Posts Tagged Carcinogens

Komen for the Cure caught in mammography propaganda fraud; scientists blast agenda of deception

via: NaturalNews
by: Mike Adams
August 6, 2012

[NaturalNews] It is time for the truth to be told about Susan G. Komen for the Cure. The organization is, flatly stated, engaged in fraud. Funded by drug companies and mammogram manufacturers, the organization preys upon women in order to grow its own financial power while feeding female victims into the conventional cancer industry grinder.

All across America, men and women participate in “run for the cure” events, raising tens of millions of dollars each year that go into the hands of Komen for the Cure. What these people don’t know is that much of that money is spent on “free” mammograms. Those mammograms, in turn, actually cause breast cancer because they subject women to high doses of ionizing radiation.

The Susan G. Komen scam, in essence, is to raise money that’s used to give women cancer and create a financial windfall for the very same companies that financially support Komen in the first place. “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,” reports Tony Isaacs at NaturalNews (http://www.naturalnews.com/027307_cancer_breast_ACS.html).

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

Komen’s corporate partners include General Mills, Zumba Fitness, Walgreens, The Republic of Tea, REMAX, New Balance, American Airlines, Bank of America, Ford Motor Company, Dell and many more (http://ww5.komen.org/corporatepartners.aspx).

The bottom line? Komen deceives women while powerful corporations rake in the profits. This isn’t merely my own opinion. Two prominent doctors, in an article published in the British Medical Journal, have sharply condemned Komen for the Cure for lying about the “benefits” of mammograms.

Komen ads are false, say scientists

“The world’s largest breast cancer charity used misleading statistics and deceptive statements about mammography to promote breast cancer awareness and screening,” stated scientists. (http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/BreastCancer/34030)

Their names? Steven Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz, directors of the Center for Medicine and the Media at Dartmouth Medical School in Hanover, New Hampshire.

They join a growing number of other doctors and medical professionals who now see Komen for the Cure as a fundraising fraud and are going public with detailed accusations against Komen’s deceptions.

In the recently published BMJ article, Woloshin and Schwartz accused Komen of lying in its promotional propaganda for the 2011 Breast Cancer Awareness Month. In advertising, Komen falsely claimed the 5-year survival rate when breast cancer is caught early is 98%, while only 23% when not “caught early.” This is how Komen tricks women into getting more mammograms which cause more cancer — by claiming “early detection saves lives.” But it’s not science; it’s pure propaganda. (See below.)

According to study authors Woloshin and Schwartz, Komen willfully ignored “a growing and increasingly accepted body of evidence [showing] that although screening may reduce a woman’s chance of dying from breast cancer by a small amount, it also causes major harms.”

Here’s an image published by the British Medical Journal, detailing how Komen for the Cure is lying about mammography:
http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/articles/Komen_Deception_BMJ.jpg

Here’s what the data actually say

Komen for the Cure is in the business of fear mongering. They want everyone to be scared out of their minds that breast cancer is going to strike down all the women in their life. And in order to deal with the fear, all you have to do is give more money to Komen.

It’s sort of like an old-school evangelical group that asks for donations and says you’ll be healed if you just “believe,” but instead of claiming to heal people with the power of faith, the Komen cult claims to heal women with the power of ionizing radiation.

In reality, the actual 10-year risk of a 50-year-old woman dying of breast cancer is about half a percent: 0.53% (http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/BreastCancer/34030).

With mammograms used to detect breast cancer tumors, that 10-year risk of dying from breast cancer moves ever so slightly downward to 0.46%.

In other words, the real risk reduction of dying from breast cancer by receiving mammograms is only 0.07% — seven women out of 10,000.

How mammograms kill women

Seven out of 10,000 is a far cry from the fear-mongering levels that Komen propagandizes. It’s not quite the cancer apocalypse that Komen makes it out to be, huh? And in the mean time, Woloshin and Schwartz explain that anywhere from 20% to 50% of women who receive mammograms for a decade of their lives will have at least one “false alarm.”

These false alarms often lead to women being treated with deadly chemotherapy cocktails. These expensive drugs enrich the very same drug companies that donate money to Komen for the Cure. This is all part of the cycle of fraud that exploits women’s bodies for profit, all while conducting this sick fraud with the message of “finding a cure,” emblazoned with pink ribbons. The magnitude of the deception in all this is pathological… even criminal.

“The Komen advertisement is deceptive in another way: it ignores the harms of screening,” say Woloshin and Schwartz. “Between 20% and 50% of women screened annually for a decade experience at least one false alarm requiring a biopsy. Most importantly, screening results in overdiagnosis. For every life saved by mammography, around two to 10 women are overdiagnosed. Women who are overdiagnosed cannot benefit from unnecessary chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. All they do experience is harm,” they write.

That harm often comes in the form of unnecessary chemotherapy that poisons women but financially benefits the drug companies. Here’s another article on NaturalNews which also supports this conclusion:
http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html

Also read my previous article, “10 Facts about the Breast Cancer Industry You’re Not Supposed to Know”
http://www.naturalnews.com/024536_cancer_women_breast.html

“Women need much more than marketing slogans about screening,” wrote Woloshin and Schwartz. “They need — and deserve — the facts. The Komen advertisement campaign failed to provide the facts. Worse, it undermined decision making by misusing statistics to generate false hope about the benefit of mammography screening. That kind of behavior is not very charitable.”

The article goes on to emphasize that mammograms are a wash, offering no net benefit to women’s health:

The benefits and harms [of mammography] are so evenly balanced that the National Breast Cancer Coalition, a major US network of patient and professional organizations, “believes there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against universal mammography in any age group of women.”(http://www.knowbreastcancer.org/controversies/mammography-screening/)

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Mercury-Packed CFL Bulbs Now Found to Fry Your Skin

via: NaturalSociety
by: Mike Barrett
July 21, 2012

Individuals are drawn into compact fluorescent bulbs due to their environmentally-friendly label, but anyone who has really looked into these incandescent alternatives knows of the numerous health and environmental dangers of CFL bulbs. A recent study sheds light on just one such concern associated with the ‘green’ CFL bulbs, showing how they are capable of actually frying your skin with UVA radiation.

CFL Bulbs Can Fry Your Skin

Following a study in Europe examining the effects of CFL bulbs on the skin, researchers from Stony Brook University in New York conducted a similar study to examine the bulbs’ impact on human skin cells. For the study, the researchers purchased CFL bulb from various locations, and then measured the amount of UV radiation emissions. What they found was “significant levels of UVC and UVA” which was a result of cracks that were present in the coating on the bulbs. Every single one of the bulbs studied.

After studying the effects of these emission on human skin cells, they discovered that healthy skin cells experienced the same damage you would find with ultraviolet radiation. Similar tests were also conducted using incandescent light bulbs of the same intensity along with the implementation of UV-absorbing Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles, which are found within many personal care products. While the incandescent light bulbs had no negative effect on healthy skin cells, the researchers couldn’t say the same for CFL bulbs.

“Our study revealed that the response of healthy skin cells to UV emitted from CFL bulbs is consistent with damage from ultraviolet radiation…Skin cell damage was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles were introduced to the skin cells prior to exposure,” ,” said Professor Rafailovich. “Despite their large energy savings, consumers should be careful when using compact fluorescent light bulbs…Our research shows that it is best to avoid using them at close distances and that they are safest when placed behind an additional glass cover.”

This, of course, isn’t the only issue with compact fluorescent bulbs. In addition to having a potential negative impact on your skin, these bulbs emit toxic chemicals. In fact, only months after it was found that energy saving fluorescent bulbs release carcinogenic chemicals into the air, a new study has found that these harmful chemicals are continually released from the bulbs over a period of weeks to months. In addition to releasing these cancer-causing chemicals, which are far beyond the “safe” level set by the EPA, these bulbs also release levels of mercury which also exceed the “safe” levels for humans.

Additional Sources:

Stony Brook University

Scientific Committees

Read More At: NaturalSociety.com

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Major Physicians Group Implores Exemption From Smart Meters – Are You On the List?

via: ActivistPost
by: Heather Callaghan
Thursday, July 19, 2012

Are you on the doctors’ list of people who should be exempt from Smart Meters? 

In the last couple years, paying electricity residents have witnessed a startling use of force regarding installation of Smart Meters. This is after complaining to Public Utility Commissions about legitimate and serious health problems that were absent before the installations.

More alarming, is that doctors’ notices on behalf of their patients are completely dismissed. One doctor implored help from a commission that the situation wouldn’t be so urgent if patients had the ability to choose another company or have the ability to opt-out (of something they never asked for or actually protested in the first place).

But, tables are turning as awareness grows and doctors, researchers, and activists are joining forces to resist the Smart Meter invasion.

The prestigious American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has just issued a report emphasizing that patients with any of myriad health issues be accommodated to avoid not only having Smart Meters installed on their own properties, but to be accommodated also for their neighbors’ Smart Meters.

The report asks for doctors to recognize EMF/RF exposure in their patients, the cumulative effects, and especially the effects of Smart Grid technology.

Continue Reading At: ActivistPost.com

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Is Food Coloring Bad for You? The Deadly Risks of Artificial Colors

via: NaturalSociety
by: Elizabeth Renter
July 14, 2012

Is Food Coloring Bad for You? All of those brightly colored cereals, candies, and drinks that are marketed to children are hurting them, and this is widely recognized as true. But food companies continue to pump the petroleum-derived artificial colors into foods and no one has done anything about it. A report from the Center for Science in the Public Interest highlights (CSPI) the dangers of these additives and asks why the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hasn’t done more to stop them.

Is Food Coloring Bad for You? Why you Shouldn’t Consume Artificial Colors

According to the report, Food Dyes- A Rainbow of Risks, food manufacturers put about 15 million pounds of artificial colors into our food every single year. Since 1955, our consumption of these dyes has risen five-times. And while we think of the rainbow-colored sweet cereals, kid-friendly yogurts, and sugared drinks as being the biggest offenders, artificial colors are found in a wide variety of the foods we eat.

These dyes have been linked to allergic reactions, hyperactivity in children, and even cancer. The FDA itself has even recognized Red 3 as being a carcinogenic dye, but has yet to take it off the market.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association has continually spoken out against the criticisms, saying food dyes are perfectly safe, saying science has found “no demonstrable link” between dyes and hyperactivity in children. But, if you have a child with ADHD or know a health-wise person who does, there’s a good chance you’ve heard a first-hand account on how food colors can affect their child’s behavior.

Is food coloring bad for you? The FDA has banned artificial colors in the past. In 1950, they banned Orange No. 1 after numerous children fell ill after eating Halloween candy. Next, they banned Red No. 2 in 1976 after it was suspected to be carcinogenic.

But the CSPI says that all of the most popular food colorings are contaminated with cancer-causing agents.

It’s obvious the FDA knows these additives are not completely safe. After all, they do not allow companies to claim that any dyes are “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS), and require that every single batch of food dyes be tested and certified to ensure it meets current legal standards.

In recent years, as some consumers have become more conscious of the potential poisons in their food, some food manufacturers have responded by using natural colors, including those made from vegetable dyes (like beets). But, the largest food makers and the rainbow-colored kiddie treats are certainly not yet following the trend.

Is food coloring bad for you? You bet.

Additional Sources:

NY Times

CSPI: Food Dyes- A Rainbow of Risks (pdf)

CBS News

Read More At: NaturalSociety.com

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Big Pharma wants nano-scavengers in its drugs

via: GreenMedInfo
by: Randy Ananda
July 10, 2012

To clean up its drugs that are contaminated with genotoxic ingredients (which are also carcinogenic), Big Pharma may deploy lab-created, nanosized, polymer-based scavengers.

But is the cure any safer?

New research explains that:

A variety of chemical compounds, intermediates, and reagents are used during the process of synthesizing active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs). Some of these chemicals, intermediates, and reagents, as well as byproducts of synthetic processes, can have toxic properties and be present as impurities at low levels in the API or final drug formulation….

The kinetics of acrolein scavenging in the presence of the API iodixanol and the scavenging capacity of resins were demonstrated in this paper.

They found a nanopolymer so efficient it cleans up 97.8% of acrolein without eating the active pharmaceutical components.

Yum… drugs with nanobots.

“Pharmaceutical genotoxic impurities may induce genetic mutations, chromosomal breaks, or chromosomal rearrangements, and have the potential to cause cancer in human,” lead researcher Ecevit Yilmaz told In-PharmaTechnologist. “Therefore, exposure to even low levels of such impurities present in the final API may be of significant toxicological concern.”

Research began in earnest after the European Medicines Agency issued its Guideline on the Limits of Genotoxic Impurities in 2006, which set the limit at 1.5m/day under the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC):

A TTC value of 1.5 μg/day intake of a genotoxic impurity is considered to be associated with an acceptable risk (excess cancer risk of <1 in 100,000 over a lifetime) for most pharmaceuticals.

The US Food and Drug Administration followed suit in 2008.

Some nanopolymer scavengers are more or less selective in their activity, the team discovered, based on polymer structure. “Less cross-linked ones showed an ‘undesired high level of nonspecific binding to the API’,” meaning they readily eat the good properties of the drugs, and who knows what else.

In a 2008 study, mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs) were also found to “restore damaged cell membranes and ameilorate abnormal mitochondrial behavior induced by” genotoxins (like acrolein).  “MSNs modified with drug/polymer constructs provide significant neuroprotection to cells damaged by a usually lethal exposure to acrolein.”

Safety questions for nano-agents remain, however.  Because of the size, a whole new set of health hazards are raised. Does this technology trade one set of hazards for another?

Continue Reading At: GreenMedInfo.com

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Big Pharma wants nano-scavengers in its drugs

via: ActivistPost
by: Rady Ananda
June 29, 2012

To clean up its drugs that are contaminated with genotoxic ingredients (which are also carcinogenic), Big Pharma may deploy lab-created, nanosized, polymer-based scavengers.

But is the cure any safer?

New research explains that:

A variety of chemical compounds, intermediates, and reagents are used during the process of synthesizing active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs). Some of these chemicals, intermediates, and reagents, as well as byproducts of synthetic processes, can have toxic properties and be present as impurities at low levels in the API or final drug formulation….

The kinetics of acrolein scavenging in the presence of the API iodixanol and the scavenging capacity of resins were demonstrated in this paper.

They found a nanopolymer so efficient it cleans up 97.8% of acrolein without eating the active pharmaceutical components.Yum … drugs with nanobots.“Pharmaceutical genotoxic impurities may induce genetic mutations, chromosomal breaks, or chromosomal rearrangements, and have the potential to cause cancer in human,” lead researcher Ecevit Yilmaz told In-PharmaTechnologist. “Therefore, exposure to even low levels of such impurities present in the final API may be of significant toxicological concern.”Research began in earnest after the European Medicines Agency issued its Guideline on the Limits of Genotoxic Impurities in 2006, which set the limit at 1.5m/day under the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC):

A TTC value of 1.5 μg/day intake of a genotoxic impurity is considered to be associated with an acceptable risk (excess cancer risk of <1 in 100,000 over a lifetime) for most pharmaceuticals.

The US Food and Drug Administration followed suit in 2008.

Continue Reading At: ActivistPost.com 

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Research: Gulf Shrimp Widely Contaminated With Carcinogens

via: ActivistPost
by: Sayer Ji
June 25, 2012

Conservative estimates indicate that the 2010 BP oil disaster released over 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf, followed by at least 1.8 million gallons of dispersants. While the use of dispersants helped mitigate the public relations disaster by preventing the persistent formation of surface oil, as well as keeping many beaches visibly untouched, they also drove the oil deeper into the water column (and food chain) rendering a 2-dimensional problem (surface oil) into a 3-dimensional one. Additionally, research indicates that dispersants prevent the biodegradation of toxic oil components, as well as increasing dispersant absorption into fish from between 6 to 1100 fold higher levels.

Since the event, both the mainstream media and the government have acted as if the oil disappeared, and that no significant health risks remain for the millions still consuming contaminated seafood from the Gulf.*

Now, a new study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives has revealed that the 2010 BP Gulf oil disaster resulted in widespread contamination of Gulf Coast seafood with toxic components from crude oil.1 In fact, levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in shrimp were found to exceed the FDA’s established thresholds for allowable levels [levels of concern (LOCs)] for pregnant women in up to 53% of Gulf shrimp sampled.

Finish Reading Article At: ActivistPost.com

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment