When Prevention is Part of the Problem

October 21, 2005 at 11:37 pm | Posted in Mammography | 1 Comment

If a Pig is Pink is the Earth Still Green?

The research for mammography has been sitting on my desk for a couple of weeks. The big stall for me is how can I tell women to stop and think before you get these exams? I can’t, the hospitals and doctors can’t and legislation can’t.

The reasons are many fold, liability suits, and big-industry investments, for starters. More money and time is spent debating and lobbying for less and more mammography than is spent on finding a non-radiation means of detection. When it comes to Breast Cancer Awareness the people in charge have a major in-the-box head problem. Its up to you to change it. If your intuition tells you this sucks and I don’t want to do it; well do you do it? I don’t. My life is far too precious just to hand over to BIG interests that don’t have my interests at heart.

Mammography has some history though. Its no catch-all, only works for a few, its age specific, and its murder. That last thing, murder, you say? Well your dentist insists you put on a shield when you get xrays for your teeth. And here we are at the mammography xray with your boobs flattened out on the glass. The radiation is far more than you get for your teeth. How can anyone doubt that mammographies have given women cancer. Cancer has increased boldly since these tests have started.

Its just one more thing to think about when you consider that one month out of the year, Breast Cancer Awareness Pink month is dedicated to providing funding for this test.

I’ll followup later with the cites and statistics. I just had to get this started and off my desk.

Tags: , , ,
Advertisements

Modifying the Drug that Does Not Cause Cancer

October 15, 2005 at 12:27 am | Posted in Food Substitutes | Leave a comment

Your Choice Beautiful

When BIG media talks about Coffee as a healer of Cancer do you keep listening?

That black stuff that stains anything it falls on? A healer?

Ok. What do you put in it? Sugar or a sugar substitute? Soy, milk or milk substitute?

Once you modify the drug the Cancer healing promises are off.

What?

Caffeine is the drug behind your favorite beverage. Apparently caffeine is not all you need; the manufacturer adds sugar substitutes into the drug to make it more appealing.

Its the same poker-faced nastiness that is behind the big Breast Cancer Awareness story.

If you go back to the old days of Rome you’ll find that they too had their favorite drug, Lead. Lead was used in everything. It never bothered the rich that they were no longer fertile. They just stole the poor’s children. People were dropping like flies, babies born malformed or not born at all, people going quite crazy.

The chemicals we allow in our food substitutes will do the same thing. In fact, they produce breast cancer.

Why do we need these substitutes? For some, the need is due to other health diagnoses. To others, the need is to match up to the airbrushed model in some media display that sells a product in this manner: “You are not beautiful but if you buy this product you might be or at least you can aspire to be.”

Coffee and teas and other caffeinated beverages are a multi-billion dollar business. Their sweeteners rank a close second in this BIG success. Caffeine, a drug, is BIG business.

Google why would anyone think coffee caused cancer? You’ll find many authorities explaining how healing a cup of joe is.

Aha! Caught you. Its not that goofy brown stuff you imbibe every morning to get high and run over little old ladies crossing the street. Its the foo foo that you put in it that causes cancer, blindness, etc.

So what does that foo foo have in it. If its NutraSweet well then see Betty Martini’s “Mission Possible: Slowing The Flow“. Its a nice read. She’s got all these doctors and pharmas gasping:

“its called the “hidden epidemic” because no one associated all the neurological symptoms and diseases, and the endocrine disorders, and cancers with NutraSweet”

Searle and Monsanto have funded so many organizations that even the physicians at the American College of Physicians didn’t know until I provided them with some of the documents and case histories. They were aghast and one replied “we’re recommending the very thing that is making our patients sick”.

She asks why the FDA has not upheld the “Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act” in regards to the violations of nutrasweet in 600 products.

This is all very interesting when you consider that originally the FDA found articial sweetener NutraSweet unsafe and would not approve it. Along swaggered in ceo of Searle and Monsanto (Nutrasweet owners), Donald Rumsfeld, and with one swift shove got the poison FDA approved.

You might think this is old news that Nutrasweet is off the plate. Check again, its in all the coffee carts. Also take a look at some of the newer artificial sweeteners, Sucralose or Splenda. They’ve got chlorine in them. Read the fine print about mixing on them. Even if you don’t mix you probably do have to worry. Next time you take a swill of your moccacino ask what is in it? or what are you going to put in it? Better yet, ask why do you have to put something in it? Why in the heck are you drinking this stuff? Its definitely not nutritious. It doesn’t give you energy, it takes away energy.

Tags: ,

October 14, 2005 at 12:34 am | Posted in Love the Earth | Leave a comment
P-I-N-K-E-D
B O D Y
B L I G H T

haiku to OCTOBER
“Leaves craft into landscape against smart wind chill

as geese farewell, plastic products bleed toxic earth

Pinked body blight, listen, heal, remember

last night as nature mothered, lovered, pleased you.”

……………..bubblegumvision studios c 2005

Tags: ,

Father of Breast Cancer Awareness Month – Chemical Industry

October 13, 2005 at 12:36 am | Posted in Chemical Industry | Leave a comment

As if women did not have enough to do in their lives, enough battles to survive. This Breast Cancer Awareness month has got to go. I think the color for that month should be grey like nuclear grey.

I’ve been spending the last few days working on my poverty project and this breast cancer research and charity mess. The findings for the projects really stink.

If you don’t buy into the month it won’t exist. If people are meeting up to sing John Lennon’s love songs in Central Park, surely women can meetup to provide for free what these companies charge and dictate for one month. The only way breast cancer cause is going to cease is if women take the responsibility into their own hands. Stop buying media hype, products and empowering medicine that does not make sense. Make the government and pharma and chemical companies stuff their bad logic in their pen pockets and do the right thing. Your body is always sending you messages do you listen? I always ask myself before I buy something is this nutritious and a nice way to treat my body? The answer is always a very economical one.

How did this Breast Cancer Awareness hype get started? The very chemical company that puts the hazardous chemicals in our environment initiated it:

Breast Cancer Awareness Month was initiated in 1985 by a British chemical conglomerate called Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), now known as Zeneca Pharmaceuticals. Breast Cancer Awareness Month is “focused on educating women about early detection of breast cancer.”[7] Breast Cancer Awareness Month has promoted the slogan, “Early Detection is Your Best Prevention,” but this is nonsense –if your cancer can be detected it’s too late to prevent it. Breast Cancer Awareness Month –with all the authority of those 17 sponsoring organizations –consistently diverts attention away from real prevention.

Breast Cancer Awareness Month thus reveals an uncomfortably close connection between the chemical industry and the cancer research establishment in the U.S. Imperial Chemical –with revenues of $14 billion –is among the world’s largest manufacturers of pesticides, plastics, pharmaceuticals and paper. ICI is also a major polluter. For example, one of its Canadian paint subsidiaries has been held responsible for 30% of all the toxic chemicals dumped into the heavily-polluted St. Lawrence River which separates the U.S. from Canada.[9]

Researchers Devra Lee Davis and Leon Bradlow with Cornell University formally proposed a hypothesis, suggesting ways in which environmental estrogens (or, as they are sometimes called, xenoestrogens –xeno meaning “foreign”) might cause breast cancer.[15] The research world began to buzz with interestingn new work, asking whether chemicals that mimic, or block, estrogens might contribute to breast cancer.

The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) and its subsidiary, the Chlorine Chemistry Council (CCC), quickly developed a strategy to protect their interests against those of the 180,000 women afflicted by breast cancer each year. (See REHW #495.) They hired a scientist to begin casting doubt on the Davis/Bradlow hypothesis by saying this line of research is a dead end, a huge waste of time and taxpayers’ money. (Manufacturing doubt is a strategy that has served the tobacco industry handsomely for 50 years, and the chemical industry has now adopted it –all, of course, in the name of “good science.”) And they hired a sleazy, third-rate public relations firm –Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin of Washington, D.C. –to develop a plan for discrediting Devra Lee Davis herself.

—-Peter Montague, (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)

Does Breast Cancer Awareness Month Create a Mini-Terror State for Women?

October 8, 2005 at 12:42 am | Posted in Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaign | Leave a comment

I was in yoga class and we were talking about being a vegetarian. I brought up Breast Cancer Awareness Month. People didn’t want to talk about this topic. Finally one woman said I don’t like to talk about it. It scares me. I don’t like all the marketing of products for the Pink campaign.

I have always ignored the Pink campaign myself. For me it seems like a huge belittlement of women. However I know that people whose lives are touched by cancer get relief, comradeship and encouragement from it. These are worthy things. So go for what makes you happy.

For me every day is cancer awareness month. It does not make me fearful or have anxiety. Every day is my chance to take care of myself, to be happy, to do something to effect positively the environment and hopefully someone else’s life. I celebrate Breast Cancer Awareness with every color in the spectrum. I feel that there is more than enough money for the research that is needed. That what is being raised through Pink as well as government funds is hugely misdirected and mismanaged. I’ll do something about that misdirection and mismanagement after I get through the huge amount of information regarding it. Gosh! Its a mess.

I found a site that I think would help someone who is feeling scared or anxiety from Breast Cancer Awareness month. Its from a doctor’s perspective. There is much good information here. I’ll be reading it. Here is a quote that I thought was pretty right on.

“With many issues today it seems difficult to find the balance between realistic fear and obsessive anxiety. We all know how the things we are most afraid will occur somehow seem to happen. Some call it the law of attraction. The solution is usually to face your fear, understand it and move on. Unfortunately in breast cancer the answers are not always there and it is hard to find good places to go to understand the fear — who’s heard of support groups for women afraid of getting breast cancer?”

Tags: ,

May I Help Myself Please?Customizing Cancer Cause

October 7, 2005 at 12:54 am | Posted in Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaign, Mammography | Leave a comment

I’ve asked alot of questions from Google in the past few days. The Pink campaign is disturbing in the way it highlights marketing and advertising of products that are very bad for our society in exchange for a net of a few dollars to research. It is understandable but still disturbing how most of the dollars for research go to gene research. Corporate environment polluter’s influence on government reporting and research is beyond frustrating.

So many great writers have investigated the Pinks. I’ll keep reading them.

I have lived a great many years in big cities. I’ve watched:

  • the environment take a deep nose dive
  • my immune system be hurt by bad medical care
  • the environment tear right into me once there was an immunity opening.

With each health adversity I’ve:

  • always gone forward and healed myself
  • walked right out on doctors who really don’t have a clue
  • torn up toxic prescription slips as I shut the door
  • not come back for the tests ordered.

This is how I have survived. I’ve listened to my gut level, done my research and taken my best step forward.

Women need to:

  • do for themselves and for their families
  • take the list of products that have cancer-causing ingredients and not buy them
  • get on the internet and google for ‘cancer causing products’ and keep informed
  • boycott companies that produce anything that causes cancer.

Its hard to boycott a company that is doing so much good for cancer research. Especially when they are the best brand in town. I believe all these Pink people start out with the very best of intentions. Somehow they get off the track by staying on the same track and making it big business. They do this because they think it will help the cure.

Is there a cure? is there a recovery? Apparently, at this point in science, there is no cure or recovery. The gene game is stop and go. That’s why each person has to figure out the cause for themselves. Science can’t possibly do it. From the view that the main goal is for people not to get cancer, science is on a huge losing streak. More people and money streaming into more gene research projects. Still there is no cure. The cure is Breast Cancer Awareness’ [Pink‘s] goal.

I think the bottom line is we’ve got to:

  • look at how we eat. Ok I write about Starbucks sometimes. That’s because I think its totally funny. I wouldn’t dream of putting that brown-looking stuff in my body.
  • We’ve got to take some of the hallmark occasions and throw them out the window. Delivered flowers have cancer-causing pesticides on them. You get them up your nose, you get them all over your clothes and on your hands. They are probably worse for you than the fruit and vegetables you don’t eat for fear of pesticides. The irony is if you are in the hospital sick, people send you flowers. These are the pesticides that government reports do not mention.
  • be alot more careful with ourselves
  • to love ourselves
  • realize that the cause and cure for cancer lies individually within ourselves
  • to move if we live in a place where everyone is getting sick
  • think alot about number of days off, if our boss is making copper chips down the hall or we work in Cancer research or a hospital, i.e. our workplace should be safe.

Whether a person gets cancer or not really depends on their immunity in the end. Whether they have a great genetic makeup or not, if the immunity is down, the person goes down. It is the person’s environment that will take the immunity down.

If you get cancer you’ve got to seek medical care.
You have the right to:

  • reject it and get second and third opinions
  • decide if a mammogram at a facility is the safest thing for you
  • explore what other options are available for you
  • exercise and eat fruits and vegetables that may have pesticides on them
  • do anything that might make you feel happier
  • drink a freakin Starbucks if you so aspire
  • You can even run barefoot without Nike ID shoes.

Finally would it hurt companies to not leak wastes into our ground, water and air? For people to stop cigarette smoking and driving cars all over the earth? Do we have to pay billions of dollars for people to do the right thing? And when we come racing out of Starbucks could we at least watch out for little old ladies like me who only want to cross the street?

Tags: , , , ,

If the Cure is in the Gene, What Happens When the Cause Mutates? Will I get Sick Again?

October 6, 2005 at 1:00 am | Posted in Gene Research | Leave a comment

“The primary corporate sponsor of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month is AstraZeneca, which makes the popular cancer drug Tamoxifen. Interestingly, Tamoxifen can also cause cancer and until recently, AstraZeneca also made a variety of other cancer-causing chemicals. Apparently the company has a thing about color marketing. Not only do they encourage you to think pink, they are also the maker of a frequent sponsor of the nightly network news, the little purple pill a.k.a. Nexium. Which begs the question of how corporate sponsorship of the news might impact how cancer ‘cures’ and causes are reported by the networks.”

–Lucinda Marshall, “Does Breast Cancer Awareness Save Lives

“The money, less fundraising and administrative costs, goes on researcher salaries (more than 70 per cent), consumables and instrumentation. We have progressively improving outcomes – more people surviving after diagnosis – rather than a cure because the problem is so complex. While cancer is a devastating experience, and its management must take account of the whole person, anti-cancer drugs are almost invariably developed using a molecular approach. Cancer arises following failure(s) in the network of thousands of protein types that interact to limit cell growth, each protein encoded by a different gene (a piece of DNA). Finding out how this machinery malfunctions, and developing agents to circumvent uncontrolled growth, are initial goals. Drugs are identified from among thousands of such agents, and optimising their use involves years of clinical trials. There are multiple other approaches.”

Professor Bernard W. Stewart, Director, Cancer Services, South Eastern Sydney

Tags: , , , , , ,

The long road of Environmental Cause and Effect New York State

October 6, 2005 at 12:57 am | Posted in Environmental Cause | Leave a comment

From
Tattered Hope – Part Five
By Dan Fagin
Reprinted from Newsday: In a special report this summer, Newsday examines how governments, scientists and activists are trying, and often failing, to address widespread worries on Long Island about possible links between cancer and the local environment, including neighborhood cancer clusters. The first three segments were published beginning July 28, 2002, and the final three segments began on Aug. 11, 2002.

Flaws in The System: The Anatomy of a Cancer Cluster Probe: “Why Can’t Anyone Figure Out What’s Going On?”
© SusanLoveMD.org., The Website for Women. All worldwide rights reserved.

“Rather than go do a bunch of these little analyses every year, let’s bite the bullet and do one or two good ones,” said Henry Anderson, Wisconsin’s state epidemiologist.

Until the mid-1990s, New York State was part of that trend. During the administration of former Gov. Mario Cuomo, the state health department did plenty of cluster investigations but it also launched a series of larger environmental studies looking for links between diseases and environmental problems. In 1992, for example, the department found no link between breast cancer and living near high-voltage power lines, but in 1994 it released a high-profile study with a scientifically controversial finding: Long Island women with postmenopausal breast cancer were 60 percent more likely to have lived near industrial sites than cancer-free women.

“What we tried to demonstrate is that instead of waiting for clusters, you can be proactive and look for possible causes if you have some sort of hypothesis you can investigate,” said James Melius, an epidemiologist who was the state health department’s director of occupational health and environmental epidemiology from 1988-95, and is now director of the union-affiliated New York State Laborers’ Health and Safety Trust Fund in Albany.

But when George Pataki became governor in 1995, the department began shifting away from doing large environmental studies, though it still participates in some multi-state studies led by other agencies. “We’re not the National Cancer Institute,” said department spokeswoman Kristine Smith. “We want to do only those studies that are most necessary, and we want them to be scientifically viable.”

Instead, the department’s recent initiatives have mirrored the desires of Long Island’s politically powerful cancer activists: upgrading the cancer registry, doing more cluster studies, and putting maps of local cancer rates up on the Internet. Advocates protested so vociferously in 1998 when Pataki vetoed a $1-million budget appropriation to create the cancer maps that within 24 hours the governor relented and agreed to produce them. Since then, he has been careful to cultivate his ties to the advocates, spending $4 million on various registry-related projects and making more cancer-rate information publicly available in New York than any other state.

“He has done a phenomenal job trying to please the community and the activists,” said Lorraine Pace of West Islip, a longtime advocate who serves on an advisory board to the state’s mapping project. The problem is that those maps — now posted on the department Web site at http://www.health.state.ny.us — are regarded by many cluster experts as having no real value beyond giving the public what it wants. The maps do use improved software to partially address the boundary problems that plague the state’s cluster studies. But the issue of small sample size remains unsolved. More importantly, the maps represent what California’s Neutra dismissively calls “data-dredging,” or looking blindly for clusters without first developing a testable theory about possible causes.

Tags: , , ,

Breast Cancer Funds Where Should The Money Go?

October 5, 2005 at 1:08 am | Posted in Breast Cancer Funding | Leave a comment

You Think I Was Born This Way?

Sometimes I think the best blogs are for personal soap boxes. So today this is my soap box.

Its quite a dilemma to know what to do when it comes to working for a cause or giving money to one.

I think people who are a victim of the cause in question probably know best. They are in it. That’s why I tend to listen to those people first.

If you read congressional testimony on Environment and Cancer you might be convinced that taking care of the environment is not going to reduce cancers. That a better diet and gene research is the way to go. They’ll tell you that there is no point in regulating the chemicals in our environment. That most of the cancer comes from our workplace. 1997 Cato Congressional Committee. They’ll however venture out and attribute cigarette smoking to Lung Cancer. I’d say so much is missing from this report that convinced the Senate to say ‘tata darlings, but you’ve got the wrong guy. Now Scoot.’ That’s what our government did for Breast Cancer in 1997. They said Breast Cancer was decreasing. But it hasn’t. It doesn’t make sense what they say about the environment. How can chemicals in our water and ground not harm us? They tell us that wealthy people are at less risk than poor people.

My great, great aunt died of Breast Cancer. She was wealthy. She was my age. Science loaded her up with radiation as a treatment. She died in her bed with my grandmother taking care of her.

I live well below the poverty level. I am very healthy. I’ve been a vegetarian since I was 19. I don’t drink or smoke or eat rich food. I have never been overweight in my life. I’ve always been fit. However I do have one gaping hole in my environmental history. I worked for IBM as a software developer in Poughkeepsie, New York. What IBM is doing to the ground and water in mid-Hudson Valley shouldn’t be happening. The State is giving IBM millions. May I ask what IBM is giving back?? Go up to Hudson, NY. You’ll find factories with CANCER UNIT on them.

There is something very hot about moderation in everything. The fact that only 10% of cancer funding is spent on environmental research is definitely out of balance. It needs to be scrutinized. Its just plain fishy. Just like that stupid, I mean really dink, report by Cato Research. I think you should have to take an IQ test before you become a senator. Anything below 40 is a reject.

What makes sense to me is to investigate all of these big pink sponsors. Why are they so Pink? Its pretty easy to figure it out.

Today’s “Who Is Talking” List:
Lucinda Marshall at CounterCurrent
Judy Brady at Stop Cancer
Brevail
The Green Gate

A side note on the Cafe Press store:

You Are Beautiful
100% of all product markups go to the funds for Breast Cancer Awareness activism. At this point the list includes one agency that I have contact with. Breast Cancer Action. When the Cafe Press check is written for markups this store will list how much was sent, how the funds were used, and what programs were involved. The plan is to keep you informed as it happens.
Tags: , ,

If a Pig is Pink is the Earth Still Green?

October 5, 2005 at 1:03 am | Posted in Environmental Cause | Leave a comment

If a Pig is Pink Is the Earth Still Green?

When it comes to Science it all makes Sense. Ok so between the Cato report and The Skeptical Environ- mentalist I’ll give up the Kyoto bill. I’ll also not go for 100% pesticide removal. I’ll do all this. I am still going through The Pink List and checking them out. And the Cato report is still a Big Fish story to me. Environment is more than EPA and Pesticides. Environment is our addictive food retail, our seductive cosmetics companies, seductive intimate apparel companies, our Drug Companies and above all else our industries dumping wastes on the earth. Nowhere in the BBC article or Cato did I find any addressing of these environmental components.

I Agree with BBC, August 21, 2001, Bjorn Lomborg, author of ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ on this:

“It’s sensible not to trust industry, but we should be equally wary of the green movement. Complexity makes it harder to make the right decisions, but if there are lots of expert opinions on a level playing field we tend to get pretty close. The problem is that on environmental issues we have not had a level playing field.”

And he can have these two as Wins:

“Pesticides cause cancer, but very little cancer. The estimate I have is about 20 deaths in the US a year. Twenty deaths is potentially something we should tackle, however, the cost of doing something about it is measured in billions of dollars – $50-150bn a year. …Eating fruits and vegetables is one of the best ways to avoid getting cancer. If Americans ate 20% less of them that would cost an additional 26,000 deaths a year. Twenty deaths a year is bad, but $50-150bn and 26,000 deaths to save those 20 lives – that’s simply a bad deal.”

“It looks benign because we’re doing good, but the downside is that there are less resources to spend elsewhere,” he says. To save a life via medical means costs around $19,000, to stop someone dying due to an environmental hazard involves an investment of some $4.2m. …”Is it reasonable that we save one human life in the environment, rather than 200 lives in the health sector?”

However:

How come it costs so much to clean up the air. Should not companies have a conscience and clean it up voluntarily? Why so much money to do something so simple. All companies must not pollute the earth, create dangerous chemicals and sell products that include them.

Why is BIG Business such a PIG always wanting to increase how much money they have. How many cars and houses. I’d be ashamed to live in a mansion or to go on and on about wine lists if the source of that wealth came from other people’s misery. Its no wonder we have so many cancer causing Can’t Get to Sleep and Constipation drugs in this country. As an American I’ve got to know just about everything I could possibly do is contributing to people’s misery somewhere in the world.

Do I just say ‘oh well can’t please all the people’ crap and do nothing? Because I think that is a

R e a l l y B a d D e a l

Tags: , , , , , ,
Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.