|
Betreff: The American Cancer Promoting Society |
|
Von: Iris Atzmon |
|
Datum:
Sun, 5 Aug 2007
01:37:48 +0300 |
August 3... The
American Cancer Society is misleading the public —while
alleging that Americans are perilously ill-informed about cancer risks. Thanks
to the ACS, the front page of this week's Washington Post Health section tells the 30% of the
population who believe that "cell phones cause cancer" that they are
"wrong."
The Post story was prompted by an ACS news release about a study that will soon appear in Cancer,
a journal published by the ACS. The ACS team warns that, "A notable
percentage of the participants in this study hold beliefs about cancer risk at
odds with the prevailing scientific evidence."
Ironically, it is the ACS that is out of touch with the scientific evidence. As
we have pointed out many times, there are now two different research groups
which have found elevated risks of two different types of tumors on the side of
the head the phone was placed after ten or more years of cell phone use (see
for instance, our January 22 news item). Given these troubling findings,
why is the ACS taking such a cavalier attitude towards a still uncertain, yet
possibly very serious, cancer risk?
One possible reason is that the survey on which the ACS builds its case is five
years old. That was before the studies pointing to tumor risks were available. But
this is no excuse. The absence of proof of a hazard is not the same as proof of
safety. (We can almost hear the chorus of industry consultants chiming in, as
they so often do, that you can never prove a negative. They're right in a
general sense, but not about this. No one yet knows whether phones are safe. Not
even the ACS.)
The ACS cites only one study to back up its claim that a cell phone cancer risk
is an urban myth: the Danish study published last year. It's true that
the Danish Cancer Society did not see a tumor risk, but it had no information
on which side of the head the phone was used by those surveyed. If laterality
is a key variable, as it appears to be, the Danish study could not have seen a
link.
Next week, the National Academy of Sciences is convening a workshop to identify research gaps in what
is known about cell phone health effects. At a time when not a single
experimental or epidemiological study is underway in the U.S., it is foolish
indeed for the American Cancer Society to discourage further work on RF
radiation. There are now close to 250 million users of cell phones in the U.S.
(and over 2 billion worldwide). They need to hear the facts rather than
industry-friendly blather from the cancer establishment.
"Those who have taken authority as the truth,
rather than truth as the authority."
-Gerald Massey
NASSAU AND SUFFOLK EDITION
Study: Cell phones safe
BYLINE: BY DELTHIA RICKS. STAFF WRITER
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A42
Cell phones - those seemingly indispensable gadgets
that allow communication virtually at anytime from
anywhere - have long raised questions about safety,
but Danish scientists have found they are no more
dangerous than microwave ovens or FM radios.
The research, the first to compare long-term cancer
risks between people who regularly use cell phones and
those who do not, found that the popular mobile units
do not increase the likelihood of brain tumors,
leukemia or the inner ear cancers known as acoustic
neuromas. The study is the largest to date to conclude
that cell phones pose no harm.
Epidemiology in
first began using cell phones between 1982 and 1985.
Schuz writes in the current issue of the Journal of
the National Cancer Institute, a
that "During operation, the antenna of a cellular
telephone emits radio frequency electromagnetic fields
that can penetrate four to six centimeters into the
human brain."
But the team did not observe an increased cancer risk
even among people who had used cell phones for more
than 10 years. On average, people in the study had
used the phones for about 8 1/2 years but some used
them for up to 21 years.
Dr. Avi Barbasch of the American Cancer Society said
the study offers assurances that cell phones do not
pose an increased risk of life-threatening
malignancies, although he cautions that scientists
should still study potential risks.
"The urban legend is that using cell phones causes
brain cancer," Barbasch said in a statement yesterday.
"Now we have an urban truth that they don't."
Sweden
The Swedish Cancer Society bought shares of
tobacco industry (www.dn.se 3.5.2005)
Source: article can be purchased here:
Cancerfonder har köpt aktier i tobaksindustrin
Ekonomi: 3 maj 2005 av Olof Drakenberg, Mårten Hennéus
U.S.A
"When the American Cancer Society (ACS) was founded
in 1913 (for the purpose of eradicating cancer) the cancer rate was one in 100
people. In spite of, or more likely because of, ACS's activities, the cancer
rate is now one in three, and rising. This is not a good outcome from such a
well-funded organization, and is not surprising, considering what Hardin Jones,
MD, said when he resigned as it's President: "If cancer cure suddenly appeared, there would be a rash of suicides
as ACS executives jumped out of windows"
( Eliane Hollingsworth, Director of Hippocrates Health
Centre of Australia, in her book: Take Control of Your Health and Escape the Sickness Industry
page 247 www.doctorsaredangerous.com )
The
financial relationship between ACS and Neutrogena has also raised red flags for
some experts. "
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/072907_page.html
Cancer-Gate:
How to Win the Losing Cancer War (Policy, Politics, Health and Medicine)
(Policy, Politics, Health and Medicine Series, Vicente Navarro, Series)
(Paperback)
Think before you pink:
how much money we donate- for whom? do they really
advance our interests?
this is a huge industry, this pink parade:
http://www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org/Pages/ParadeOfPink.html
Cosmetic companies and breast cancer
http://www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org/Pages/CosmeticCompanies.html
The "Pink" Fraud
- Brought to you by
the people who make Breast Cancer
Dr. Loretta Lanphier, ND, CN, HHP
Been seeing a lot of pink ribbons lately? It's a sure
sign that it's National Breast Cancer Awareness Month
again, an annual event that has been recognized every
October since 1985.
It is sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, the
American Cancer Society, and over a dozen other
medical, governmental, and professional organizations.
The coalition's trademark slogan is:
"Early Detection is Your Best Protection."
Who can argue with that?
Cancer bad. Protection good. It's a no-brainer, right?
Well, maybe we'd better take a closer look before we
decide.
Perhaps the place to begin is to learn a bit about the
history of this organization. National Breast Cancer
Awareness Month (NBCAM), or Breast Cancer Awareness
Month as it was originally called, was the brainchild
of a British chemical conglomerate called Imperial
Chemical Industries (ICI), which became Zeneca
Pharmaceuticals, and today is known as AstraZeneca.
By their own admission, AstraZeneca has spent several
million dollars on the NBCAM project.
What is behind their interest in Breast Cancer?
For over the last 20 years, AstraZeneca was the
manufacturer of one of the largest selling breast
cancer drugs in the world:
Nolvadex (tamoxifen citrate).
(According to a notice posted at www.nolvadex.com,
Nolvadex is no longer manufactured or sold in the
generic form tamoxifen citrate is still available).
Nolvadex is not a cure for cancer.
It has been heavily prescribed as a drug to lessen the
risk of reoccurrence in women who have previously
received treatment for breast cancer.
It was also approved for use as a "risk reduction"
drug (the FDA would not allow the term "prevention"),
and prescribed to women with no presence of breast
cancer who are considered to be at elevated risk.
This drug has been very profitable for AstraZeneca,
with sales over $400 million annually, but it is also
a very controversial drug.
It has significant side effects that have been linked
to uterine cancer, liver cancer, heart disease,
osteoporosis, depression, eye damage, blood clots,
and even breast cancer--the very condition it is
supposed to treat!
But the story doesn't stop there.
AstraZeneca (ICI) is a chemical giant, and is one of
the world's top producers of organochlorides, which
are chlorine-based industrial chemicals.
Organochlorides are used in the manufacture of a wide
variety of compounds, including Agent Orange, PCB's,
and DDT.
Organochlorides are also known carcinogens, and
studies have found them to be specifically associated
with increased incidence of breast cancer.
So here we have a corporation--a very large and
profitable corporation with sales of $14 billion in
1998-- that makes its money from industrial chemicals
that cause cancer and drugs that treat (and
potentially cause) cancer.
Incidentally, they also have a large financial stake
in cancer treatment centers.
This brings us to another major criticism of NBCAM:
the focus of their efforts is almost exclusively on
detection and treatment of breast cancer, not on
prevention.
This only makes sense since their main financial
backer is a huge corporation that makes a fortune off
the treatment of a disease they contribute to causing.
But beyond that, breast cancer and cancers in general
can be prevented through changes in diet and
lifestyle, like staying away from chemicals and drugs
that cause cancer! The problem with this is that
prevention is very inexpensive and not very
profitable.
One more interesting thing about AstraZeneca's
relationship with NBCAM is that part of the
arrangement allows AstraZeneca to approve and/or veto
any marketing materials related to NBCAM.
Thus, you will not find anything related to
environmental causes of breast cancer or how it can be
prevented by avoiding exposure to them.
The American Cancer Society minimizes the cancer risks
from industrial chemicals and pesticides, and will not
take a stand on environmental regulation.
It is a very carefully controlled
ploy.
Cancer treatment is big business in the
Some have called it "The Cancer Industry" or "Cancer,
Inc."
The corporate and financial connections form a long
and winding road that goes far beyond AstraZeneca, and
include such giants as DuPont and General Electric.
Mammograms are the big buzz word as of late, and the
push is on for women to get them at a younger and
younger age.
The threshold has now dropped to 40 years of age, even
though there is no scientific evidence to show the
need for or benefit of a routine mammogram for any
woman under 50. In fact, some researchers believe that
mammograms may increase risk for breast cancer.
But the powers that be, such as the American Cancer
Society, continue to feed this misinformation to the
media.
"Early Detection" is the war-cry, with next to
nothing about preventing breast cancer so that there
is nothing to detect.
Meanwhile, a ton of money is being made off this
mammogram frenzy. One study estimated that there are
two to three times more mammogram machines installed
in the
General Electric sells more than $100 million worth of
mammogram machines annually, and DuPont provides much
of the film for these machines. Both of these
companies aggressively market mammograms to younger
women, and both are also financial supporters of the
American Cancer Society.
So knowing what we know about NBCAM and Big Cancer,
what is the best way to respond to the media and
advertising onslaught of the "Pink Ribbon" campaign?
Is buying a vacuum cleaner or a box of crackers with
a pink ribbon in it going to help at all in the fight
against breast cancer?
Actually, it is considered by some to be nothing more
than free advertising and good PR for companies who
come onboard.
There are three fundamental problems.
First, any money that is donated is most likely going
to be used to support organizations such as those
discussed earlier in this article. The focus of the
efforts is on detection and treatment, not on
education that can help women to prevent the onset of
breast cancer in the first place through healthy diet
and lifestyle and avoidance of carcinogens.
Secondly, in many cases the amount of donations from
these sponsors is very minimal. One study showed that
while Clinique donated $10 from every $14 in sales
during their "In the Pink" lipstick sales, many others
gave next to nothing. American Express donated only
one penny per transaction of any amount during "Charge
for the Cure."
Thirdly, the funds collected are poorly accounted for,
and the way the campaigns are advertised can be very
ambiguous.
Confusing terms such as "net profits to charity" are
used, and sometimes it is not clearly explained that
the donations are only promised for a limited time.
Some sponsors have had it set up so that the monies
would be donated only after a certain sales quota was
reached.
Most of the time consumers are not aware of this.
The bottom line is that you should "Think Before You
Pink." Don't let the media put you on a guilt trip if
you don't jump on the pink bandwagon.
Your time and energies are much better spent spreading
the truth about prevention and healthy choices that
can truly make an impact on this disease.
© 2004 Oasis Advanced Wellness, Inc.
Education Not Medication http://www.newstarget.com/020841.html