all of it is a scam!(like every other secular "fundraiser")
Pink NFL merchandise isn’t raising that much money for cancer research
Posted by Sid.Saraf on October 16th, 2013 at 1:03 pm
October is the pink month for the NFL. Players, coaches, cheerleaders and even stadiums are adorned with the color to promote Breast Cancer Awareness Month. The league also sells pink merchandise (hats, jerseys, etc.) and donates a portion of the proceeds to the American Cancer Society.
How much of the proceeds? Well, not a whole lot. ESPN’s Darren Rovell is reporting (via Business Insider) that the league takes a “25 percent royalty from the wholesale price (1/2 retail), donates 90 percent of royalty to American Cancer Society.”
So, how much money is that exactly? Here’s the breakdown: If you drop $100 on a pink Seahawks jersey, $12.50 is going to the NFL. Then $76.25 is divided by the company that makes the merchandise and the company that sells it, which is often the league and its individual teams.
So, what’s left for the American Cancer Society? Try $11.25. By the way, the ACS has operating costs of its own, which means that 71.2 percent of the money it receives actually funds cancer research.
In the end, 8.01 percent of pink NFL merchandise sold actually goes to cancer research.
Before people jump all over the NFL for this, the money it is raising is better than donating nothing. The league is also doing a service by promoting breast cancer awareness, which it should be commended for.
However, before you drop some cash on that pink merchandise, you might stop and think. Would you be better served by donating money directly to the American Cancer Society?
But if you’re just looking to add a cute pink top to your gameday ensemble, then rock on. You’ll be doing at least something to help cancer research in the process.
October 30, 2013 by EDITOR
Amish Girl Forced Into Experimental Chemotherapy Is Taken Out of U.S. and Recovers with Natural Treatment
Early in October 2013, the entire nation heard about how Sarah Hershberger, a 10-year old Ohio Amish girl with leukemia (now recovered), was being forced into a two-year unproven experimental chemotherapy study by Akron Children’s Hospital (ACH). Parents reported this week the child is fully recovered through natural treatments.
It was just learned the parents, Andy and Anna Hershberger, took their significantly recovered daughter out of the United States before the court ruled that a hospital-affiliated, attorney-nurse, Maria Schimer, was made the medical guardian to make sure Sarah will get her treatments.
Schimer is General Counsel (chief legal advisor) for Northeast Ohio Medical University (NEOMED), a close affiliate and business partner of the hospital. According to Andy, Ms. Schimer has never met Sarah or him and his wife and they were never told their child was being used in a research study--among other things.
Although they do not know it yet, the hospital now has a big problem they must deal with. Sarah is completely recovered, as of October 23, according to Andy. The hospital told them and the news media that Sarah would die in a few months without the treatment they recommend. Three doctors that have treated her with a natural, biochemical protocol using nutrition, supplements and plant extracts have declared Sarah cancer free based on cat scans and blood tests--confirmed three times.
Of the 100s of stories and broadcasts, the local and national media failed to investigate the story behind the story--the side of parents Andy and Anna Hershberger and the grandfather, Isaac Keim, a bishop in the Amish church. Andy told us "after the news media took only a part of my statements and twisted them, I wasn’t going to talk anymore." He and his family were happy and thankful that the Journal took the time to hear their side--never told before.
The Hershberger family says they never were told the chemotherapy was part of a research project using experimental chemicals. They also said the hospital did not get their signature for the second phase of different chemicals and only Sarah was asked to "put her name on the line." They claim they were not told of the serious side effects. They said Sarah’s confidential medical information was given to the news media violating federal privacy laws. After a significant improvement in killing the cancer, they saw that the chemo was starting to kill Sarah and decided to stop the treatment and employ a better option to stop the cancer altogether. This is when the hospital took legal action to keep Sarah in the treatment study.
During the four-month ordeal, besides the anguish and financial losses Andy suffered a serious traumatic stress condition disabling him for three weeks. Family and friends helped with the kids and the vegetable harvest and sales at their produce stand and the nearby auction. Now the Hershbergers want to return to the United States, come home to their six other children in Medina County Ohio and put their lives back together after what they describe as gross mistreatment by the hospital.
The hospital told the family and the news media Sarah would die in a few months without their treatments. Isaac Keim, the Amish bishop, said Akron General Hospital told him the same thing a year ago when he had cancer. He refused chemotherapy and took a more natural approach and he feels just fine. He knows other Amish people still living healthy several years after they were told they would be dead in a few months if they did not accept the cancer treatments being recommended.
Lost Business for the Hospital
ACH will lose as much as $1,000,000 or more by not treating Sarah the full 110 weeks in this study and, according to our sources close to the case, has already billed $130,000 for the first five weeks. Add to this the various pediatric cancer research grants and other funds it is receiving directly or indirectly for this type of study. This is not counting the billings for treatments for the long-term side effects such as other cancers, kidney dysfunction, heart problems and nerve damage--all common for those that survive chemotherapy.
They tell us chemotherapy saves lives, boosts long-term survival rates and does not damage healthy cells. All these statements by the cancer industry have been proven false.
Isaac Keim has said the Amish community in Ohio is turning away from the hospital and its 80 area locations. Many of them are now going elsewhere, he says. Andy says the hospital will not want people to hear about how they have been mistreated and especially the fact that Sarah is fully back to normal now--just in about two months.
This is not a religious issue; the Amish accepts modern medicine--as did the Hershbergers wanting Sarah to start chemotherapy. This case is about the rights of good parents having the freedom to choose other treatment options that are less expensive and possibly more effective. This case is about the power of corporations over individual rights to decide which medical treatments and experiments for children and adults must undergo.
Isaac Keim, by his authority as bishop of an Amish church, has declared the Amish church is against the court ruling and the actions by the hospital. He said he knows of many Amish bishops in the other churches who believe the same.
Why is the hospital going to all the time and expense, even with the risk of tarnishing their reputation, all to make sure their advice is taken as opposed to other available treatments widely known in Europe as well as clinics in the U.S.? After all, these are Amish people, and it could become an extremely costly public relations nightmare. ACH and NEOMED may have banked on the Amish to stay quiet and not talk to the outside world, knowing also the Amish does not sue in court thereby making more information public.
What’s at Stake
National Cancer Institute (NCI) lists 39 different and ongoing cancer trials at ACH each with a number children. ACH has revenues of $700,000,000 per year, 60% of which are Medicaid billings and other government agencies, according to their annual report. They are currently building a bond-funded $250,000,000 expansion for additional rooms and treatment facilities.
The ACH doctor over Sarah’s case practices part-time at ACH and four other Ohio hospitals. He is the Professor of Pediatrics at NEOMED.
At issue in this case is whether parents have the sole authority for medical decisions about their children and the power of corporations line ACH forcing unproven experimental treatments. In Ohio, the law allows a court-ordered limited medical guardianship "when it is the best interests of the child." This is the principle on which ACH attorneys based their appeal. This brings up many important questions:
How is it that a hospital whose primary interests are the profits from expensive procedures be an objective opinion or argument on what is in the "best interests" of the girl?
How is it the Court would give over medical decisions over to a hospital affiliate business partner?
What does the court decision mean for any person bringing a family member into a hospital who does not agree with the treatment decided on by their panels of experts? Do they risk legal actions for having a different opinion even if based on another medical opinion? Do they risk losing custody of their child?
It is most likely that legal proceedings will continue in reversing the second appellate court’s decision based on constitutional grounds.
Final Susan G. Komen 3-Day walk in Phoenix
Posted: Jun 04, 2013 9:16 PM Updated: Nov 08, 2013 8:22 AM
By Phil Benson - email
PHOENIX (CBS5) -
It's the start of the final Susan G. Komen 3-day walk in Phoenix to raise money for breast cancer research.
'3-Day For The Cure' walk raises $3.9M in AZ
After a 60-mile journey, they crossed the finish line Sunday.
Participants in The Susan G. Komen 3-Day for the Cure finished the long walk at Scottsdale Stadium.
The event won't be back next year because of a steady drop in participants.
In June, the Susan G. Komen Foundation announced it is no longer going to hold the national 3-Day walk in seven markets, including Phoenix.
Officials blamed "declining participation in the last five years."
"While the 3-Day has brought great awareness to the breast cancer cause, participation levels over the last four years have made it difficult to sustain an event of this magnitude in 14 cities," the foundation said.
"Like you, we are saddened to see the national 3-Day series leave our community, but based on the information shared with us, we support the decision as being in the best interest of resources and our promise to end breast cancer forever," Phoenix foundation officials said.
The 2014 Susan G. Komen 3-Day will return to Atlanta, Dallas/Fort Worth, Michigan, Philadelphia, San Diego, Seattle and the Twin Cities.
Annual mammograms don't reduce breast cancer deaths, study contends
But some outside experts cite flaws in the 25-year review of screening's effects on women.
(HealthDay News) -- The value of yearly mammograms is under fire once again, with a long-running Canadian study contending that annual screening in women aged 40 to 59 does not lower breast cancer death rates.
For 25 years, the researchers followed nearly 90,000 women who were randomly assigned either to get screening mammograms or not.
"Mammography detected many more invasive breast cancers," said lead researcher Dr. Cornelia Baines, professor emeriti at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health. "Survival time was longer in women getting mammography."
"[However], the number of deaths from breast cancer was the same in both groups at 25 years," she said.
"It is increasingly being recognized that there are significant harms from screening, and that screening can do much less now than 40 years ago because of improved therapy," Baines added. "Twenty-two percent of the mammography group with screen-detected invasive beast cancer were over-diagnosed and unnecessarily inflicted with therapy."
Over-diagnosis is defined as the detection of harmless cancers that will not cause symptoms or problems during a patient's lifetime.
The study, which began in 1980 in 15 screening centers in six Canadian provinces, was published Feb. 11 in the online edition of the journal BMJ.
Women in the mammography group had a total of five mammograms -- one a year for five years. Those aged 40 to 49 in the mammography group and all women aged 50 to 59 in both groups also had an annual physical exam. Women aged 40 to 49 in the no-mammography group had a single physical exam followed by typical care.
During the next 25 years, 3,250 women who got screening mammographies were diagnosed with breast cancer, compared with 3,133 in the no-mammography group, according to the study. While 500 women in the mammography group died during the follow up, 505 in the no-mammography group did.
In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updated its recommendations on screening mammograms, suggesting them for women aged 50 to 74 every two years. Among women aged 40 to 49, the task force recommended only a discussion with a woman's doctor on the pros and cons of screening.
But other U.S.-based organizations, including the American Cancer Society, continue to recommend annual screening mammograms for women beginning at age 40.
The American College of Radiology, which also supports annual screening mammograms for women aged 40 and older, reacted strongly to the Canadian findings. In a statement issued Feb. 11,
the college called the report "an incredibly misleading analysis based on the deeply flawed and widely discredited Canadian National Breast Screening Study."
Among those flaws, according to the college: the quality of mammograms done in the study was poor and the skills of the imaging technologists were not adequate.
The new report isn't a surprise, said Dr. Carol Lee, chairwoman of the college's breast imaging communications committee. "When it was first reported 20 years ago, it didn't show a benefit," she said.
The findings are at odds with many other reports that show a benefit for routine screening, Lee added.
"Screening mammography has been shown over and over again to decrease mortality from breast cancer," she said.
Lee said she is "concerned [the new study] is going to discourage women from having mammograms."
In an editorial accompanying the study, experts from the University of Oslo, the Harvard School of Public Health and other institutions agreed with the Canadian researchers that the rationale for screening needs to be reassessed by policy makers.
Baines said her research points to the value of offering screening mammograms only to those at higher risk of breast cancer.
"In time, the hope is to offer screening to a subset of the population [that has] been identified, probably by genetic markers, to be very likely to benefit from screening," she said.
A Dentist Exposes The Root Canal Coverup
Tuesday, May 20, 2014 14:49
One of the most feared dental procedures is the root canal. It can also be one of the most painful. For the thousands of people who have them, most are unaware of the danger that it may pose to their health. More than 25 million root canals are performed each year in the United States.
What is a root canal?
A root canal is a procedure where the dentist drills out decay, removes the infected pulp and then places a file down the canal to remove the remaining pulp. The canals are then filled with a plastic material (gutta percha). The tooth is now basically dead and remaining in your mouth.
What are the issues with root canals?
The issue lies with anaerobic bacteria that remains in the tooth canal which can be released into the blood stream causing mild to serious health conditions such as MS, ALS and even cancer. Dr Hal Huggins’ website shares the specific issues with having something that is “dead” in your mouth and which toxic bacteria have been found when tested.
Recently, Dr Robert Jones, a researcher, discovered a very high correlation between root canals and breast cancer. He performed a five year study of 300 breast cancer patients which showed that 93% of the women with breast cancer had root canals.
Dr George Meinig, DDS wrote a book called “The Root Canal Cover-up” which addresses the issues of root canals . In this book he discusses an extensive research study in which 5,000 animals were involved. The research revealed that bacteria and toxins were able to escape into the blood circulation around the bony socket of the tooth. They were also able to show how these organisms were responsible for a high percentage of the chronic and degenerative disease conditions which are epidemic in America.
Approximately 25% of the population have strong immune systems and are able to live symptom and issue free after a root canal. This causes dentists and endodontists to believe, falsely, that root canals are perfectly safe. However, there are approximately 75% who’s immune systems have been compromised through poor nutrition, accidents, illnesses, stress, etc. These are the individuals who develop symptoms that cause them to go from doctor to doctor in attempts to find answers to their maladies. A high percentage of these cases are due to the bacteria coming from their root canal filled teeth, or from tooth extractions, or other foci of infection.
Recently, Dr Robert Jones, a researcher, discovered a very high correlation between root canals and breast cancer. He performed a five year study of 300 breast cancer patients which showed that 93% of the women with breast cancer had root canals. Seven percent had other dental issues. An interesting note was that tumors, in most cases, manifested on the same side of the body as the root canal(s) or where dental restoration we performed. Dr Jones determined that toxins from the bacteria in the infected tooth and jawbone may inhibit the body’s natural ability to suppress tumor development.
My personal story is similar. I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2000. The cancerous nodule was located on the right side of my thyroid gland. I had one root canal tooth in my mouth which was located on the right side of my body in a lower molar. When fighting cancer naturally I had 11 amalgam fillings removed along with pulling the root canal tooth. When extracted my dentist noted that there was black sludge under the tooth along with necrosis of the jaw bone. It was after I cleaned up my mouth that I began to experience a more rapid healing from cancer.
Dental health is important to your full body health. One of the things that I use are Young Living dental products that contain Thieves Oil. Clove is a key ingredient in this blend and it has been shown to help heal teeth and combat dental bacteria that contributes to gingivitis.
Man plotted attack during 'Twilight' movie
Nov. 2012 KANSAS CITY — A southwest Missouri man accused of plotting to shoot up a movie theater during the new "Twilight" film was charged Friday after his mother contacted police, telling them she worried her son had purchased weapons similar to those used during the fatal Colorado theater shooting.
Blaec Lammers, 20, of Bolivar, is charged with first-degree assault, making a terroristic threat and armed criminal action. He was jailed in Polk County on $500,000 bond.
"Thankfully we had a responsible family member or we might have had a different outcome," Bolivar Police Chief Steve Hamilton told The Associated Press. He said Lammers is under a doctor's care for mental illness, and court documents said he was "off of his medication."