The Truth About Breast Cancer Awareness

[shann0]

www.naturalnews.com/033837_Komen_for_the_Cure_BPA.html

Susan G. Komen for the Cure openly denies science by claiming BPA exposure has no connection to breast cancer, insists chemical is safe

(NaturalNews) The breast cancer research group Susan G. Komen for the Cure seems more interested in keeping its chemical industry donors happy than it is in actually finding a cure for breast cancer. A recent story in Mother Jones explains that, despite the more than 130 scientific studies that demonstrate a clear connection between bisphenol-A (BPA) exposure and breast cancer, the group continues to deny any link between the two, and insists that BPA is safe.

Seemingly countless studies in recent years have shown that BPA, which is found in plastics, can liners, store receipts, and other consumer products, is linked to breast cancer and other diseases. The European Union (EU), Canada, and some localized areas of the US have all banned the chemical in baby products for this very reason. Even the US President's Cancer Panel in its 2010 report explains that BPA exposure can cause breast cancer, cause breast cancer cells to proliferate, and even make healthy cells act like cancer cells (http://www.naturalnews.com/028765_e...)

But Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which collectively receives millions of dollars every year from companies like the Coca-Cola Bottling Company, General Mills, and Georgia-Pacific, all of which use BPA in their product materials, claims that BPA is safe. The group even makes the absurd statement on its website in defense of BPA that "[l]inks between plastics and cancer are often reported by the media and in email hoaxes."

Such a ridiculous statement makes a little bit more sense, though, when considering that donor Georgia-Pacific's parent company, Koch Industries, is a major manufacturer of BPA-laden epoxy resins. Manufacturing giant 3M, another major Komen for the Cure donor, is also a member of the American Chemistry Council, a trade association that claims BPA is safe as well.

In a telephone interview with Mother Jones, University of Missouri biology professor and BPA export Dr. Frederick vom Saal reportedly told the magazine that Komen for the Cure's statements concerning BPA demonstrate "significant ignorance." That a foundation, whose stated goal is to find a cure for cancer, would make such a claim is "astounding," he added.


Komen for the Cure continues to lie to women about the nature of breast cancer
Komen for the Cure is notorious for denying a link between any chemical exposure and breast cancer, fueling instead the myth that most cases of breast cancer are inherited. In reality, less than ten percent of breast cancer cases have a hereditary link, while the more than 90 percent of other cases have a definitive environmental link -- but Komen for the Cure apparently could not care less about the truth.

The sad reality is that the Komen Foundation, which is supported by millions of highly-driven individuals who believe the group is working in the best interests of women, continues to expose itself as nothing but a pseudo-scientific, fraudulent research group.

The organization's continual denial of sound science in favor of its own baseless opinion on the matter shows that another agenda is at work -- and it is one that, by all appearances, has no basis in actually curing or preventing breast cancer.



Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/033837_Komen_for_the_Cure_BPA.html#ixzz1adV2LEJ0

[shann0]

There is some slight bad language in the article, be warned.

mainfo.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-is-anti-semitism-ok-with-susan-j.html

Thursday, October 22, 2009




Why is Anti Semitism OK with the Susan G. Komen Foundation?



Atlas Shrugs: Susan G. Komen was Jewish. Her young body is rotting in an early grave while her foundation (founded by her sister) is supporting and glorifying Jewish hatred and the annihilation of Jews. Do you think she would, in her wildest imagination, have thought that her death would be used as a propaganda tool for Islamic jihad? Shame on these distressingly stupid tools.

Is it not ironic that the Susan G. Komen conference is sanctioning the Jew hatred in the Islamic world by holding a conference where no Jews are allowed? How disgusting. Every Jewish researcher, doctor, scientist and medical professional should pull their research from Komen's foundation.

Considering the fact that over 95% of the girls/women have had clitorectomies in Egypt, perhaps a Susan G. Komen Restore The Clitoris Foundation might do more good. They will continue with their Jew banned conference because they want "to end suffering". Well then, how 'bout a Susan G. Komen Stop Honorcide and Gender Apartheid Foundation? Asshats.

US ORG. HOSTS CANCER MEET, ISRAELIS NOT WELCOME by Maayana Miskin (hat tip Kenneth)
A United States-based organization's conference on breast cancer awareness, to be hosted in Egypt, has been touted by international news networks as an example of “unprecedented cooperation” in the region. However, according to Channel 2 news, the celebration of unity may be premature, as Israeli doctors were told at the last minute that their invitations to participate had been rescinded.

The conference will be held in Alexandria, Egypt this week, under the auspices of the American group Susan G. Komen for the Cure the world's largest breast cancer advocacy organization. It is to include meetings between leading researchers from the U.S. and several Mideast countries.

Israeli doctors were invited to the event as well, and several had planned to attend. However, on Sunday night, the doctors received brief notices telling them that they were no longer invited to the conference, by order of Egyptian Health Minister Hatem el-Gabali.

The notices did not include an explanation of Gabali's decision. More here at Atlas Shrugs.

My buddies at the American Patriot Commission have something to say about it:

The American Patriot Commission hereby decrees the Susan G Komen foundation to have committed egregious behavior regarding its meeting(s) in Egypt. Although they profess to be a multi-cultural organization promoting the advancement of discovery and treatment of breast cancer, they buckled under Islamic pressure and disinvited Israeli doctors to the summit in Egypt...I have no doubt that the women whom this organization is named for would be appalled by this decision. Susan G. Komen was Jewish. This is a matter of money over ethics. Once again, the islamofascists control what is and is not presented and by whom. Shame on you Susan G Komen Foundation for allowing racism to continue under your watch.

You may recall that I am Jewish. I converted to Judaism in March 2002. But I honestly don't t think you have to be Jewish to know how wrong this is. I am reminded of the Tea Party sign. SILENCE = CONSENT. The Komen Foundation is consenting to the barring of Jews from their event. How DARE THEY! This is an affront to Susan J. Komen herself and women everywhere. I am saddened by their callous disregard of the maltreatment of the Jewish doctors, and also sad because this will cause a rift between many potential donors and what I had thought was a good charity.

The Anti Defamation League had this to say:

"We find this last minute exclusion of Israeli experts shocking and contrary to the stated purpose of these programs – to promote regional cooperation to highlight breast cancer awareness, research and best treatment practices – and inimical to the ideals and goals of your organization," wrote Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.

"We respectfully urge the leadership of Susan G. Komen for the Cure to make clear to Egyptian authorities, including the breast cancer program's patron, First Lady of Egypt, Suzanne Mubarak, that this exclusion of Israeli breast cancer researchers and activists is unacceptable and that this decision must be immediately reversed to enable them to participate in these programs."

I found these comments on israelforum.

Why do you think they haven't canceled the Egypt conference that banned Jews. Because of the jihad money. They a whoring for a petrol dollar.

To the anti-semites at the Susan Komen Foundation. Take Susan's name off the foundation, She would never allow her name to be associated with such hate and incitement to violence. You are vile. Remove her name.

[shann0]

www.naturalnews.com/033783_Komen_for_the_Cure_pinkwashing.html

Where does all the Komen for the Cure money really go?



Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/033783_Komen_for_the_Cure_pinkwashing.html#ixzz1adcp4poI
(NaturalNews) During October, there will be runs, walks, and other fund raising schemes for "curing cancer." The most notorious fund raiser is the Susan G. Komen for the Cure. They display the most pink within the pink ribbon culture. Their mission statement is a world without breast cancer. So why are they ignoring actual existing cancer cures?


Pink washing
Woe to any other non-profit fund raising group that uses their event or activity linked to the phrase "... for the cure." Komen threatens them with lawsuits. It's okay for Komen's "corporate partners," for example KFC's "Buckets for the Cure" not long ago. One wonders how Komen will protect the word "hope" that they're using these days.

Komen enlists businesses to display the pink ribbon or color a product pink "(item) for the cure" or "(item) of hope." This has come to be known as "pink washing". It involves businesses donating small portions of their sales revenue to Komen. Often the businesses sell products that suppress the immune system or contain carcinogenic ingredients.

Besides KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken) there have been many other unhealthy contributors "for the cure." Some of them sell cosmetics that contain carcinogenic ingredients. Some others are industries that emit environmental and health hazards. Some of them sold yogurts that contained rBGH in their pasteurized milk.

Komen has its own mail order list of mostly useless items, but under Komen.com rather than Komen.org. Pink washed companies or corporate partners have an opportunity to sell more products to those who think consuming goods leads to cancer cures. A Seattle gun store once teamed up with Komen and sold pink barreled Walther P-22 "handguns of hope."


Following the money
According to Charity Navigator.org, former CEO of Komen for the Cure Hala G. Moddelmog was salaried at approximately $500,000 annually plus bonus. But Komen's founder, Susan G. Komen's surviving sister Nancy G. Brinker, has recently taken over the CEO position and no figures could be found for her.

CEOs of charities that spent more than $100 million, which includes Komen, averaged over $450,000 annually according to Charity Navigator.org. Several charitable organization jobs are advertised for $200,000 annually. Naturally there are additional perks for travel and lodging as well.

Komen's revenue for the fiscal year of 2009/10 was $400 million. Thirty-five million came from investments and $365 million was from the various fund raising efforts, including race or walk fees, donations, pink washing, sponsors, and Komen.com sales.

That fiscal year, Komen' s contributions were: $141 million for education, $47 million for health screening, and $75 million for research. Fundraising costs and affiliate expenses were approximately $60 million with general administrative costs at $37 million.

Education did not include dietary information such as abstaining from sugar (cancer's favorite food) and toxic foods. It didn't include avoiding junk foods and eating whole organic foods. Vitamin D3 was not even mentioned. But bickering over whether radiation should come before or after chemo was discussed.

Mammograms can cause cancer or misdiagnose, resulting in unnecessary treatment. Thermography is safe and effective. But Komen refuses to acknowledge this while pushing mammograms.

Research is for Big Pharma only. There's nothing for Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski in Houston or Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez in New York, both of whom are doing their best going through FDA hoops to gain acceptance for their safe, efficacious treatments. No real follow up with the Gerson Institute or Hoxsey's Bio-Medical Center, both forced into operating out of Mexico.

How come no research into mega-dose IV vitamin C for cancer? There are studies proving its efficacy. Hey Komen, how come you haven't consulted with TV star Suzanne Somers about her breast cancer cure from European mistletoe extract injections? She wrote a bestseller about it.

What would any of these cancer charity people do if the actual existing inexpensive cures were allowed? Maybe they don't want a cure. Maybe they want their high paying jobs and puffed up prestige. They are part of the multi-billion dollar cancer industry, which would collapse if cures are allowed.

Komen has been raising funds for thirty years. As long as there are suckers who worship the cut, burn, and poison cancer cult while continually biting the "hope" bait, they'll continue.

Sources for this article include:

The Pink culture en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_r...

Mike Adam's commentary on KFC for Komen www.naturalnews.com/028631_K...

The Pink Washed LIst ww5.komen.org/CorporatePartn...

Komen's 2009/10 audit ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/...

CEOs of charity incomes www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...

How Komen elbows out other charities www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/...

Komen CEO salary wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_t...

Komen by the numbers cancerculturenow.blogspot.co...

The idiocy of October AIDS and cancer walks foodfreedom.wordpress.com/20...

Charity Navigator costs and CEO salary for Komen www.charitynavigator.org/ind...

Think before you pink ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...

Thermography ...

Wyze Report healthwyze.org/index.php/com...

www.charitynavigator.org/ind...

online.wsj.com/article/SB100...


Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/033783_Komen_for_the_Cure_pinkwashing.html#ixzz1adcjIGtM

[shann0]

www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/991015/cancer.shtml

October 15, 1999/5 Cheshvan 5760, Vol. 52, No. 7


Researchers make progress in fight against breast cancer



WENDY ELLIMAN
Special to Jewish News
Fact: Every year, breast cancer attacks one in every eight Israeli women. Fact: In more than a third of those cases, the disease has spread beyond the breast by the time it is diagnosed. Fact: Within two years of diagnosis, a quarter of its victims will be dead.

"Metastatic breast cancer remains an undefeated enemy, but it's coming under tightening siege," says Professor Tamar Peretz, who heads the Sharett Institute of Oncology at the Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center in Jerusalem, where a quarter of all Israel's cancer patients are treated. "Years of basic and clinical research are finally bearing fruit. Where we're able to help, we help a lot. And where we can't cure, we can do much to extend a patient's life and improve its quality."

A woman's breast is more susceptible to cancer than any other organ in her body, but breast cancer's ravages are, it seems, far from indiscriminate. Breast cancer in Israel attacks, for example, 65 Jewish women compared with 17 non-Jewish women in every 1,000. Its incidence is significantly higher among Ashkenazic immigrants to the country than among newly arrived Sephardim. Jewish newcomers from Russia have the highest rate of all, while the disease is virtually unknown in the Ethiopian Jewish community. In Israeli-born Jewish women of all ethnic backgrounds, breast cancer levels approach those found among Ashkenazic newcomers.

All of which constitutes an unparalleled human laboratory, within which Israeli researchers are urgently working to learn more about the causes and prevention of this growing scourge.

The susceptibility of Ashkenazic women to breast cancer was confirmed some years back by discovery of a so-called 'cancer gene' - genetic mutations known as BRCA1 and BRCA2, which bestow an unwelcome 90 percent lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. Professor Nadine Cohen-Elbaz of the Technion's Tamkin Molecular Human Genetics Research Facility estimates that 5 percent to 10 percent of women diagnosed with breast cancer each year have a family history of the disease, with around 45 percent of them carrying a BRCA mutation. In a unique multidisciplinary study involving clinical geneticists, oncologists, psychologists, epidemiologists and a philosopher, she is screening families of different ethnic backgrounds to identify common gene mutations, and studying their medical histories, diet and lifestyle. The aim is to identify environmental and lifestyle factors that may contribute to development of the disease.

One of her early findings is that breast cancer is 50 percent less common among Arab women in Israel than their Jewish sisters. Professor Eliezer Robinson of the Technion's Faculty of Medicine, who lost his mother to breast cancer, has observed that while the disease is far rarer among Israeli Arab women, it tends to surface among them at younger ages, metastasize more vigorously and offer far shorter survival.

To explain these differences, Robinson has been looking at nutrition, genetics, lifestyle and socio-economics, and one area of his research which seems, quite literally, to be bearing fruit is diet. Arab women generally eat far more fruit and vegetables.

"Evidence suggests that a population which eats a lot of cruciferous vegetables, such as cabbage, broccoli and radishes, has a lower incidence of breast cancer," says Professor Shmuel Yanai of the Technion's Faculty of Food Engineering & Biotechnology. With Gad Rennert of the medical faculty and two physicians from Hebrew University, he has isolated what he believes is a protective substance from these vegetables. Tests run on kibbutz volunteers have supported these early results.

Vegetables, specifically tomatoes, are the focus of studies by Michael Koretz, director of the Elisheva Eshkol Breast Health Center at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

"Epidemiological data show lower incidence of breast cancer among women who eat a lot of tomatoes," he says. Together with endocrinologist Yossi Levy, he has isolated from tomatoes what may be a preventive substance called lycopene, and he is now studying its absorption into body tissues.

At the laboratory bench in Hadassah, researchers are trying to stimulate the body's own immune system into fighting the cancer - urging its cells to defend themselves in what they call immunotherapy. They are also examining the mechanism of tumor metastasis, and looking for ways to block that mechanism.

While the search for protection and prevention continues, early detection and speedy treatment still offer women the best chance of survival. As Koretz reminds us, "cancer is a disease that's highly treatable, if caught early."




Early detection is still key

Despite this, however, fewer than half of Israeli women age 50 and more go for mammograms.

"It's women with a Western perception of health and a Western belief in the power and correctness of medical intervention who tend to seek mammography," says Professor Lea Baider, psycho-oncologist at the Hadassah Medical Center. "Among Arab, Beduin and certain ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities, for example, pain and body changes are regarded as normal. Neither is a reason to run to a doctor."

In two of every three instances, they are right. Only one in three breast lumps is, in fact, malignant, but it takes a biopsy to find out - though this may now be changing.

Researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot have pioneered a non-invasive way of identifying breast tumors, which they call 3TP. Developed by Prof. Hadassa Degani of the Biological Regulation Department, together with radiologists from Hadassah, their method consists of injecting a dye into the patient's blood stream and monitoring how it is taken up and cleared by tumor tissue, using magnetic resonance imaging or MRI.

"Malignant and benign growths deal with the dye in strikingly different ways, so this approach can markedly reduce the number of biopsies performed to diagnose tumors," says Degani.

As well as diagnosing breast tumors, the Weizmann method may help establish the prognosis of the cancer by revealing the network of blood vessels that feed the tumor, and it may also monitor the effectiveness of therapy by visualizing these blood vessels and the spaces between them.

And what of the 2.9 million women in Israel who, despite all efforts, are today fighting breast cancer?

Treatment provided in Israel is on a level with the best in the world, from painless removal of breast lumps by computerized mammographic guidance (ABBI) at the Ben-Gurion University's Breast Health Center, through surgery and breast reconstruction, aggressive adjuvant therapy (radio-, chemo- and hormonal) and, in women with advanced disease who have a 95 percent chance of relapse, polychemotherapy followed by bone-marrow transplantation.

"With adjuvant therapy, we can reduce the number of women in whom the disease will recur by one third," says Peretz of Hadassah. "Bone marrow transplantation can cure a doomed patient. Overall breast cancer survival during the past 40 years has climbed steadily from one in three to one in every two women."

Despite the improving figures, breast cancer remains a devastating illness.

"Psycho-social support is a key element in the service we provide," says Koretz of the Ben-Gurion University Breast Health Center. "We have both qualified professionals and peer-support empowerment groups to help patients cope."

At Hadassah, the psycho-oncology team led by Baider researches extensively on the impact of family support, the marriage bond, a personal belief system and earlier life-traumas on the coping ability of a patient and her family. It also teaches relaxation techniques.

Israel's ethnic kaleidoscope of women share the unhappy distinction of one of the world's highest rates of breast cancer. Whether the ultimate answer lies with cellular warfare, eating more vegetables or with something not yet stumbled on, they may yet share the prize of comprising the human laboratory in which the disease finally meets its defeat.

This story is part of a series of feature articles on medical, scientific and technological developments in Israel. The articles are put together by Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, American Society for Technion, American Committee for the Weizmann Institute of Science; and American Associates of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, and are being provided to Jewish Telegraphic Agency newspaper clients.

[shann0]

Komen Sends Millions to Embryonic Stem Cell Research Centers

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 7/19/11 11:04 AM


The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation has long upset pro-life advocates for denying the abortion-breast cancer link and sending millions to the Planned Parenthood abortion business. New information shows Komen also supporting centers engaging in embryonic stem cell research.

As LifeNews.com reported last year, Komen spokesman John Hammarley confirmed 20 of Komen’s 122 affiliates have made donations to Planned Parenthood and, in 2009, those contributions totaled $731,303. The Komen spokesman also confirmed Komen affiliates contributed about $3.3 million to the abortion business from 2004-2009.

Now, Karen Malec of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer has spent time examining Komen’s 990 Forms for the IRS for 2010 and she found that Komen has active relationships with at least five research groups or educational facilities that engage in embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of unborn children in their earliest days for stem cells that have yet to help any patients.

Komen is careful in its documents to state that none of the funds directly support embryonic stem cell research, saying in its Group Return for 2010 under a section entitled “Grant Statement” that “While Komen affiliates do not fund research grants directly, a portion of the funds raised by every Komen affiliate (approximately 25%) go to support the research and training grants program at Komen’s International Headquarters.”

The return shows donations from Komen totaling $3.75 million to Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, $4.5 million to the University of Kansas Medical Center, $1 million to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, $1 million to the Society for Women’s Health Research, and $600,000 to Yale University.

Looking at those institutions, Yale not only engages in embryonic stem cell research but, in 2006, came under federal investigation for apparently mismanaging federal stem cell research grants. Also, a Johns Hopkins researcher also came under fire in December 2008 for trashing peer-reviewed research showing abortion’s link to negative mental health issues and problems for women. And the National Cancer Institute has been repeatedly blasted by pro-life advocates for denying the abortion-breast cancer link exists.

“Komen’s Parent Return for 2010 shows that millions of dollars in grants were given to research facilities that have policies supporting experiments on human embryos,” Malec says, adding that the list of schools is only a partial list of the facilities engaging in embryonic research that received grants.

Recent statements from the Catholic Bishop of Toledo, the Most Reverend Leonard Blair, bring up both abortion and the potential of Komen indirectly supporting embryonic research as reasons for Catholics to have misgivings about the breast cancer group. Malec says the statements from Bishop Blair “suggest that local Komen officials may have misled him and his associates with respect to the organization’s practices involving experiments on human embryos.”

“They are open to embryonic stem cell research and may well fund such research in the future,” the bishop noted.

Combined with the millions in donations to the nation’s biggest abortion business, Komen says the new information about the Komen ties to embryonic stem cell research centers makes it so the breast cancer group is not worthy of support. She says Komen needs to be honest with women about the abortion-breast cancer connection.

“It’s more than ironic that Planned Parenthood receives contributions from an organization allegedly dedicated to the eradication of breast cancer,” Malec says. “Abortion and the birth control pill – which Planned Parenthood sells – are risk factors for the disease. It’s certainly bad for business to tell women the truth about the abortion-breast cancer link. Knowledge of that risk would cause some to turn their backs on induced abortion and cut into Planned Parenthood’s profits.”

“On the other hand, warning women about the breast cancer risk of abortion would mean fewer breast cancer patients and, therefore, a reduction in donations for Komen. Telling donors that their previous abortions may have been responsible for their breast cancers is simply not a good fundraising tactic,” she concludes.

[shann0]

www.theblaze.com/stories/breast-cancer-foundation-gave-more-than-500k-to-planned-parenthood-last-year/

Breast Cancer Foundation Gave More Than $500K to Planned Parenthood Last Year
Posted on August 26, 2011 at 2:30pm by Madeleine Morgenstern

Affiliates of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast cancer foundation gave more than half a million dollars to Planned Parenthood in 2010, according to federal tax records.

The American Life League obtained copies of the financial documents, which totaled donations from 18 Komen affiliates at $569,159.

Affiliates in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington all gave money. You can view a full spreadsheet of the donations here.

According to the data, the Dallas County chapter donated the largest amount, giving $68,000 to Planned Parenthood of North Texas. The Orange County, Calif. chapter gave the second-highest amount at $58,754.

Nevertheless, the $569,159 tag is lower than the donations from 2009, which totaled $731,303. Last year, a Komen spokesman said in an interview the money is closely monitored to ensure it goes to fund only breast screenings, not abortions.

Rita Diller, director of the American Life League’s Stop Planned Parenthood initiative, told Life News that aside from the abortion issue, it doesn’t make sense for Komen to donate money to Planned Parenthood when the organization does not provide any kind of advanced breast care, including mammograms.

“Komen’s support of Planned Parenthood is defeating its own mission of fighting breast cancer,” Diller said. “In the first place, Planned Parenthood is not licensed to do anything beyond Level 1 breast examinations….Add to that the fact that Planned Parenthood’s two big money-makers, abortion and contraceptives, are directly linked to breast cancer by numerous studies conducted from the 1960s through the present.”

Diller also told Life News she was disappointed that the Komen affiliates donating money included chapters in urban areas where alternatives to Planned Parenthood are available.

“To say that there is no other alterative in such areas for women to receive breast cancer screening and care is preposterous,” she said.

A Jan. 2010 study from the Seattle Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center called abortion a “known risk factor” for breast cancer, reporting a 20 to 50 percent increased chance for cancer among women who had had an abortion compared to women who carried their pregnancies to term.

The National Cancer Institute of the National Institute of Health does not currently recognize any such link.

[shann0]

www.teapartybrewing.com/blog/2011/09/05/a-pink-ribbon-scam/

A Pink Ribbon Scam?
September 5th, 2011 | Author: HelenS

The Susan B Komen Breast Cancer Foundation Funding Abortions?
The money sent to the Susan B Komen Breast Cancer Foundation isn’t being used for cancer research. It might actually be used to perform abortions instead.

This last week, The American Life League obtained copies of the financial documents and federal tax records from the Susan B Komen foundation and found that the Komen group gave more than half a million dollars to Planned Parenthood in 2010 allegedly for breast cancer screening and care. Here is a copy of the spreadsheet produced by American Life League and the Planned Parenthood centers to which money was sent:

A Komen spokesman said in an interview in 2010, that the money is closely monitored to ensure it goes to fund only breast screenings, not abortions. However, Rita Diller, Director of the American Life League’s Stop Planned Parenthood (PP) initiative, stated that”… It doesn’t make sense for Komen to donate money to Planned Parenthood when the PP organization does not provide any kind of advanced breast care, including mammograms.
In addition, a Jan. 2010 study from the Seattle Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center called abortion a “known risk factor” for breast cancer, reporting a 20 to 50 percent increased chance for cancer among women who had had an abortion compared to women who carried their pregnancies to term.
So why would the Komen foundation encourage a risk factor for the growth of breast cancer by providing funds to PP who do abortions? Again, supposedly the money goes for breast cancer screening but the only screening you can get here in Colorado Springs at the PP office on Academy is a breast exam. While doing an online check as well as placing a telephone call here in Colorado Springs for breast cancer screening at the Planned Parenthood center on Academy Blvd. I was told I could get a breast exam but no mammography screening. That service isn’t available. I would have to go to a hospital or clinic to get anything like that. Yet the Komen Aspen Co Center donated over 25,000 to PP.
I could do the same type breast exam myself that I would pay for at PP. Being skeptical, I wonder where one half millions dollars went and for what it was used? I wonder if the Komen Foundation would be better off using their millions of dollars to donate to our hospitals here so women could get mammograms and other services that really have to do with breast cancer screening and care? Seems to make sense doesn’t it?
Funds from Medicaid and other tax dollars, which are not supposed to fund abortions, also make their way to Planned Parenthood which commits more abortions than any single organization in the nation. In their facilities, an abortion occurs approximately every 95 seconds. Since 1970 more than 5 million abortions have occurred states the American Life League.
In addition, unsuspecting Americans may not know that many of the Community Health Centers listed in the Obama Health plan will be run by PP and other groups that see abortion as an essential service. There is NO abortion restriction language in the bill to stop their offering these services to teen girls.
And it isn’t only the Komen foundation that allegedly supports abortions but also President Obama. He issued an executive order that will lift a ban on using taxpayer money to fund international “family planning” groups who counsel women and perform abortions around the world, but mainly in Africa with American taxpayers picking up the tab. Abortion groups that will enjoy a fresh injection of American taxpayers’ money will include the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia and the Planned Parenthood Association of Zambia.
Whether you are for or against abortions, federal tax dollars and donated funds given for breast cancer research should not go for that purpose.
In the future, I will no longer donate to the Komen organization as I feel they have taken my money under false pretenses. Breast cancer is one of the top five worst cancers in America today and to use the money I sent for anything other than research violates the purpose and mission statement of the organization.

[shann0]

www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=1420

DO SCREENING MAMMOGRAMS INCREASE THE RISK OF BREAST CANCER?

We are told repeatedly by various cancer bodies and the NHS that regular mammography, the breast cancer ´screening mammogram´, saves lives. But does it really? And, if so, how many?

Every week it seems more research comes out clearly pointing to increased dangers and risk. Some experts even suggest that screening mammograms can cause breast cancer, with the group of women who have a genetic weakness at the highest risk, while others talk about false positives and of untold worry and mental (not just physical) damage to women who were diagnosed yet simply never had breast cancer in the first place.

Screening is offered to all women in the UK between the ages of 50 and 70 and the NHS insists it saves 1,400 lives a year. ´Not true´, says Professor Peter Gotzsche of the highly respected Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen. Writing in the ´Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine´ in August 2011 he states "Information provided to the public by the NHS Breast Screening Programme is seriously misleading, downplays the most important harm, and has remained largely unaffected by repeated criticism and pivital research questioning the benefits of screening and documenting substantial overdiagnosis. This is unacceptable". In the Times (September 1st) he adds, "If screening was a drug it would have been withdrawn. You don´t market a drug that harms so many people for such uncertain benefit".

Breast cancer screening and mammograms – let’s look into the truth.

Hot off the Press

Radiation exposure in known to cause genetic mutation in breast cells. It is also known to switch off the tumour suppressing gene (p16). 2011 research from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in America (a US Government facility) has shown that radiation both changes the environment around breast cells AND increases the risks of mutation within them; a mutation that can be passed on in cell division.

This study showed that 4 to 6 weeks after exposure to radiation at a level below that of a screening mammogram, breast cells started to prematurely age. This resulted in their inability to send certain chemical messages into their immediate environment, which then filled with pre-cancerous mutated cells also from the radiation. " Our work shows that radiation can change the microenvironment of breast cells, and this in turn can allow the growth of abnormal cells with a long-lived phenotype that have a much greater potential to be cancerous", said Paul Yaswen, a cell biologist and breast cancer research specialist with Berkeley Lab´s Life Sciences Division, adding "Many in the cancer research community, especially radiologists, have been slow to acknowledge and incorporate in their work the idea that cells are not independent entities, but are highly communicative with each other and with their microenvironment.

The myth of early diagnosis

It is also questionable whether screening mammograms can even provide genuine ´early diagnosis´ as is frequently claimed. A new blood test being developed in America and Nottingham, England will pick up on proteins developed by the very earliest ´rogue´ cells almost before a cancer has formed. In the press release the scientists claim that this is a good 4 years before a mammogram can show up a tumour. Apparently, a cancer makes about 40 divisions during its life, and mammograms cannot pick up a breast tumour until it is of a sufficient size, usually around 20 such divisions. So much for early diagnosis!

Increasing concern

In Spring 2009, nine American scientists were so concerned by what they felt were distinctly dodgy practices at the Federal Drugs Agency, (FDA) they wrote to new President Obama, One of their main causes for concern was the FDA’s silence over the increasing knowledge of the risks associated with mammograms.

These concerns are part of a growing trend. Perhaps one of the most damning reports was a large scale study by Johns Hopkins published in 2008 in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association´s Archives of Internal Medicine (Arch Intern Med. 2008;168[21:2302-2303). In the Background to the research it was pointed out that breast cancer diagnosis rates increased significantly in four Scandanavian counties after women there began receiving mammograms every two years. Now, there will be those who will simply argue that this just shows the power of mammograms to find (diagnose) breast cancer. They may well be talking rubbish.

In the study looking at two large scale groups of women in Norway, one having a mammogram every two years for 6 years, the other just at the end, the researchers themselves went on to conclude that they cannot link the increased incidence of breast cancer diagnosis simply to more real cases being detected because the rates among regularly screened women were significantly higher than rates among women of the same age who only received a mammogram at the end of the same six year period.

There are therefore three possible logical conclusions:
•The women in the control group who had a mammogram only at the end of year six somehow had their breast cancers heal themselves – the cancer went away without treatment.
•Not all the women diagnosed with irregularities actually had a problem that became breast cancer
•The more breast cancer screening you have, the more your incidence of breast cancer diagnosis increases.

The research was by no means a small study and compared 119,472 women screened every two years, with an identical group of 109,784 who had none.

The researchers themselves went on to conclude that the findings "provide new insight on what is arguably the major harm associated with mammographic screening, namely, the detection and treatment of cancers that would otherwise regress."

That in itself is a truly important conclusion - the idea that if you leave a cancer alone (even if it has already had 20 divisions), the body can still heal itself.

But the conclusion that quite simply screening mammograms every two years cause an increase in cancers cannot be dismissed!

Mammograms - The technique

The female oncology nurse I talked to was only half joking. ‘Mammograms were clearly invented by men! Ask any man if he would expose his private parts, put them between two cold metal plates, squeeze them, subject them to ionising radiation once a year on the vague chance that it might show he had a cancer, and he’d say I was mad. At best!’

The Gold Standard

Firstly, let’s clarify the difference between ´screening´ and ´diagnostic´ mammography.

Screening mammography is performed on healthy women from the age of 40 to 70 (although there are moves to increase this) and is aimed at identifying anything suspicious, which might then justify further investigation. It is often incorrectly classed by many ‘experts’ under the heading of ‘prevention’ when in truth it is, at best, ‘earlier detection’ over the recommended practice of checking your breasts for lumps by hand. 2 million women a year in the UK are screened using mammograms.

Diagnostic mammography is used with existing patients or high-risk non-patients who already have existing justification for the test; for example, one or more high-risk factors, clinical symptoms, or a palpable lump. Let us be absolutely clear: In the latter case where symptoms already exist there can be little argument about mammography´s role as the current ´gold standard´ for evaluating and clarifying pre-existing suspicions.

Radiation risks – especially to ‘at risk’ women

There have been several warnings on the danger of radiation and mammograms. For example, in a research report (the Lancet Dec 7th 2006) on a ten-year trial involving screening use on pre-menopausal women aged 40-50, funded by the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK, the report ended with the comment that, ‘The findings had to be balanced against possible negative considerations such as an increased radiation exposure which might increase risk later in life’.

The American College of Clinical Thermography concluded in 2005 that ‘a steady stream of experts have been publishing new evidence in peer-reviewed journals in the US relating to the risks inherent in using mammography for breast screening. These findings of increased damage are of no surprise to a growing number of doctors and specialists who have known for years that some of the cancers they have to treat are linked to the accumulative effects of mammographic radiation exposure’.

Dr. John Gofman, a Nobel Prize-winner, believed that up to half of all cancer was caused by unnecessary radiation primarily related to diagnostic X-rays. He may have been onto something.

According to the US Journal of Radiation Research, ‘mammography involves a different type of radiation than that used in ordinary X-rays: A low energy form of ionising radiation. This can pass more readily through tissues but is up to five times more harmful than standard X-rays.’ The same Journal says that the alpha particles of mammograms have both large mass and charge, quite unlike ordinary X-rays, which have neither. And here-in lays the first problem. That statement is completely inaccurate. And if the US Journal of Radiation Research can get it wrong what hope is there for us mere mortals?!

Mammograms are merely X-rays but they do have a cumulative build-up effect. According to The American College of Clinical Thermography: A Literature Review and Commentary on the Current Status of Mammography, the level of exposure when both breasts are photographed - about 1 rad - is recorded as almost 1000 times higher than one chest x-ray, and lucent, pre-menopausal breast tissue has been shown to be especially sensitive to radiation. Each rad of radiation exposure has been shown to increase breast cancer risk by a little over 1 per cent.

A recent report from America quoted Professor Rebecca Smith-Bindman of UCLA saying a mammogram was equal to the strength of 6 X-rays.

10 years of annual screening will therefore result in a 10 to 20 per cent increased breast cancer risk, and these risks obviously increase the younger the subject starts. In England, women might expect to double these figures as now all women have two views of each breast taken at every screen - one from above (craniocaudal) and one into the armpit diagonally across the breast (mediolateral).

The same US review notes that it has also now been proven that double strand breaks or even more extensive damage to the DNA can arise from the ionizations.

Worse still, 1 to 2 per cent of women are silent carriers of the ataxia-telangiectasia gene and this is highly sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of mammogram radiation. They have a fourfold higher risk of breast cancer from mammography; by some estimates this accounts for up to 20 percent of all breast cancers annually in the United States.

In general, women who are carriers of a gene mutation (that’s about 7 per cent of all women - but about 25 per cent of those diagnosed each year with breast cancer) may be well advised to be careful and go nowhere near a mammogram. Yet often they are the very women encouraged to have a regular screening mammogram as part of their ´prevention´ strategy.

In an article in the July 2006 issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, researchers claimed the radiation dose from mammograms may actually cause breast cancer in women with a genetic predisposition for breast cancer. In the study which looked at 1,600 European women with known mutations in BRAC1 or BRAC2 genes (mutations that put women at a much higher risk for developing breast cancer), researchers said women in the study who had at least one chest X-ray were 54 percent more likely to develop breast cancer than those who never had one! This of course is actually simple logic. If you only have one strong gene, and radiation damages genes, then you are MORE likely to be at risk from a mammogram - so much for cancer prevention!

The 2006 study went on to say that these women might want to consider being screened with magnetic resonance imaging instead of X-rays.

This heightened risk was yet again supported by new research in 2009: At the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America experts warned that mammograms can actually cause breast cancer in ´at risk´ women especially those under 40. Women with genetic issues had a 150 per cent increased risk of developing breast cancer, even if given a low dose mammogram. Others had a two and a half times increase caused by the mammogram screenings.

Screening – so does it save lives?

In England, the budget for the breast screening programme was estimated to be approximately £75 million in 2007. This works out at about £37.50 per woman invited or £45.50 per woman screened.

The World Health Organisation´s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in 2002 that ‘mammography screening for breast cancer reduces mortality´. The IARC working group, comprising 24 experts from 11 countries, evaluated all the available evidence on breast screening and determined that there is a 35 per cent reduction in mortality from breast cancer among screened women aged 50 - 69 years old. For women aged 40-49 years, there is only limited evidence for a reduction. (NHS 2008 web site).

However, this 35 per cent figure is highly questionable - indeed there are a number of expert studies offering a range of figures, some as low as zero.

One of the most important studies providing evidence FOR screening mammograms was a study in 2005 where a push to have women screened in Denmark, produced a 25 per cent reduction in breast cancer mortality in Copenhagen. This has been quoted for the last 5 years as the perfect example of the benefit of breast cancer screening.

However in early 2010, the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen re-analysed the figures and amplified them to look at the ten years leading up to the ´push´, and the ten years after. Far from finding that screening saved lives, they found that the original research was completely flawed and that screening INCREASED cancer death rates, proving clear evidence that deaths from breast cancer were lower in areas where there was no screening.

In a 2009 study (see BioMed Central Medical Informatics and Decision Making), researchers looked at mortality rates amongst mammogram and non-mammogram users. The conclusions were that mammograms did save lives, at a rate that increased with age (in line with overall breast cancer risk). According to the data presented, in the USA a woman´s risk of developing breast cancer between the ages of 55 and 70 is roughly 6 percent, with a 1 percent chance of breast cancer causing her death. The researchers concluded that starting at age 50, 1.8 lives would be saved for every 1,000 women who was screened consistently for 15 years. Said a researcher, ‘In other words, 2,970 women must be screened once to save one life’.

Their conclusions indicated that undergoing regular screening from the age of 40 reduces the risk of dying from cancer by 0.1 per cent. A very small figure, certainly not the 35 per cent reduction in mortality claimed above, but important none-the-less.

Thirdly, in both Denmark and Canada large population studies since 2005 have revealed that in women taking regular mammograms and women who have never had mammograms the death rates from breast cancer were exactly the same.

So clearly there are conflicting views even on the benefits, depending on the ‘expert’ you talk to. Age of the female being screened is, however, significant, for example the ten-year trial quoted in the December 2006 Lancet which concluded that, where pre-menopausal women went for annual breast cancer screening, there was no significant reduction in breast cancer mortality – across the 160,000 women tested. Whilst researchers showed that 4 lives in 10,000 might, at best, be saved they concluded this had to be balanced against the ‘increased negative factors’.

Some years ago, according to the ACCT, our own Professor Baum (Professor Emeritus of Surgery and visiting Professor of Medical Humanities at University College London), ‘blasted American doctors as “immoral” for screening women under 50 for breast cancer’. Baum apparently said the screening was “opportunistic” and “did more harm than good”. “Over 99 percent of pre-menopausal women will have no benefit from screening. Even for women over 50, there has been only a one percent biopsy rate as a result of screening in the United Kingdom. The density of the breast in younger women make mammography a highly unreliable procedure’’.

Finding problems that aren’t really problems at all

In September 2006 an earlier report from the Nordic Cochrane Centre found that for every 2,000 women invited to have screening mammograms, just one would have their life prolonged, but 10 would endure unnecessary and potentially devastating treatment! Professor Peter Gozsche, who led the research along with Karsten Jorgensen, said that ‘many women were being treated for slow-growing cancers that might never have developed to cause concern if they had not been picked up in the screening’.

The Nordic Cochrane Library is highly and internationally respected; the research took the seven best trials reported to date and reviewed the benefits against the negative outcomes resulting from the screening. It should be recorded very clearly here that the women who participated in screening had a 15 per cent lower risk from breast cancer that those who were not screened. Unfortunately such a ‘benefit’ might be due to other factors – those women coming for screening might be more concerned and careful about their health anyway – they might have better diets and so on.

The hard fact was that the absolute reduction in the risk of dying from breast cancer for those women participating in screening was 0.05 per cent. Whereas the risk for a women being screened and then actually treated unnecessarily for a slow-growing or even benign cancer was a staggering 30 per cent – giving an increased absolute risk of 0.5 per cent – a risk ten times greater than the apparent benefit.

Worse, apart from the 10 women in every 2,000 given unnecessary treatment, a further 200 will experience weeks or months of unnecessary worry solely because of ‘false-positive’ findings – the observation of ‘cell changes’ that eventually turn out to be benign. Problems that aren’t really problems! This is the untold cost of the screening programme – the unnecessary stress, fear and damage to women caused by inaccurate screening.

After the in-depth analysis by Professors Goetzsche and Karsten Juhl Jorgensen expressing such concerns, 23 leading cancer experts and health professionals wrote to the Times condemning NHS data as ´inadequate and one sided". A new NHS leaflet was introduced in 2010 but is still inadequate say the experts. "There is no quantification of over-diagnosis in the leaflet. For example, the leaflet claims that if a breast cancer is found early, patients are less likely to have a mastectomy". Goetzsche says this is "seriously misleading - the evidence shows that mastectomies have actually increased as a result of over-diagnosis".

Then there is another concern: Is the diagnosis of breast cancer actually breast cancer? Roughly 50 per cent of abnormalities detected are lobular, and 50 per cent are ductal. While a Professor from UCLA at the 2006/7 US breast cancer conference said that the majority of Ductal irregularities were merely calcium deposits and only 15-20 per cent ever became cancer, almost simultaneously UK experts were describing Ductal Carcinomas as highly dangerous. Back to the Nordic Cochrane Centre who conclude that ‘about a fifth of breast cancers detected during screening are early abnormalities known as Ductal Carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Most women with DCIS have mastectomies even though doctors do not know whether they will spread’.

In fact this is not exactly now true. Again in Cancer Watch a 2010 report showed that women with DCIS could have lumpectomies and that surgery meant 60 per cent needed no further treatment. Readers, of course, might justifiably say, ´Well if 80 per cent of DCIS is never going to become breast cancer, of course having the problem surgically removed is going to produce women who never get breast cancer!"

Breast Tissue Dangers

Another factor often ignored in the debate is Breast Tissue Density. Put simply, ‘dense breast tissue is risky tissue’. The US Magazine Life Extension amongst others has summarised a number of research studies on the causes. Factors that increase the density of breast tissue include dairy consumption, synthetic hormone use (like the contraceptive pill or HRT), and smoking. Factors that maintain soft breast tissue include adequate Tocotrienol vitamin E and omega-3 consumption, numbers of babies and length of time spent breast feeding (9 months per baby affords more protection).

And here is the conundrum: Soft breast tissue is less risky tissue and ladies need to try to keep their tissue soft to reduce their risk of breast cancer. But soft breast tissue is significantly more at risk from mammogram radiation. Catch 22.

Overweight and obese women have problems too. The Archives of Internal Medicine (May 24, 2004; 164(10): 1140-7) reports that obese women are 20 per cent more likely to be wrongly diagnosed with false positive readings. Apparently in obese women, the thicker volume of breast tissue gives poorer image clarity when squeezed between the plates.

So, how accurate are mammograms?

Most women have read articles on false positive readings, women having weeks of hell before learning the truth, mis-diagnosis even resulting in biopsies and operations.

Dr van der Horst, a radiologist in the Netherlands screening programme presented his findings to a meeting of European screening experts at the 4th European Breast Cancer Conference in Hamburg in March 2004.

He was concerned that changing lifestyle patterns have resulted in more post-menopausal women having dense breast tissue. ‘This makes it harder for mammograms to pick up tumours or early signs of breast cancer and may lead to unnecessary biopsies because of uncertainties in reading the results’.

His research took a random sample of 2,000 from 54,000 women, who are screened every two years in Holland. The research classified the tissue as dense if more than a quarter of the tissue was dense. Otherwise it was classified as lucent.

The research found that 25 per cent of 50-69 year olds and 17 per cent of 65-69 year olds had dense breasts.

They then looked at cancer rates, comparing total cancers with those detected by the mammograms, i.e. the ability of the mammogram to actually correctly detect a cancer. In the lucent group it was 67 per cent. In the dense group it was 59 per cent.

So according to the research presented at the top European Breast Cancer Conference, at best, mammograms are accurate only two out of three times.

He also noted that research indicated ultrasound improved accuracy in cancer detection.

Confused?

As always, things aren’t what they first seem. There has been a strong body of opinion in the orthodox medical fraternity only too keen to stress the importance of regular breast cancer screening, with large vans in Sainsbury’s car parks and women feeling that ‘they really ought to have one to be safe’, when this now turns out to be quite a long way from the truth.

Breast Cancer expert Dr Gozsche feels that, ‘Information given to women when they are invited for screening, and that they can get on the internet, is considerably biased in that it underlines the benefits and usually completely omits major harms such as over-diagnosis’.

Critics raise the issue of statistical manipulation – finding problems that do not really exist. This is certainly the view of Dr John Bailer who spent 20 years on the staff of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and was editor of its journal. “The five-year survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. . . . More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being ´cured´. When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly." Of course, the UK breast cancer screening programme would never be used in this way, would it?

Following the NCC report in 2008, Professor Michael Baum, originally one of the pioneers of the UK’s screening programme, seems now to have wavered and in 2008 was calling on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) to investigate whether it should even continue. He has publicly stated that “if the (NCC) report stands up, the NHS screening programme should be referred to NICE to decide whether it should be closed down.”

Can some Breast Cancers actually heal themselves?

Let’s go back to the 2008 Norwegian study. “Spontaneous regression of invasive breast cancer has been reported, with a recent literature review identifying 32 reported cases. This is a relatively small number given such a common disease. However, as some observers have pointed out, the fact that documented observations are rare does not mean that regression rarely occurs. It may instead reflect the fact that these cancers are rarely allowed to follow their natural course."

In an editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine that accompanies the breast cancer study, Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Franz Porzsolt, M.D., Ph.D., of Clincal Economics University of Ulm, Germany, wrote that the most important concern raised by the study is "how surprisingly little we know about what happens to untreated patients with breast cancer”.

They are saying that with some diagnoses the body may well heal itself. But from the scientific reports and expert views quoted above these extra diagnoses could also be false positives or they might be diagnoses of breast cancer that do not even lead to actual breast cancer (for example, calcium deposits).

This conclusion is HUGE.

Not least because when you next read in the press that 42,000 women will be diagnosed this year in the UK with breast cancer, the fact is that we really don’t seem to know how many of them really do have the disease. And when you read the proud boast that ‘We’re beating breast cancer’ the fact is that we don’t actually know, if left untreated, how many would have survived any way. According to Professor Gotzsche, the National Programmes of screening despite all the grandiose claims, have actually made little impact on death rates from breast cancer which have fallen just as fast amongst women who are not screened as those who are.

It’s all a bit of a worry.

**************************

[shann0]

Mild language...

[shann0]

www.polycarp.org/overviewabortionbreastcancer.htm



Overview:
Breast Cancer and Abortion

Q-A: Why would a woman who has an induced abortion before her first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) suffer an increased risk of developing breast cancer?

A woman’s breast is especially sensitive to carcinogenic (ie, cancer producing) influences before she delivers her first child. When a woman becomes pregnant, a number of hormone levels increase dramatically in her body. Three especially notable ones are estradiol, progesterone (ie, the female sexual hormones), and hCG (human Chorionic Gonadotropin). All of these hormones, especially the latter, serve to stimulate immature breast cells to mature into fully differentiated cells [1]. If this process is artificially interrupted by way of an induced abortion, the hormone levels drop suddenly and dramatically, thereby suspending the natural process of maturation of many of the woman’s breast cells. This is referred to as a “hormonal blow” by researchers. These cells are now “vulnerable” to carcinogens because they started the maturation process but were never able to complete it. (Cells that have fully matured are less vulnerable to carcinogens than cells that are in the process of maturation).

Q-B: Do any animal models support the claim that abortions early in life increase breast cancer risk?

Yes. Russo and Russo, in their classic work published in 1980 [2], studied several groups of rats which were given a specific carcinogen (cancer producing agent) called DMBA. They noted that 77% of the rats who underwent an abortion developed breast cancer and 69% of the virgin rats developed breast cancer, but 0% of the rats who were allowed to complete their pregnancy developed breast cancer.

Q-C: Could you tell me about the history of the abortion/breast cancer debate?

As early as 1957, Segi et al noted that women who had induced abortions had at least a 2-fold increased risk of breast cancer [3]. In 1981, Pike et al [4] published their notable work showing that young women (under the age of 32) who had experienced an abortion before their first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) had a 140% increased risk of breast cancer. A number of studies followed but in 1994, Daling et al [5] published a large study which noted that women who had an abortion before their FFTP suffered a 40% increased risk. This risk increased to 150% if the adolescent had her abortion before the age of 18. In addition, Daling et al noted that if adolescents under the age of 18 aborted a baby that was more than 8 weeks old, they suffered an 800% increased risk of developing breast cancer.

Finally, in 1996, in what is openly regarded as the most meticulous and comprehensive meta-analysis (ie, a synthesis of all the major studies done in a particular field concluding in an overall risk for the pooled studies) of all the abortion/breast cancer research articles ever done, Brind et al [6] found that women who had an abortion before their FFTP had a 50% increased risk of developing breast cancer whereas women who had an abortion after their FFTP sustained a 30% increased risk.

Q-D: If Dr. Brind et al’s study was so conclusive, then why is the subject still being debated?

Because of the controversy regarding abortion, Dr. Brind’s study came under intense scrutiny; however, the results seemed irrefutable. Janet Daling — a prominent epidemiologist (a researcher who studies trends in the medical field) — was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as stating that Brind et al’s results were “very objective and statistically beyond reproach.” [7] Then in early 1997, the New England Journal of Medicine published the results of a large prospective study by Melbye et al [8] which claimed to show that abortion did not increase the risk of breast cancer.

Q-E: Was there any problem with the study by Melbye?

Yes. It is astonishing that the New England Journal of Medicine allowed it to be published in its submitted form. It had several glaring problems that have been pointed out in a follow-up letter to the New England Journal of Medicine [9]. The main ones include the following: 1) Melbye’s data actually pointed to a 44% increased risk of breast cancer due to abortion, but they never printed this result; 2) The follow-up period for the “cases” (ie, women who had an induced abortion) was less than 10 years, whereas it was over 20 years for the “controls” (ie, women who did not have an induced abortion). A follow-up period of less than 10 years is not long enough to show the effect of an abortion (ie, too short of a latent period); 3) Over 30,000 women in the study who had abortions were “misclassified” as not having them — thus 30,000 women were counted as not having abortions, when in fact they really had abortions; and 4) The study did note that women who had an abortion after the 12th week sustained a 38% increased risk of breast cancer, whereas women who had late-term abortions (ie, after 18 weeks) had a statistically significant increase of 89%. Both of these results received little media attention.

Q-F: Dr. Melbye claimed that his study did not suffer from “recall bias.” What did he mean by this?

Some researchers have claimed that retrospective studies suffer from “recall bias.” (An example of a retrospective study is one in which women with breast cancer would be interviewed and asked questions about their risk factors such as family history, induced abortion, etc.) The recall bias hypothesis can be defined as the following: “The hypothesis that people who develop a disease (eg, breast cancer) are more likely than people who do not develop that disease to admit that they participated in a ‘controversial risk factor’ (eg, an induced abortion or oral contraceptive pill [OCP] use) for that disease.” In essence they claim that women who have breast cancer are more likely to be truthful about the fact that they had an induced abortion than women who do not have breast cancer.

Q-G: On what basis do such researchers make such a claim?

This claim of recall bias is based on a study by Lindefors-Harris et al [10] from Sweden. She compared the responses of “cases” and “controls” to the national register which reportedly keeps an accurate record of all women who had an abortion. The study claimed to show that in the group of women who indeed had an induced abortion (according to the national register), the women who had breast cancer were about 50% more likely to admit that they had the abortion than the women who did not have breast cancer. The study has been criticized by Daling, a prominent epidemiologist, who noted that the study actually showed only a 16% “recall bias” (versus the reported 50% figure), when analyzed properly [5].

Q-H: Were there any problems with the study?

Yes. The study noted that 7 out of the group of 26 women with breast cancer who stated that they had an abortion at a young age, actually did not have an abortion according to the national register. This implies that 7 women out of the 26 women, or 27% of these “cases,” stated that they had an abortion at a young age, when they really did not. Obviously, this undermines the credibility of the study. Who would place any confidence in a study in which more than one quarter of a group of women with breast cancer reportedly lied and said they had an abortion when they actually had not?

Q-I: Is there any way to get around the “recall bias” problem?

Yes. A direct way to “get around it” is to measure it. Researchers did this already in the oral contraceptive and breast cancer debate in which some researchers claimed that women with breast cancer would be more honest about their history of oral contraceptive use. A number of studies refuted this claim by going back to a woman’s medical records and comparing the results of her interview response to that of the written record. All three of the studies that did this found less than a 2% difference between “case” and “control” responses [11,12].

Q-J: Can the same technique be used in regard to the abortion and breast cancer studies?

Absolutely. Most good obstetricians and gynecologists obtain a thorough medical history of their patients especially on their initial visit. A standard question would be to ask a woman how many miscarriages and/or induced abortions she had. If one wished to measure the degree of “recall bias” between “cases” and “controls,” one could simply compare their oral responses to that of the written medical record. Any degree of bias would be recorded and accounted for.

Q-K: This seems so basic. Why has it not been done?

That is a good question. Perhaps the question that should be asked is: Has someone done it and not reported it for fear of going against the bureaucratic forces within the political and medical establishments?

Q-L: Do women who had an abortion or miscarriage, or used oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) early in their reproductive life develop a more aggressive breast cancer?

Yes. Olsson et al has noted [13]: “These results indicate that the rate of tumor cell proliferation [ie, rate of growth of cancer cells] is higher in patients with breast cancer who have used oral contraceptives at an early age or who at a young age have had an early abortion. . .”





Q-M: Do miscarriages carry the same risk of breast cancer as induced abortion?

Women whose pregnancies end in miscarriage usually do not experience the same increase in estradiol and progesterone (ie, the female sexual hormones) or hCG levels that would result from a healthy pregnancy. Therefore, when a woman experiences a miscarriage, there is a less dramatic shift in hormone levels and less of a “hormonal blow” to the breast. Studies have shown that miscarriages, in general, have less of a risk than induced abortions. However, several studies show that miscarriages before a first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) may still carry a significant risk of developing breast cancer as noted in Table 2A below. (Further research in this area is critical to determine if an early miscarriage does indeed increase the risk of breast cancer.)



Table A:



RISKS OF BREAST CANCER IN WOMEN WHO HAD A MISCARRIAGE BEFORE THEIR FIRST FULL TERM PREGNANCY



AUTHOR
YEAR OF PUBLICATION
PERCENT CHANGE
CONFIDENCE INTERVAL






Pike et al [138]
1981
151% increase
unknown

Brinton [101]
1983
9% increase*
0.8-1.5

Hadjimichael [107]
1986
250% increase
1.7-7.4

Rosenberg [149]
1988
10% decrease*
0.7-1.4**

Ewertz/Duffy [106]
1988
163% increase*
0.83-8.32***

Adami [96]
1990
20% increase*
0.7-2.0

Daling [103]
1994
10% decrease*
0.6-1.3

Rookus [141]
1996
40% increase*
1.0-1.9


* This result reflects a trend towards an increased or decreased risk but does not attain statistical significance

** Inappropriate age matching in this study: median age of "cases" and “controls” were was 52 and 40 respectively





Q-N: Is the prognosis of a pregnant woman who currently has breast cancer improved if she has an induced abortion?

No. Clarck and Chua noted that: “Those (pregnant women with breast cancer) undergoing a therapeutic abortion had a poorer prognosis compared to a live birth and even a spontaneous abortion.” [20] King et al obtained a similar result. “. . .patients who had termination of the pregnancy had a five year survival rate of 43 percent, whereas patients who underwent mastectomy and who went to term had a five year survival of 59 percent.” [21].



Q-O: What should women be told in general about having an abortion at a young age and the risk of breast cancer?

Women who have an elective abortion before their firstborn baby suffer at least a 50% increased risk of developing breast cancer according to the best meta-analysis done to date. The risks are almost certainly higher for women who have had an abortion before the age of 18, or those who have additional risk factors, such as a positive family history or use of oral contraceptives before a FFTP. (The person who is interested in an excellent review article describing the physiologic reasons behind the link between abortion and breast cancer should see Canty’s article [22].)





References:



1. Russo J, Russo IH. Toward a physiological approach to breast cancer prevention. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. 1994; 3: 353-364.

2. Russo J, Russo IH. Susceptibility of the mammary gland to carcinogenesis. Am J Pathol. 1980; 100: 497-512.

3. Segi M, et al. An epidemiological study on cancer in Japan. GANN. 1957; 48: 1-63.

4. Pike MC, Henderson BE, et al. Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women. Br J Cancer. 1981; 43: 72-76.

5. Daling J, Malone K, et al. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994; 86: 1584-1592.

16. Brind J, Chinchilli M, et al. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 10/ 1996; 50: 481-496.

17. Lagnado L. Study on abortion and cancer spurs fight. Wall Street Journal. Oct. 11, 1996.

18. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, et al. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336: 81-85.

19. Brind J, et al. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336: 1834.

10. Lindefors-Harris BM, Eklund G, et al. Response bias in a case-control study: analysis utilizing comparative data concerning legal abortions from two independent Swedish studies. Am J Epidemiol. 1991; 134: 1003-1008.

11. Chilvers C, McPherson K, et al. Oral contraceptive use and breast cancer risk in young women (UK National Case-Control Study Group). The Lancet. May 6, 1989: 973-982.

12. Rookus MA, Leeuwen FE. Oral contraceptives and risk of breast cancer in women ages 20-54 years. The Lancet. 1994; 344: 844-851.

13. Olsson H, Ranstam J, et al. Proliferation and DNA ploidy in malignant breast tumors in relation to early contraceptive use and early abortions. Cancer. 1991; 67: 1285-1290.

14. Brinton LA, Hoover R, et al. Reproductive factors in the aetiology of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1983; 47: 757-762.

15. Hadjimichael OC, et al. Abortion before first live birth and risk of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1986; 53: 281-284.

16. Rosenberg L, Palmer JR, et al. Breast cancer in relation to the occurrence and time of induced and spontaneous abortion. Am J Epidemiol. 1988; 127: 981-989.

17. Ewertz M, Duffy SW. Risk of breast cancer in relation to reproductive factors in Denmark. Br J Cancer. 1988; 58: 99-104.

18. Adami HO, Bergstrom R, Lund E, Meirik O. Absence of association between reproductive variables and the risk of breast cancer in young women in Sweden and Norway. Br J Cancer. 1990; 62: 122-126.

19. Rookus M, Leeuwen F. Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996; 88: 1759-1764.

20. Clarck RM, Chua T. Breast cancer and pregnancy: the ultimate challenge. Clinical Oncology. 1989; 1: 11-18.

21. King RM, Welch JS, et al. Carcinoma of the breast associated with pregnancy. Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics. 1985; 160: 228-232.

22. Canty L. Breast cancer risk: Protective effect of an early first full-term pregnancy versus increased risk of induced abortion. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1997; 24: 1025-1031

[shann0]

All pdf's are available at the link...



"For our fiscal year ’09, Komen Affiliates contributed $731,000 to Planned Parenthood programs." May 2010

"For the past five years, $3 million – went to Planned Parenthood programs from Komen Affiliates." May 2010

- Komen for the Cure Source: ww5.komen.org


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2010 Details on Susan G. Komen
Breast Cancer Foundation's Link to Abortion




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Komen's Dark Side:
A thirty minute TV episode detailing Komen's relationship with the abortion industry. (April 2009)

Watch the full episode online now!

Learn more...at www.facinglife.tv


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Komen Maintains Ties to Planned Parenthood Trapped in Under-Age Sex-Ring Video Sting Ops Nation-Wide
Issued 9 February 2011




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Komen Alternative: Instead of funding Komen, consider this worthwhile Breast Cancer Research Organization

The Polycarp Research Institute
2232 Second Ave., Altoona, PA 16602
717.732.4904


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

St. Louis Archdiocese
Position Statement on Susan G. Komen for the Cure
Issued 7 June 2006; revised 29 March 2007



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View the complete Report on Komen grants to Planned Parenthood (904K, pdf)
in one document or select the section below that you wish to view.

Susan G. Komen Fact Sheet (169K, pdf)

United States Map of Susan G. Komen Affiliates (100K, pdf)

Planned Parenthood Annual Report Sheet (40K, pdf)

Grant Report and Resources used in Grant Report (187K, pdf)

Appendix I: (435K, pdf)
Press Releases and News Articles Concerning
the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood Connection


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Komen Chapters supporting Planned Parenthood
(Released on April 9, 2008 by STOPP International)

[shann0]

Planned Parenthood does not now, nor have they ever provided mammograms, yet they try to use that as a scare tactic for keeping their funding. Planned Parenthood is mainly an abortion provider.

[shann0]

Full statistics and pdf's at the link...


www.lifeissues.org/pp/index.html


Page Updated 2011

Planned Parenthood is the largest Provider and Promoter of Abortion in the US.

The most recent annual report for Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is for PPFA's 2008 - 2009 Fiscal Year (7/1/08 - 6/30/09). The information is sobering if you believe innocent unborn babies should be protected. Click Here for the full PPFA Annual Report 2008-2009 (pdf format)

PPFA released a 3-page fact sheet detailing their activities in 2009: the Fact Sheet is available in pdf format.

Abortion Procedures 2009 332,278
..................................2008 324,008
..................................2007 305,310

So-Called Morning-After Pills 2009 1,537,180
..............................................2008 1,436,808
..............................................2007 1,423,650
Adoption Referrals 2009 977
.............................2008 2,405
.............................2007 4,912

2006
289,750 1,436,846 2,410
2005 264,943 1,247,506 2,413
2004 255,015 983,537 1,414
2003 244,628 774,482 1,774
2002 227,385 633,756 1,963
2001 213,026 458,892 1,951
2000 197,070 131,638 2,486



Planned Parenthood - which is legally classified as a non-profit organization - reported a profit of $63.4 million for 2008-2009.

PPFA Income Clinic
Income Taxpayer Money Private Donations Profit
2008-2009 $1.1008 billion $404.9 million $363.2 million $209.2 million $63.4 million
2007-2008 $1.038 billion $374.7 million $349.6 million $186 million $85 million
2006-2007 $1.0179 billion $356.9 million $336.7 million $258.7 million $114.8 million
2005-2006 $902.8 million $345.1 million $305.3 million $212.2 million $55.8 million
2004-2005 $882 million $346 million $272.7 million $215.8 million $63 million
2003-2004 $810 million $306.2 million $265.2 million $191 million $35.2 million
2002-2003 $766.6 million $288.2 million $254.4 million $228.1 million $36.6 million
2001-2002 $692.5 million $254.8 million $240.9 million $190.9 million $12.2 million
2000-2001 $672.6 million $241.0 million $202.7 million $189.5 million $38.9 million


Planned Parenthood is the largest Provider and Promoter of Abortion in the US.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA
FACT SHEETS BY YEAR

Fact Sheet for 2009.

Fact Sheet for 2008.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANNUAL REPORTS FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD
FEDERATION OF AMERICA

Click Here for the full PPFA Annual Report 2008-2009 (pdf format)

Click Here for the full PPFA Annual Report 2007-2008 (pdf format)

Click Here for the full PPFA Annual Report 2006-2007 (pdf format)

Click Here for the full PPFA Annual Report 2005-2006 (pdf format)

Click Here for the full PPFA Annual Report 2003-2004 (pdf format)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARTICLES ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD

Planned Parenthood Federation of America: In Their Own Words (pdf - 4/08)
Planned Parenthood Abortion Facilities Target African American Communities (10/05)
Planned Parenthood Targets Hispanics (1/06)

[shann0]

ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101008/pinkwashing-pink-ribbon-101009/20101009/?hub=OttawaHome

Breast cancer month overshadowed by 'pinkwashing'





The Breast Cancer Action advocacy group warns shoppers to question what their money is actually funding.





View larger image

The 'Think Before You Pink' campaign warns shoppers to questions what their money is funding.



Updated: Sat Oct. 09 2010 10:32:18 PM

Angela Mulholland, CTV.ca News

Every October, stores become a sea of pink as shelves fill with products adorned with pink ribbons as part of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It's all seen as a feel-good win-win: Consumers get the products they want, while helping out a great cause. What could be wrong?

Lots, say groups and breast cancer patients who are sick of companies trying to push shoppers into thinking that pink candies, pink toasters and pink spatulas will make a dent in curing cancer.

It's bad enough, they say, that corporations are profiting off the pink ribbon and the disease that left them feeling anything but pink. It's worse when companies "pinkwash": hitching a ride on the pink ribbon bandwagon to sell products that might actually be linked to cancer.

In 2002, the Breast Cancer Action advocacy group launched the "Think Before You Pink" campaign, warning shoppers to ask questions about what their money is funding.

They successfully went after pink-ribbon sponsor Yoplait, and later Dannon, for using milk from cows treated with bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a hormone that's been linked in some studies to breast cancer. Both companies later bowed to consumer demands and stopped using milk with the hormone.

This year, the Think Before You Pink campaign is targeting alcohol companies that urge people to "pink their drink" because, they say, these drinks are only adding to the breast cancer problem. Alcohol has been linked to breast cancer in a number of studies, and the Canadian Cancer Society advises that even one drink a day on average can increase the risk of breast cancer.

Samantha King, an associate professor of physical and health education and women's studies at Queen's University, in Kingston, Ont., has also raised a stink about pink. In 2006, she wrote "Pink Ribbons Inc.," one of the first critical looks at how breast cancer has been co-opted by corporate ad men and women.

Every October, King says she sees plenty of examples of "pinkwashing," but this year, three questionable campaigns stand out for her.

One is the KFC Buckets for a Cure campaign in the U.S., in which 50 cents from every bucket of fried chicken is going to Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

"KFC sells products that are salt- and fat-laden, and injected with hormones, and they are the subject of a lawsuit in California about a potential carcinogen that they use in the processing of their chicken," King tells CTV.ca.

Another is the annual campaign by Ultramar gas stations in Quebec, in which stations are plastered with big pink ribbons. King notes a number of studies have linked air pollution to breast cancer so encouraging people to buy more gas is not going to help.

But the most mind-boggling pink-ribbon tie-in she's seen is a handgun sold in the U.S. that features a bubblegum pink grip. Its manufacturer promises to donate a portion of proceeds to breast cancer awareness.

"So they're saving lives by taking lives?" asks a bewildered King.

Many have accused the pink ribbon campaign of promoting "slacktivism": the belief that going shopping or "clicking for a cure" will make difference. If people really wanted to contribute to cancer research, they would sit down to write a cheque to a charity or research facility, the argument goes.

But King says she understands why people choose to contribute through pink ribbon merchandising.

"People are really busy and pulled in different directions. And if you have to buy a product anyway and you have to choose between one with a pink ribbon and one without, it's an easy way to feel you are fulfilling your role as a good citizen," she says.

But she also wants to point out what many Canadians may not realize: that the money raised by pink ribbon campaigns and runs for the cure contribute only a fraction of the funds that go into cancer research.

"When you look at Canada as a whole, the federal government still provides the vast majority of funding for research, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation [which claims ownership of the ribbon as an official mark] provides only a small percentage," she says.

King says she believes most people contribute to pink ribbon campaigns with the best of intentions and says she's not seeking to criticize those intentions.

"I'm just trying to draw attention to its limitations. Where is the money really going? How much of it is going there? There are so many questions we need to ask."

Breast Cancer Action, the founder of the Think Before You Pink campaign, offers this list of questions to ask before you buy pink.

1. How much money from your purchase actually goes toward breast cancer?


Breast Cancer Action advises asking yourself: is the amount they're planning to send enough for you? If you can't tell how much money is being donated, or if you don't think it's enough, give directly to the organization instead.

2. What is the maximum amount that will be donated?


BCA notes that many companies place a cap on the amount of money that will be donated. In some cases, that cap be reached fairly quickly. If the cap has already been met, your purchase may not contribute anything to the cause.

3. How are the funds being raised?


Sometimes, a purchase alone is not enough. Some campaigns ask shoppers to visit a website to complete the contribution, or send in a receipt. Since many shoppers won't be willing to take those extra steps, the campaign may not have that much meaning.

4. To what breast cancer organization does the money go, and what types of programs does it support?


Does the product's package tell you where the money goes and what will be done with it? Breast Cancer Action is of the opinion that some branches of research already get plenty of financial support, while other areas like research into the causes of breast cancer go under-funded. Other charities fund breast cancer "awareness" and "promotion," but not research into a cure. Shoppers should let their wallets do the talking about where fundsshould go.

5. What is the company doing to assure that its products are not actually contributing to the breast cancer epidemic?


Among the "pinkwashers" that Breast Cancer Action warns about are car companies, some cosmetics and personal care products companies whose products contain chemicals linked to breast cancer, and a number of chemical companies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[shann0]

healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/512-special-investigative-report-why-you-should-boycott-the-susan-komen-pink-ribbon-foundation-and-its-sponsors.html

Why You Should Boycott Susan Komen Pink Ribbon Foundation and it's Sponsors.

It may stun many readers to learn that the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation sponsors Planned Parenthood, the "family planning" organization that performs assembly line abortions. These two organizations make surprisingly fitting partners, since they are both militant promoters of a feminist ideology and internally have a death culture fixation. These ideals overshadow any amount of compassion for the women who they supposedly help. The ultimate product of these partner organizations is broken families and widespread deaths, as will be explained. Planned Parenthood manages to achieve its anti-family and anti-Christian agenda in a direct and obvious manner. The Komen foundation is more subtle with its own internal strategy groups, such as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender National Advisory Council.

The amount of money that the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation has donated to Planned Parenthood is currently being kept obscured. One source reported that $730,000 was donated in 2009 alone, but we were unable to confirm this. A public relations representative from the Komen foundation disclosed to The Health Wyze Report that the amount of money annually funneled into Planned Parenthood is in the range of "about $700,000", which lends strong credence to the previous report. The foundation boasts that it has "invested" $1.5 billion since it's foundation in 1982. Exactly what it does with its funding is not disclosed, but is instead shrouded in secrecy and disguised by buzz words such as 'energizing science'.

The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation (alias Susan G. Komen for the Cure) maintains that the money given to Planned Parenthood is used for early breast cancer screening provided at the clinics. They have several pages on their website dedicated to keeping the news media pacified about their Planned Parenthood partnership. They claim that all such donations are specifically earmarked for breast cancer screening only. What they carefully omit mentioning is the fact that these breast cancer screenings cause breast cancers, due to the radiation exposure. Likewise the contraceptive pills issued, and the abortions performed, greatly increases the cancer risks, as well. They furthermore neglect to mention that money donated for radioactive screenings at Planned Parenthood frees funds that would have been otherwise used, so that the boosted Planned Parenthood funds can be reallocated to other services. The money donated to Planned Parenthood will undoubtedly be used for all of their services, even if it is just indirectly, as just noted. This would be considered horrendous to many pro-life advocates and churches that regularly donate to this organization. Of course, these organizations, like the rest of us, are intentionally kept ignorant of the special partnership between Komen and Planned Parenthood, and of the real agendas.

Komen appears to have a policy of specifically partnering with unethical organizations. For instance, you will never see their pink ribbons on organic foods, ever. They tend to only promote cancer-causing foods, and products. The irony of their past support of aluminum-containing (breast cancer causing) deodorants is staggering. Their ironic partnership with KFC was mocked publicly by comedian Stephen Colbert, since their desire for money was obviously more important than truly stopping cancer. Judging from their checkered history, we have to wonder if an agenda of spreading cancer plays a role too. The organization's partners range from aspartame-laced yogurts to MSG-containing pizzas. None of this could be accidental. Under the banner of saving lives, we actually find that it is an organization that promotes disease in its every action and deed. Like in the case of politicians, we should examine what they are actually doing and have done, instead of what they are saying that they are doing.



You are likely to find the sneaky Naturally Fresh brand of deodorant in Whole Food's Market. Its ingredient's list states, "natural mineral salts (potassium alum)". Alum is made from aluminium, an accumulative carcinogenic heavy metal. It is a compound of aluminium and phosphorus, and is used instead of aluminium chlorohydrate to disguise the fact that the product still contains aluminium. This is typical of a pink ribbon product, so buyer beware of the pink ribbon.

The evidence strongly suggests that the Komen organization has no sincere interest in the cause or cure of cancer. Any widely known cure would immediately dry-up their funding, so a cure is the last thing they want; and this is why they carefully sidestep mentioning the safe and effective cures that have existed since the epidemic of cancer began in the early 20th century. One would think that they would know about existing cures with their billions in research money, since the discovery of the cause got the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1913 (Dr. Otto Warburg). Perhaps Nobel Prizes in medicine are not mainstream enough for them to take seriously either. One need not have billions in research funding to discover effective cures or the causes of cancer; for all that is needed is a free card to any public library, or an Internet connection. Their continued silent complicity with medicine that easily kills over 10 times the number of people who are killed by the cancers themselves is positive proof that medicine (disease) is just a for-profit business for them, even though they have conned their way into not being taxed like other profitable businesses. Meanwhile, as the cancer industry carnage continues, their profits have gone from the millions into the billions. By the way, where exactly is their research?

Corporations who market with Komen's pink ribbons do so because they get greater profits due to increased customer sales. It is a con job of legendary proportions that despicably targets the most well-intentioned of our society. Awhile, not so much as a finger has been lifted in any honest effort to save any person's life. Readers may wish to begin a quest to locate any person who has ever been helped by Komen, minus those on the take, of course.

Conversely, the deaths from the cancers caused by their corporate partners, and more directly from the abortions, are easily in the millions. The use of pink in their marketing, and the constant female-only imagery actually shows the unfortunate influence of feminism in our society. Other news organizations shy away from all criticism of Komen, since questioning the organization's ethics is an easy way to get labeled as "sexist", and then all the feminists will surely proclaim that the news organization heartlessly wants to victimize females having cancer. Thus, Komen tends to be immune from criticism and honest coverage about its activities. To other news outlets, this "charity" is beyond investigation.



Despite public comments from Komen's representatives to the contrary, abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. It is not a small increase. For virtually every category of women, in every age group, the chance of getting cancer more than doubles. When abortion is combined with birth control pill usage, and radioactive exams (both given by their partner organization), then one has a cancer time bomb. It practically becomes a matter of when the women get cancer instead of if. It is interesting to note that the surest way to prevent breast cancer is to have a child and breast feed him, and equally interesting is that neither organization mentions this in their literature. They absolutely avoid this topic. So much for saving lives. These "family planning" cancer links have been proven in studies dating back to the 1970's, but Komen apparently has not noticed the prolific volumes of data any more than it has noticed Nobel Prize winning cancer breakthroughs. It instead cherry picks the few studies that support its agenda.

Women become more vulnerable to breast cancer as soon as they become pregnant, showing the unique influence of pregnancy-related hormones, and many believe that a permanent hormonal imbalance is created whenever an abortion interrupts the natural birthing cycle. This theory explains the correlation between abortion and breast cancers. It is similar to the way in which women with c-sections cannot lose weight afterward, since the natural birthing process was interrupted, which in-turn prevented their hormones from automatically resetting. Following pregnancy, women who breast feed their children are well protected against breast cancer. The cancer resistance is much greater for these woman than for those who did not have children. It is for this reason that breast cancer was once referred to as "Nun's Disease".

"The longer women breast feed the more they are protected against breast cancer."

— The Lancet, 2002

Much of the money received by the Komen organization for prevention of cancer is purportedly just funneled back into the same failed disease-management industry, which is actually causing the problems in the first place. True charities with nothing to hide do not conceal their financial records. In fact, they normally boast about their charitable spending. Komen breaks all of the rules of a standard charity. It routinely ignores risk factors for cancer when they are in opposition with their corporate sponsors, and it flatly discards scientific evidence. Of course, these things remind us to ask again, "Where exactly is that research, and what have they accomplished?"

The organization has been under fire from legitimate breast cancer charities, due to its unethical marketing schemes. Particularly highlighted as an example is a partnership with Yoplait, which donated ten cents for each lid that was mailed in by consumers. At the time, postage for this cost 37 cents. Thus, the campaign was largely a complete waste of money, but it managed to get people to buy the product at an increased rate, and it required customers to give their address details. This overall pattern of trapping good people through bait-and-switch tactics is seen throughout the huge pink ribbon industry.

Komen also likes to threaten lawsuits when true non-profits use the phrase "for the cure", and it warns companies to never use the color pink in combination with the word "cure". Normally, charities do not legally attack others who have the same altruistic goals, but Komen is not a normal charity; and it is arguably not even a charity at all. As a business, protecting their trademarks is vital. Jennifer Jenkins, Director of the Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke Law School, claims that such threats are typically on "shaky legal ground". Everyday phrases like 'for the cure' cannot be trademarked; but so far, no one has legally challenged this massive corporate superpower's bogus intellectual property claims of owning everything associated with breast cancer.

While they are adamant that they are making a positive difference toward curing breast cancer, most of their public activity involves supporting organizations that provide cancer-causing procedures or carcinogenic toxins. There is no mention of the risk of false positives for tests, the dangerous effects of radiation exposure, or the bleak outlook for those who follow the corrective procedures that they support. They also neglect to mention that avoiding an abortion, more often than not, saves two lives. There's a killing to be made, after all.





Komen Pink Ribbon Sponsors: The Wall of Shame
(From ww5.komen.org/CorporatePartners.aspx)




1 a Minute
180s
3M
A&A Optical
ACH Food Companies
Acushnet
American Airlines
American Blue Ribbon Holdings
American Italian Pasta Company
Anchor Bay Entertainment
Anne Fontaine
Ansell Healthcare Products, LLC
Ariela-Alpha International
Arizona AFO
Ask.com
AT&T
ATP Electronics, Inc
Autobiography of SORAYA
avenue
Avery Dennison
Balance Walking by Foot Solutions
Bank of America
BCBG MAXAZRIA and ClearVision Optical
Beemster Cheese
Belcam, Inc.
Belk
Bernat
Bernina of America
BIC USA Inc.
Bi-Lo, LLC
BMW of North America, Inc.
Boar’s Head Provisions Co., Inc.
Boots Retail USA, Inc.
Borders
Boston Warehouse
Bowl for the Cure
Brinker International
California Pear Advisory Board
Cameo Apple Marketing Association
Candy Coburn
Caribou Coffee Company, Inc.
Carlisle Collection, Ltd.
Carnival Cruise Lines
Cartier
Cause Care, LLC
Century Payments
Chesapeake Bay Candle Co.
Citizen Watch Company of America
Coldwater Creek
Collegiate Shipping Products, LLC
Company C
Corning Life Sciences
Crabtree & Evelyn
Crayola
Dallas Cowboys
Dansko
Del Frisco’s Restaurant Group
Dell
Deluxe Checks
Deuce Brand
Dogtopia
Dots
DOVE Chocolate
Dr Pepper Snapple Group
DS Waters
Eggland's Best, Inc.
Electronic Arts Inc.
Emdeon
Energizer
EuroBlooms
Everyday Coupon Book
Pottinger Nichols Media Group, LLC
Evian
Exercise TV
Ford Motor Company
Freed’s Bakery, LLC
FRITO LAY
FUZE
Glacéau SmartWater
Honest Tea
Ganz
General Growth Properties
General Mills
GUESS
GUESS by Marciano
Hallmark Gold Crown Stores
Hanesbrands
Helzberg Diamonds
Hewlett-Packard
Heys USA
Holland America Line
Home Shopping Network
Igloo
Imprintables Warehouse
Inliten
Irish Dairy Board, Inc.
Jingle Heart
Kelly Gale Amen Design
Kentucky Oaks
Kimberly-Clark
Kimberly-Clark, Huggies
KitchenAid
Kobian USA, Inc.
Koch Filter Corporation
Koi Design LLC
Kyocera
La Madeleine
LaCroix Sparkling Water
Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA)
LIFE Event-The Val Skinner Foundation
LifeWorks Technology Group
Litehouse Foods, Inc.
Louisville Stoneware
Lowe’s Companies, Inc
LPGA Golf Clinics for Women
Major League Baseball
Massage Envy
McNeil Nutritionals, LLC
MD Jockey Club
MegaGoods, Inc.
Merck Consumer Care
Meredith Corporation
Microsoft
MMG Corporation
Mobile Edge
Mrs. Baird's Bakeries
NAPA AutoCare
Napa Valley Naturals
Nature's Flowers
NBC Today Show
Nestle Purina PetCare Company
New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.
New Global Charities
NKOTB
Nonni’s Food Company
Nordstrom
North American Licensing Company
Not Your Daughter's Jeans
NYGÅRD International
Olivet International
On The Border
On the Go Hosiery
Ontic Golf
OPI
Oreck
Oregon Cherry Growers, Inc.
Oriental Trading Company
Otis Spunkmeyer, Inc.
Palmer's
Pandora Jewelry
Paramount Coffee
Payless ShoeSource
Pepperidge Farm
Perdue Farms Inc.
Philips Consumer Lifestyle
Pink Ribbon Produce
Planet Smoothie
PNY
Pottery Barn Kids
Premium Outlets
Princess Cruises
Prolacta Bioscience
Provide Commerce
Quilted Northern Ultra
Rally for the Cure
Raymond Weil
ReCellular
REMAX
Rich Products Corporation
Root Candles
Salon Quest LLC
Samsung Electronics Europe
Santa Barbara Design Studio and Designs by Lolita
Sarah Fisher Racing
She Colors My Day
ShoeDazzle
Shuman Produce, Inc.
Simon Malls
Specialized Bicycle Components
Springs Global
Stanley Black & Decker
Stein Mart
Stylemark, Inc.
The Hillman Group
The Mohawk Group
The Republic of Tea
Tim Halperin
Trident Seafoods Corporation
True Religion Brand Jeans
Tumi, Inc.
Ultradent Products
Verbatim
Victorinox Swiss Army
Wacoal America
Walgreens
Warner Brothers
Yoplait USA
Young Dental
Zeta Tau Alpha Fraternity
Zumba Fitness



Research Studies

The abortion-breast cancer connection. Brind J., Baruch College, City University of New York, NY 10010, USA. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19462841

Risk Factors for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Women Under the Age of 45 Years. Jessica M. Dolle, Janet R. Daling, Emily White, Louise A. Brinton, David R. Doody, Peggy L. Porter, and Kathleen E. Malone. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/18/4/1157.abstract

Select Committee on Science and Technology Written Evidence Memorandum 14 for November 15th, 2007, United Kingdom's Parliament. Dr Joel Brind, Baruch College of the City University of New York. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/1045/1045we15.htm

Long-term physical and psychological health consequences of induced abortion: review of the evidence. Thorp JM Jr, Hartmann KE, Shadigian E. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12544786

Induced Abortion and Risk of Later Premature Births. Brent Rooney, Byron C. Calhoun, M.D.. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf

The federal government and academic texts as barriers to informed consent. Lanfranchi, A., Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18771039

Abortion, breast cancer, and informed consent. Kindley J. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10758700



Related Articles

A True Story of An Abortion Without The Usual Lies

Cancer Revisited: The Industry Suppressed Budwig Regimen or How To Cure Cancer With Cottage Cheese

A Sick Twist: Obama's Genocidal Czar, and Eugenics Through Health Care Reform

Beware of Deodorants, Especially The "Safe" and "All Natural" Ones

Why Americans Ought To Reevaluate What They Were (Falsely) Taught about Child Birth

Why Women Pay Dearly for Caesarian Sections for the Rest of Their Lives

[maeday5]

Hi Shanno...
Good stuff you've pasted here. I didn't tread it all but enough. Always felt like the Komen stuff was a scam of some type. And it's not right either to have a leg up on all the other cancer groups that get left out because Komen gets all the publicity/sponsors/dollars. No cancer is a fun cancer to get.
A lot of this reminds me of the early AIDS fundraising efforts, it didn't just go to fighting the disease either.

[shann0]

Yes, IMO Komen doesn't want to cure cancer, because that would mean loss of a billion dollar industry for them. Hence why they donate to Planned Parenthood, who's main reason for existence, abortion, causes cancer. Pink is big business, and they are greedy.

Other business jump on the "Pink for Profit" bandwagon promoting even unhealthy cancer causing products with promises to donate to Komen, and people will buy these products assuming they are doing something wonderful. It's sick. As the lady in one of the videos said, if cancer could be cured by having sponsored walks/ runs or shopping, after over 20 years we'd have a cure already.

[shann0]

Wanna see something really sick?

[maeday5]

Oct 14, 2011 17:03:13 GMT -5 shann0 said:

Yes, IMO Komen doesn't want to cure cancer, because that would mean loss of a billion dollar industry for them. Hence why they donate to Planned Parenthood, who's main reason for existence, abortion, causes cancer. Pink is big business, and they are greedy.

Other business jump on the "Pink for Profit" bandwagon promoting even unhealthy cancer causing products with promises to donate to Komen, and people will buy these products assuming they are doing something wonderful. It's sick. As the lady in one of the videos said, if cancer could be cured by having sponsored walks/ runs or shopping, after over 20 years we'd have a cure already.

"Pink is big business, and they are greedy.""...for sure.