If you’ve been noticing promotions about the annual October Breast Cancer Awareness scam that features all sorts of fund raising activities by Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other fund raisers, here’s something to consider written by Mike Adams for a Natural News article published April 22, 2010:
“The cancer industry isn’t even looking for cures for cancer, folks. The cancer scam is just too profitable. It’s a sweet gig and they’re raking in billions of dollars from gullible consumers who continue to be victimized by this fraudulent cancer industry and its dishonest non-profit front groups.” (more…)
The American Cancer Society: Running WITH the Money and AWAY From the Cure – Part 1
by Tony Isaacs
The American Cancer Society (ACS) made news waves when they disputed the findings of the President’s Cancer Panel on the role of toxins in causing cancer. Though the new report echoes what other experts have maintained for years, the ACS went out of its way to attack the report and downplay the role of toxins. Many critics have questioned the ACS’s motives apparent conflicts of interest due to numerous ACS ties to chemical industries influence and donations.
Critics note that the ACS condemnation of the toxins report is far from the first time the Society has taken a stance that benefits those it has ties to while disputing expert reports and studies. Indeed, the ACS dispute of the report is merely the latest in a long line of controversial stances that appear to be self-serving and against the public interest.
Another example is the ACS’s continued support of mammograms. Concerns over the safety and efficacy of mammograms have been widely reported dating all the way back to 1977, including several notable supporting studies supporting such concerns. In spite of those studies and concerns, the ACS has remained a staunch supporter of mammograms. Notably, the ACS has strong ties to the mammography industry. (more…)
The history of Breast Cancer Awareness Month’s surprising origins is a matter of the public record:
“NBCAM was founded in 1985 as a partnership between the American Cancer Society and the pharmaceutical division of Imperial Chemical Industries (now part of AstraZeneca, maker of several anti-breast cancer drugs). The aim of the NBCAM from the start has been to promote mammography as the most effective weapon in the fight against breast cancer.” ~ Wikipedia
If you doubt Wikipedia as a reliable source, visit the NBCAM website and try to contact them. It will be AstraZeneca that you will required to connect with, as evidenced by the screenshot below.
AstraZeneca, manufacturer of the blockbuster breast cancer drugs Arimidex and Tamoxifen, founded the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month in 1985, in partnership with the American Cancer Society, in order to promote the widespread adoption of x-ray mammography, whose horrors we have documented elsewhere. (more…)
The medical profession has a long history of opposing alternative healing professions. The rules of engagement have changed; as the AMA is finding new “legal” ways to discredit and limit practitioners of natural medicine
Alternative healthcare professionals such as chiropractors, naturopaths, and midwives have been targeted by the American Medical Association (AMA) for nearly a century, in spite of a federal court injunction against the AMA in 1987 for illegally trying to create a monopoly in the healthcare market
Other medical associations have joined forces to manipulate the public into believing natural medicine is quackery by spreading propaganda and mistruths
Worldwide medical literature supports the notion that environmental and nutritional factors play a role in the development of cancer. Nutritional recommendations to the public to help prevent cancer are available from the USA’s National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and other organizations. However, when it comes to treating patients who have been diagnosed with cancer, the vast majority of oncologists fail to deal with nutritional and lifestyle factors to help their patients manage their cancers. Evidence continues to mount that some of the same recommendations designed to prevent cancer should also be applied to patients who already have cancer. Implementing such a program of lifestyle modifications, improvement in diet, exercise, stress management, optimal exposure to sunlight, improving energy flow and nutritional supplements should improve cancer patients’ survival statistics and the quality of life of these patients, including significantly reducing the side effects of conventional treatments. (more…)
In a recent article we assessed the US cancer program by analyzing the overall incidence and mortality rates of all cancers combined.1 This article uses the same framework of analysis to assess the evolution, over 1975–2007, of 24 specific types of cancer. The analysis is presented in three parts: Part 1 covers 10 cancers from bladder cancer to kidney cancer. Parts 2 and 3, to be published in future issues of this journal, cover the remaining types of cancer in alphabetical order. (more…)
If you or someone near and dear to you is diagnosed with cancer, it is in your best interest to consider a second opinion away from the cancer industry’s mainstream. Oncologists will insist and even demand your immediate acceptance of surgery, radiation and/or chemotherapy. They will frighten you more than you already are with all kinds of horror tales and statistical babble, and even threaten you with not being your doctor anymore to keep you from seeking a second opinion outside of the cancer industry. This is because they know that anyone hearing other options would never willingly submit to their expensive and horrendously toxic treatments that in most cases ruin health and shorten life.
Consider this statement written by the past president of the American Chemical Society, Alan C. Nixon: “It is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.” (more…)
A new book by leading cancer expert, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, skewers the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society and blames the organizations for America losing the war against cancer.
In the book, “National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest,” Epstein argues that the NCI and ACS have spent tens of billions of taxpayer and charity dollars focusing on treatment to the exclusion of prevention, which has allowed cancer rates to skyrocket, with the disease now affecting nearly one in two men and more than one in three women. Furthermore, the author claims that not only do numerous conflicts of interest exist within the NCI and ACS, but the NCI and ACS are also withholding a mass of information on avoidable causes of cancer. (more…)
The 130-page document linked below explains in detail why the American Cancer Society may be far more interested in accumulating cash than curing any disease. The ACS has close ties to the mammography industry, the cancer drug industry, and the pesticide industry.
It is riddled with conflict of interest.
And in fact, according to the report, the ACS has a reckless, if not criminal record on cancer prevention. Over and over again, they have promoted drugs and screening while ignoring environmental causes.
The report states, in part:
“The ACS … [has] long continued to devote virtually exclusive priority to research on diagnosis and treatment of cancer, with indifference to prevention, other than faulty personal lifestyle, commonly known as ‘blame the victim,’ … Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated”. (more…)