They make the chemicals, they run the treatment centers, and they're still looking for "the cure" — no wonder they won't tell you about breast cancer prevention. by Sharon Batt & Liza Gross Every October, the sponsors of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month go into overdrive to spread their message, "Early detection is your best protection." Organizers stage walks, hikes, races, and other events around the country "to fill the information void in public communication about breast cancer"-the sponsors' official goal. For the most part that void is filled with the mantra: "Get a mammogram." As for reducing risk, the campaign's elaborate 1998 promotion kit says only that "current research is investigating the roles of obesity, hormone replacement therapy, diet, and alcohol use." In other words, the people who bring you Breast Cancer Awareness Month tell you to find out if you already have the disease. And they tell you to take personal responsibility for staving off what's become a scourge throughout the country. What they go to great lengths to avoid telling you is what the country can do to help stop the scourge at its source. It's no mystery why prevention gets the silent treatment. The primary sponsor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, AstraZeneca (formerly known as Zeneca), is a British-based multinational giant that manufactures the cancer drug tamoxifen as well as fungicides and herbicides, including the carcinogen acetochlor. Its Perry, Ohio, chemical plant is the third-largest source of potential cancer-causing pollution in the United States, releasing 53,000 pounds of recognized carcinogens into the air in 1996. When Zeneca created Breast Cancer Awareness Month in 1985, it was owned by Imperial Chemical Industries, a multibillion-dollar producer of pesticides, paper, and plastics. State and federal agencies sued ICI in 1990, alleging that it dumped DDT and PCBs-both banned in the United States since the 1970s-in Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors. Any mention of what role such chemicals may be playing in rising breast cancer rates is missing from Breast Cancer Awareness Month promos. After acquiring the Salick chain of cancer treatment centers in 1997, Zeneca merged with the Swedish pharmaceutical company Astra this year to form AstraZeneca, creating the world's third-largest drug concern, valued at $67 billion. "This is a conflict of interest unparalleled in the history of American medicine," says Dr. Samuel Epstein, a professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health. "You've got a company that's a spinoff of one of the world's biggest manufacturers of carcinogenic chemicals, they've got control of breast cancer treatment, they've got control of the chemoprevention [studies], and now they have control of cancer treatment in eleven centers-which are clearly going to be prescribing the drugs they manufacture." Even the nation's leading cancer organizations are not immune from corporate influence. The American Cancer Society has the vice president of a major herbicide manufacturer sitting on its board of directors. High-ranking officials in the National Cancer Institute routinely accept lucrative posts in the cancer-drug industry. Such tangled financial interests explain why the cancer establishment-the medical institutions, corporations, and agencies that control cancer research, treatment, and education-continues to ignore mounting evidence that many cases of cancer are avoidable. These conflicts may also help explain why, 28 years and billions of dollars after President Nixon declared war on cancer, the risk of breast cancer is higher than ever. In 1950, an American woman faced a lifetime risk of 1 in 20; today that risk has more than doubled to 1 in 8. Breast cancer will strike some 175,000 women in the United States in 1999, and kill 43,000. The cancer business is booming, but the selective brand of awareness the cancer industry promotes comes at a price. Samuel Epstein predicted 30 years ago that cancer rates would increase, citing an explosion in the use of synthetic chemicals. From 1940 through the early 1980s, production of synthetic chemicals increased by a factor of 350. Billions of tons of substances that never existed before were released into the environment. Yet only some 3 percent of the 75,000 or so chemicals in use have been tested for safety. Forty of them are recognized human carcinogens. The widespread presence of carcinogens in our environment is clearly linked to rising cancer rates, Epstein says. He points to a number of avoidable risk factors, but pollution, estrogenic medications, toxic ingredients in consumer products, and carcinogens in the workplace top his list of culprits. One thing ties all these things together, he says: "Corporate recklessness." Signs of that recklessness are most evident in the workplace. Of 4 million women employed in the chemical industry, Epstein says, "about a million are exposed to chemicals which have been shown to cause breast cancer in rodents." In cases where scientists conducted epidemiological studies, women exposed to these chemicals had higher rates of breast cancer. Evidence that women in the plastics industry face increased risk emerged over 20 years ago. A study published in the Journal of Occupational Medicine in 1977 noted higher-than-expected breast cancer deaths in women exposed to vinyl chloride, which not only produces mammary tumors in animals even at very low doses but causes breast, liver, brain, and nervous-system cancers in humans. Living near hazardous-waste sites also appears to increase risk. "A number of intriguing studies show that breast cancer rates are higher in places that have toxic-waste dumps," says Sandra Steingraber, who explored the links between toxic hot spots and cancer incidence in her book Living Downstream (see "Rachel's Daughter"). A 1985 study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that in New Jersey-a state with 111 Superfund sites-breast cancer mortality among white women increased the closer they lived to a dump site. Many of these chemicals-and waste dumps-are produced by companies with a financial interest in cancer products. "General Electric is a major polluter in PCBs in the Hudson River. GE also manufactures mammogram machines," says Ross Hume Hall, a biochemist who advised the Canadian government on environmental issues in the 1980s. An estimated million pounds of PCBs lie buried at the bottom of a 40-mile stretch of the Hudson, where GE dumped PCB oil until the mid-1970s, contaminating the entire 200-mile length of the river below Hudson Falls. Although PCBs (a family of 209 organochlorine chemicals) were banned in 1977, the chemicals persist in soil, air, lakes, and oceans. Classified by the EPA as probable human carcinogens, PCBs are found in the fatty tissue, sperm, blood, and milk of animals and humans the world over. Although PCBs vary in their effects, several studies link some PCBs to human breast cancer. Faced with a government-proposed cleanup plan that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, GE launched a local media offensive assailing the measure as unnecessary because the river is "cleaning itself." These PR efforts (which happened to be aimed at a community with one of the highest breast cancer rates in the United States) prompted EPA Administrator Carol Browner to complain to the New York Assembly in 1998: "GE would have the people of the Hudson River believe, and I quote, 'living in a PCB-laden area is not dangerous.' The science tells us the opposite is true." Responding to mounting evidence of organochlorines' harm, in 1992 a staid scientific advisory group, the International Joint Commission (IJC), proposed a global phaseout of whole classes of the roughly 15,000 chlorinated compounds in use. (The IJC advises the U.S. and Canadian governments on pollution in the Great Lakes region.) Among the evidence was research from Israel showing that three organochlorine pesticides detected in milk and other dairy products caused 12 types of cancer in 10 different strains of rats and mice. After public outcry in 1978 forced the Israeli government to ban the pesticides-benzene hexachloride, DDT, and lindane-something remarkable happened. Breast cancer mortality rates, which had increased every year for 25 years, dropped nearly 8 percent for all age groups and more than a third for women ages 25 to 34 by 1986. Unimpressed by such findings, the American Cancer Society (ACS) sided with the Chlorine Institute and issued a joint statement against the phaseout. This alliance between the world's largest cancer charity and the chemical industry, says Epstein, amounts to a "frank hostility" to prevention. The American Cancer Society was founded with the support of the Rockefeller family in 1913. Members of the chemical and pharmaceutical industry have long had a place on its board. The society strengthened its industry ties in 1992, when it created the American Cancer Society Foundation to solicit contributions over $100,000. The foundation's corporate-heavy board of trustees includes David Bethune, president of the multinational drug company Lederle Laboratories and vice president of American Cyanamid, a manufacturer of chemical fertilizers and herbicides. The Cancer Society's anti-prevention efforts include opposing the now-defunct Delaney Clause, passed in 1958 to safeguard food from substances that cause cancer in animals, because the law "would severely limit the use of valuable pesticides and food additives and...probably increase food costs." In 1977 and 1978, it opposed regulations for hair dyes that cause mammary and liver cancer in rodents. And since 1982, the ACS has insisted on unequivocal proof that a substance causes cancer in humans before taking a position on public health hazards. Ironically, this is the posture of the tobacco industry, which the ACS has long battled, and explains why decades after the U.S. Surgeon General warned in 1964 that smoking causes lung cancer, tobacco executives were still saying that smoking isn't dangerous. It was the Surgeon General's courage to act on what Steingraber calls "good but partial evidence" that would protect people "while the wheels of science slowly grind on." Thirty-two years later, scientists finally isolated the carcinogenic agent in smoke and determined exactly how it causes lung cancer. True to form, the Cancer Society's latest report on cancer prevention, the 1998 "Cancer Risk Report: Prevention and Control," makes no mention of environmental factors. The primary source of support for cancer research in the United States comes from the federally funded National Cancer Institute (NCI). Senior executives in both the Cancer Society and the Cancer Institute routinely move through a revolving door to board and executive posts at companies that make cancer-treatment drugs. Such conflicts of interest extend to the petrochemical industry. While serving as chairman of the National Cancer Advisory Panel (a three-member committee appointed by the president) in 1990, Armand Hammer announced a drive to add a billion dollars to the NCI's budget "to find a cure for cancer in the next ten years." At the time, he was also chairman of Occidental Petroleum, which would later have to pay the federal government $129 million and New York State $98 million to clean up its infamous toxic dump, Love Canal. It's no surprise, then, that reducing exposures to environmental carcinogens gets short shrift in the NCI's breast cancer prevention efforts, and that the agency embraced a study in "chemoprevention" in 1992. The Breast Cancer Prevention Trial, involving over 13,000 women throughout North America, was designed to see if the chemotherapy drug tamoxifen would reduce the risk of breast cancer in healthy women. Zeneca supplied the tamoxifen, and the NCI provided $50 million in funding. With activists demanding prevention, says Cindy Pearson, executive director of the National Women's Health Network, "the NCI needed a prevention initiative." It chose what seemed the easiest way to go-a pill. Pearson's group opposed the study at a Food and Drug Administration hearing. "Tamoxifen shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as population-wide prevention," she says. Studies later revealed that the women on tamoxifen developed 44 percent fewer breast cancers, but twice as many endometrial cancers, three times as many blood clots in their lungs, and 160 percent more strokes and blood clots in their legs. (Major studies in Italy and Britain found no reduction of breast cancer risk.) In October 1998, the FDA approved tamoxifen for healthy women at "high risk," expanding AstraZeneca's $526 million market for the drug to some 29 million more women. The National Cancer Institute's latest "prevention initiative" will compare tamoxifen and Eli Lilly's raloxifene-another drug that appears to reduce breast cancer risk-in tests on 22,000 women in the United States and Canada. While these advances in chemoprevention win funding and acclaim, less-toxic prevention efforts have met fierce resistance. When the International Joint Commission launched its organochlorine phaseout, the chemical industry first responded with a media offensive attacking the proposal, then went after women's-health activists. In a memo prepared for the Chlorine Chemistry Council, the public-relations firm Mongoven, Biscoe and Duchin outlined a strategy to "mobilize science against the precautionary principle"-the idea that when there is evidence of serious risks to public health, we must act to reduce those risks even in the absence of absolute proof. Singled out was a series of conferences on organochlorines and women's health in 1994 that featured a keynote talk by Dr. Devra Lee Davis on synthetic chemicals. Davis, an epidemiologist, was a health-policy advisor in the Clinton administration at the time, a post the memo complained gave her "unlimited access to the media" and helped validate her "junk science." Industry¹s efforts to stifle evidence of environmental links to breast cancer has even infiltrated the medical journals. Two incidents that grabbed national headlines involved The New England Journal of Medicine in 1997. The first, an editorial by toxicologist Stephen Safe of Texas A&M University, reviewed studies correlating chemical residues in blood samples with increased breast cancer risk. Safe judged the evidence unconvincing, dismissing public concerns as "chemophobia." The Journal did not disclose that Safe had received research funds from the Chemical Manufacturers Association six months before his article appeared. On the heels of Safe's editorial, the Journal ran a book review panning Sandra Steingraber's Living Downstream. The author, a physician identified only as Jerry H. Berke, said Steingraber was obsessed with environmental pollution as the cause of cancer. Berke, it turned out, was a senior official at W. R. Grace, the chemical giant forced by the EPA to help pay for a $69 million cleanup of contaminated wells in Woburn, Massachusetts, the setting for the book and movie A Civil Action. These events had one positive outcome, says Steingraber: they revived an important public conversation that Rachel Carson, the anti-toxics pioneer, initiated toward the end of her life. "She was beginning to document the interlocking structures of industry and medicine and how the chemical industry may be using the medical literature as a mouthpiece for its own views." Carson, herself a victim of industry attacks, saw no contradiction between preventing cancer and developing better treatments. But a "search for the cure," she said, misrepresents the slow nature of scientific discovery. As we single-mindedly chase that elusive cure, we miss opportunities to prevent the cancers of the next generation. "It is a disservice to humanity to hold out the hope that the solution will come suddenly, in a single master stroke, " she warned in Silent Spring. Carson was dying of breast cancer when she wrote these words. No less tragic, the pattern of missed opportunities continues more than 35 years later. PROTECTING OUR HEALTH What You Can Do to Reduce Toxics Toxics activists in Sierra Club chapters and groups nationwide are working on two major campaigns to protect public health. In a global effort, the Club has joined the International POPs Elimination Network, an alliance of 100 non-governmental organizations advocating a worldwide ban of at least 12 persistent organic pollutants (POPs), the most hazardous chemicals known to science. All of these "dirty dozen" chemicals are organochlorines that can travel thousands of miles through the atmosphere, linger in the environment, and concentrate in the fatty tissues of wildlife and humans. For more information, contact Michael Gregory of the Environmental Quality Strategy team at aztoxic@primenet.com And in the United States, the Club has teamed up with Health Care Without Harm, a coalition of more than 170 groups dedicated to environmentally responsible health care. The campaign focuses on reducing the toxic output of medical incinerators-the leading source of mercury emissions and second-leading source of dioxin. For more information, contact Doris Cellarius, HCWH coordinator, at doris.cellarius@sierraclub.org —Liza Gross     Menopause Back to Top Menopause     Don't Let Your Doctor Give You Horse Urine! There are better treatments for menopause by Jonathan V. Wright, MD and John Morgenthaler See also details from the book Natural Hormone Replacement for Women Over 45 by Jonathan V. Wright, MD and John Morgenthaler. No auto mechanic in his right mind would replace worn parts in a Mercedes with new parts made for a Chevy. Unfortunately, many physicians (and pharmaceutical companies) seem to have less common sense than the average auto mechanic when it comes to treating menopausal women. The "estrogen" replacement most doctors prescribe today for menopausal and premenopausal women is a pill known generically as conjugated equine estrogens (CEE). The best known brand of CEE is Premarin®. Many studies suggest that in many women, Premarin does help reduce symptoms of menopause, including hot flashes, vaginal thinning, memory loss, and urinary incontinence. It also appears to reduce the risk of developing postmenopausal cardiovascular disease (the leading killer of women) and osteoporosis (the crippling progressive bone weakness). It also may help to prevent a significant proportion of Alzheimer's disease and senile dementia. Premarin is Horse Estrogen Derived From Horse Urine So what's wrong with CEE? Take a close look at the names. Notice the word "equine?" Yes, that equine! Premarin is horse estrogen! It is derived from the urine of pregnant mares, hence, its brand name. Premarin works great in female horses, just as Chevy parts work great in Chevys. But replacing human estrogens with horse estrogens may be asking for trouble, and here's why. For the last several million years, the human female reproductive system has been running quite well on three separate estrogens: estriol, estrone, and estradiol, which occur in an approximate ratio of 90%:3%:7%1 Compare that with Premarin, which consists of estrone (75-80%), equilin (6-15%), estradiol + two other equine estrogens (5-19%).2 Notice that, in addition to having larger proportions of estrone and estradiol, Premarin also contains equilin and two other forms of estrogen found exclusively in horses. The female human body contains all the enzymes and cofactors it needs to process estriol, estrone, and estradiol — when they occur in their natural human proportions. On the other hand, it has none of the enzymes and cofactors required to metabolize equilin and the other horse estrogens, nor does it have enough of these important substances to deal with the excessively large amounts of estrone and estradiol found in Premarin (or in the 100% estradiol "patch"). Horses, of course, are well equipped to handle CEE. The difference in reproductive hormones is just one of many differences between horses and humans. You may have noticed that horses also have four hooves and a mane, whereas human females don't. It should come as no surprise, then, that the presence of Premarin in the human body induces a hormonal imbalance that can have important adverse consequences. To physicians who prescribe Premarin, this hormonal imbalance doesn't seem to carry much weight. After all, the drug works, doesn't it? But, as two leading reproductive physiologists point out, when women take Premarin, "Levels [of equilin] can remain elevated for 13 weeks or more post-treatment due to storage and slow release from adipose [fat] tissue. In addition, metabolism of equilin to equilenin and 17-hydroxyequilenin may contribute greatly to the estrogen stimulatory effect of [conjugated estrogen] therapy." Another metabolite of equilin, 17- -dihydroequilin has been found to be eight times more potent than equilin for inducing endometrial growth, a possible precursor to cancer.3 As a result, Premarin produces "estrogenic effects" that are much more potent and longer lasting than those produced by natural human estrogens. more   Back to Top

The Truth about Acetaminophen The Myth and Truths about CHOLESTEROL Super Fiber and its benefits Natural remedy for leg circulation Flu Shot Season - Think twice before you shoot!. Natural Cure for Diabetes Natural Cure for Prostate Cancer Prostate Diet Cookbook Erectile Dysfunction (ED) Vasectomies gone bad (my story) Andropause, the Male Menopause Candidiasis Breast Cancer Menopause PMS Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Natural help for headaches! Animal Health

PMS: Evening Primrose Oil and PMS Relieve the discomforts of PMS (premenstrual syndrome), menstruation, endometriosis and fibrocystic breasts. By interfering with the production of inflammatory prostaglandins released during menstruation, the GLA in evening primrose oil can help to lessen menstrual cramps. It may also minimize premenstrual breast tenderness, irritable bowel flare-ups, and carbohydrate cravings, and help to control endometriosis-associated inflammation. Many PMS sufferers are found to have unusually low levels of GLA in their systems, which is why supplements might help so much. Although the oil has not been widely used in this country for treating PMS, Europeans have long used it for this condition. In women with fibrocystic breasts, the oil's essential fatty acids can minimize breast inflammation and promote the absorption of iodine, a mineral that can be present in abnormally low levels in women with this condition.   Whole Woman Homeopathy: The Comprehensive Guide to Treating PMS, Menopause, Cystitis, and Other Problems - Naturally and Effectively Author: JUDYTH REICHENBERG-ULLMAN; Fibromyalgia The Fibromyalgia Recovery Program Start with Phase I - RESTORE provides essential nutrients that are key in beginning the recovery process. Start by taking phase 1 for one month. Step 1 Phase I – RESTORE: Provides essential nutrients that are key in beginning the recovery process. Item # 28044 Women 159.95 1 bottle - RiteStart Women 2 bottles - Fibro AMJ Day-time Formula 1 bottle - Fibro AMJ Night-time Formula -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Move to Phase II - STRENGTHEN provides higher amounts of these essential nutrients necessary for your body to reach better health and recovery.This is a critical phase that may last several months before moving to the next phase. Step 2 This Phase is critical and may last several months before you move on to Phase Three. Item # 28046 Women $199.95 1 Box RiteStart Women 2 Bottles Fibro AMJ Day-time Formula 1 Bottle Fibro AMJ Night-time Formula 1 BottleTransfer Factor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phase III - REINFORCE Go at your own pace. Move to Phase III - REINFORCE when you feel your symptoms are resolved. REINFORCE - provides essential nutrients that help maintain your good health and keep you feeling great! Designed to help you continue feeling well and maintain the healthy nutritional balance you have achieved. Step 3 Phase III – REINFORCE: Designed to help you continue feeling well and maintain the healthy nutritional balance you have achieved. Item # 28047 Women $ 139.95 1 Bottle RiteStart Women 1 Bottle Fibro AMJ Day-time Formula 1 Bottle Fibro AMJ Night-time Formula -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response time for recovery varies from individual to individual. Some people respond very quickly while others may take longer. Remember, fibromyalgia is a slow, long-term degradation of health. For many individuals, fibromyalgia is the result of many years of confusion, pain and frustration. Recovery takes patience and persistence. Do not give up ! Where to buy Transfer Factor

At Last... Freedom from headaches! Where conventional therapy fails, Chinese medicine is a tested cure. Changing out of her sweaty T-Shirt in the gym locker room, Megan Stone could feel the curious stares focused on the bruise like marks all over her back. When a concerned woman behind her hesitantly asked if she needed help, Megan turned with a smile and said "Thanks, but no need to worry, Its just cupping." The truth was, something had been wrong, but an ancient Chinese healing treatment turned out to be just the help she needed. Prescription drugs, two separate stays at a headache hospital, a chiropractor, yoga, biofeedback... nothing seemed to alleviate the daily headaches Megan had suffered for years. " over time, the discomfort spread from my nech, back and shoulders until my whole body hurt" she says. "It reached a  point where I had exhausted all traditional-and many nontraditional medical techniques, and I had given up" But a flicker of hope was restored when Megan read a study about acupuncture for relief of chronic pain. She visited a practitioner who was confident that cupping, a variation of acupuncture, was the cure that had eluded her. Amazing results without an Rx Cupping has been part of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for more the 2,500 years. And while the marks it leaves behind may not be pretty, the results are undeniable. In a recent study conducted at the Women's Headache Center in Italy, chronic headache sufferers who opted to use TCM rather than flunarizine (a calcium channel blocker prescribed for migraines and cluster headaches) suffered fewer painful episodes and side effects. The therapy typically involves 15 minute biweekly to monthly session which an acupuncturist places heated suction cups at key points on the body. This creates a vacuum effect said to increase blood circulation and draw toxins to the skin's surface so they can be flushed transversally. And since sluggish blood flow and toxic overload have been implicated in head pain, practitioners credit this vacuum action with cupping's impressive pain-relieving abilities. "While the suction can feel intense it isn't painful," explains Subhuti Dharmananda, PhD., Director of Institute for Traditional Medicine in Portland, Oregon. "And the resulting hickelike marks are harmless and usually disappear with a few days." Sessions typically cost $45 to $60. Approximately 25 percent of HMO's now cover acupuncture, so be sure to check with your carrier. "Living pain-free is a miracle!" "I had no idea what to expect, but after the first session, there was significant decrease in pain." exclaims Megan. "People sometimes can't understand why I would go through such a bizarre procedure, but it's truly helped alleviate my headaches in a way that nothing else has." Refference: First Magazine