A DIRE WARNING: The Cancer

Industry Owns The Media And

Your Mind
A new report claims that millions of lives have been saved in the past two decades
due to 'early detection' of cancer and improved treatment, but is it true?
In what can only be described as the latest cancer industry propaganda push, mainstream
news outlets are declaring triumphantly "More than 1.5 million cancer deaths averted
in last two decades" (CBS), "Cancer death tolls fall, millions saved" (ABC), and "A 22
Percent Drop in Cancer Mortality Saved 1.5 Million People." (Science World Report).
Really? What is this based on?
These media flourishes are supposedly based on a report just published in the journal CA: A
Cancer Journal for Clinicians titled, "Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics,
2014," which analyzed cancer treatment data from 3 sources: the National Cancer Data
Base (NCDB), the SEER-Medicare linked database, and the SEER*Stat database.
However, if you actually take the time to read the research itself and read between the
lines you will find it in no way justifies these optimistic characterizations; to the contrary,
the national cancer outlook looks exceedingly bleak.
In the abstract summarization of the results, the first line reads:

"The number of cancer survivors continues to increase due to the aging and growth
of the population and improvements in early detection and treatment."
'Early detection' here refers to national screening programs such as x-ray
mammography for breast cancer and PSA screening for prostate cancer, which we now
know have not resulted in reduced mortality despite dramatically expanding 'cancer
diagnoses' in the past few decades: a sure sign that the 'cancers' being diagnosed were
never life-threatening and did not 'save' anyone from premature death; to the contrary,
breast and prostate screenings have been the subject of great controversy because they
have left behind millions of necessarily treated (read: harmed) individuals without resulting
in any significant reductions in breast- and prostate-specific cancer mortality (prostate
cancer mortality has actually increased!) -- which is the only true measure of whether they
are of benefit to the mostly asymptomatic populations being continually pressured through
'awareness campaigns' to undergo screening. An increasingly indubitable body of research
shows that screening programs have dramatically increased the quantity of cancer diagnoses
in healthy individuals, resulting in the illusion that they have been 'saved' through early
detection, when in fact they have survived overdiagnosis and overtreatment and not cancer
itself. This has falsely inflated the number of people 'saved,' which is reflected in the
aforementioned outrageously distorted mainstream media headlines, while simultaneously
obscuring the significant number of lives that have been lost due to the ineffectiveness of
conventional treatment.
Consider that a 'cancer survivor' is anyone who was diagnosed with cancer who is
still alive 5 years later.
Whether or not a newly identified prostate or breast cancer case was a victim of
overdiagnosis is nowhere accounted for in these statistics. In other words, if a person who
was identified through 'early detection' to have life-threatening cancer actually had a benign
lesion, and then went on to be 'treated' anyway, they are not surviving cancer but rather the
unnecessary surgery, chemotherapy and radiation they received. And yet they are lumped
into the 'survivor' category nonetheless, even if they should be considered a victim of
iatrogenesis and medical abuse.
Last year a study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine revealing that in the
past three decades 1.3 million women in the U.S. were wrongly diagnosed with
breast cancer when in fact they had a benign condition known as ductal carcinoma in
situ (DCIS). DCIS lesions rarely if ever progress to cause harm nor death, but this was not
factored into the data analysis of the latest report in question. The report stated that "14.5
million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2014," but it did not
qualify the statement by acknowledging the great burden of cancer diagnoses that are now
known to be intrinsically benign, e.g. ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) "breast cancers" and
high-grade intraepithelial prostatic neoplasia (HGPIN) "prostate cancer" were identified in
2012 by a National Cancer Institute commissioned expert working group to be misclassified
as "cancer" and which they recommended should be reclassified as benign lesions of
epithelial origin, presumably better left untreated. This reclassification of certain 'cancers' to
benign growths also encompasses so-called papillary carcinomas of the thyroid, a
fundamentally harmless nodular growth the conventional medical establishment
still calls thyroid cancer and treats aggressively.

What this essentially means is that instead of taking responsibility for the medical-induced
harm (iatrogenesis) that breast, prostate and thyroid screening incurs, the conventional
medical establishment counts these overdiagnosed cases as treatment successes ('live
saving'), despite the untold harm, physical and psychological, these diagnoses and
subsequent unnecessary treatments exacted on their victims. This unethical 'oversight'
resulted in expanding the number of 'cancer survivors' far beyond those who were actually
'saved from cancer.'
The report stated:

"The 3 most common prevalent cancers among males are prostate cancer(43%),
colorectal cancer (9%), and melanoma (8%), and those among females are cancers
of the breast (41%), uterine corpus (8%), and colon and rectum (8%)."
Considering that the primary cancers afflicting women (breast) and men (prostate) are the
most overdiagnosed, the truth is that this report falsely represented the data, essentially
covering up the medical tragedy, or worse, malfeasance that still goes on daily in thousands
of hospitals around the world. After all, the profit generated by diagnosis and treatment of
'cancer' far exceeds most other disease diagnoses.

The report did acknowledge the extremely high survivorship rates of those diagnosed with
so-called 'early stage' (aka localized) breast cancer:

"The 5-year relative survival rate for women diagnosed with localized breast cancer
is 98.6%"
Why is that? One view is that localized (i.e. ductal carcinoma in situ) isn't breast cancer
at all, and therefore the relatively high 98.6% survivorship reflects the fact that these
woman aren't surviving cancer at all, rather, they survived an unnecessary treatment for an
intrinsically benign condition.They are, in essence, surviving medical abuse motivated
by shameless profiteering (e.g.breast cancer industry and cancer drug
manufacturer funded pinkwashing campaigns to promote 'early detection' via
mammography screening that result in converting healthy women into patients without
proper biological justification).
The propaganda evidenced by this report, and the mainstream media amplifications of it,
are extremely misleading. Trillions of dollars of liability rests on the shoulders of the
conventional cancer industry for falsely diagnosing and (i.e. abusing) women and men with
cancers they never had. Additionally, those who have fallen victim to unnecessary treatment
often suffer from Stockholm syndrome, identifying with their aggressors, and then becoming
willing brand ambassadors of 'early detection' via pinkwashing styled fund-raising campaigns
(e.g. Susan G. Komen marches) to fear, for instance, other healthy, asymptomatic women
into subjecting their breasts to highly carcinogenic x-ray wavelengths in the interest of
'finding cancer early.'
In a world dominated by what can only be described as violent, almost pornographic
marketing copy, e.g. Susan G. Komen sponsored PINK fracking drill bits, and KFC
'Buckets for the Cure,' it is the responsibility of all of us to take back control of our health
and read behind the increasingly absurd mainstream news headlines. If you believe your
breasts, prostate, thyroid, or whatever body part is increasingly targeted for cancer
screening, are more than just an inevitable locus of carcinogensis, please join the growing
movement to take back control of your health, starting with acknowledging that with clean
food, water, and air, health is obtainable and your birthright.

The Dark Side of Breast Cancer

(Un)Awareness Month

The history of Breast Cancer Awareness Month's surprising origins is a matter of the public
record:
"NBCAM was founded in 1985 as a partnership between the American Cancer Society and
the pharmaceutical division of Imperial Chemical Industries (now part of AstraZeneca,
maker of several anti-breast cancer drugs). The aim of the NBCAM from the start has been
to promote mammography as the most effective weapon in the fight against breast cancer."
~ Wikipedia
If you doubt Wikipedia as a reliable source, visit the NBCAM website and try to contact
them. It will be AstraZeneca that you will required to connect with, as evidenced by the
screenshot below:
AstraZeneca, manufacturer of the blockbuster breast cancer drugs Arimidex and Tamoxifen,
was formed through the merger of Astra AB and Zeneca Group (a pharmaceutical subsidiary
of Imperial Chemical Industries) in 1999. Imperial Chemical Industries, a multinational
corporation responsible for producing carcinogenic petrochemical derivatives such as vinyl
chloride and pesticides, founded National Breast Cancer Awareness Month in 1985, in
partnership with the American Cancer Society, in order to promote the widespread adoption
of x-ray mammography, whose horrors we have documented elsewhere.
Sadly, Breast Cancer Awareness Month is a time of increasing awareness not of the
preventable causes of breast cancer, but of the breast cancer industry's insatiable need to
both raise money for research into a pharmaceutical cure, and to promote its primary means
of "prevention": early detection via x-ray mammography.
On first account, a pharmaceutical "cure" is as unlikely as it is oxymoronic. Drugs do not
cure disease anymore than bullets cure war. Beneath modern medicine's showy display
of diagnostic contraptions, heroic "life-saving" procedures, and an armory of exotic drugs of
strange origin and power, it is always the body's ability to heal itself beneath the pomp
and circumstance that is truly responsible for medicine's apparent successes. Too often, in
spite of what medicine does to "treat" or "save" the body, it is the body which against
invasive chemical and surgical medical interventions, silently treats and saves itself.
If it were not for the body's truly miraculous self-healing abilities, and the ceaseless self-
correction process that occurs each and every moment within each and every cell, our
bodies would perish within a matter of minutes. The mystery is not in how our body
succumbs to cancer; rather the mystery is in how, after years and even decades of chemical
exposure and nutrient deprivation our bodies prevail against cancer for so long.
The primary causes of breast cancer: nutritional deficiencies, exposure to environmental
toxicity, inflammation, estrogen dominance and the resultant breakdown in genetic integrity
and immune surveillance, are entirely overlooked by this fixation on drug therapy and its
would-be "magic bullets."
Billions of dollars are raised and funneled towards drug research, when the
lowly turmeric plant, the humble cabbage and the unassuming bowl of miso soup may offer
far more promise in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer than all the toximolecular
drugs on the market put together. (To view several dozen substances, visit our Breast
Cancer page)
When it comes to the breast cancer industry's emphasis on equating "prevention" with
"early detection" through x-ray mammography, nowhere is the inherently pathological
ideology of allopathic medicine more clearly evident. Not only is the very ionizing radiation
used to discern pathological lesions in breast tissue one of the very risk factors for the
development of breast cancer, but the identification of the word "prevention" with "early
detection," is a disingenuous way of saying that all we can do to prevent breast cancer is to
detect its inevitable presence sooner than would be possible without this technology.
If women succumb to the idea of prevention as doing nothing but waiting for the detection
of the disease, many will find a similarly deranged logic reemerge later when the self-
fulfilling prophecy of prevention-through-doing-nothing is fulfilled and "treatment" is now
required. "Treatment," when not strictly surgical, involves the use of very powerful
chemicals and high doses of ionizing radiation which "poison" the cancer cells.
The obvious problem with this approach is that the application of either form of death
energy is not suitably selective, and in the long run, many women die sooner from the side
effects of toximolecular "therapy" than from the cancer itself. Why is the obvious question
never asked: if exposure to the genotoxic and immune system disabling effects of chemicals
and radiation is causative in breast cancer, then why is blasting the body with more
poisonous chemicals and radiation considered sound treatment?
The answer to this question has much more to do with ignorance than it does an intentional
desire to do harm. But the results are the same: unnecessary pain, suffering and death.
Faced with a situation where medieval notions of prevention and treatment of breast cancer
are the norm, it is no wonder that when polled over 40% of women believe they will contract
breast cancer sometime in their life well over three times their actual risk. After all, have
any of them been given a sense that there is something they can do to actually prevent their
disease other than "watchful waiting"?
Obfuscating the real preventative measures available to women to combat breast cancer,
and all cancers for that matter, trusted "authoritative" sources like the Susan G. Komen
Foundation publish irresponsible statements like this:

"It is unclear what the exact relationship is between eating fruits and vegetables and
breast cancer risk...little, if any link was found between the two in a pooled analysis
that combined data from eight large studies."
Have we really come to the point where the commonsense consumption of fruits and
vegetables in the prevention of disease can so matter-of-factly be called into question? Do
we really need randomized, double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials to prove
beyond a shadow of a doubt that our bodies can benefit from the phytonutrients and
antioxidants in fruits and vegetables in the prevention of cancer?
Another atrocious example of this conspiracy against identifying the obvious causes and
cures for diseases like breast cancer is the National Breast Cancer Foundation's website. Go
to the bottom of their homepage and type in "carcinogen" in their site wide search box.
This is what will appear on the results page:

Your search carcinogen did not match any documents. No pages were found
containing "carcinogen".
On Susan G. Komen's website the term only emerges twice, and both in the context of
denying the likliehood of there being a connection between smoking and breast cancer.
If you can remove the reality of carcinogenicity by erasing from the mind's of would-be
cancer sufferers the word carcinogen, and thereby conceal the link between environmental
and dietary exposures of a multitude of toxins, then the obvious "cure" these massive
organizations are vacuuming in billions of dollars of donations every year to find, namely,
the removal of carcinogens and detoxification of the system, will never be discovered.
Examples like these make it increasingly apparent that orthodox medicine, and the world
view it represents, is approaching a theoretical end-time perhaps most accurately described
as Pharmageddon. Within the horizon of this perspective vitamins are considered toxic, fruits
and vegetables simply a source of caloric content (a poor one, at that), and cancer-causing
drugs are understood as the only legitimate and for that matter, legal, way to combat
cancer. Are we really at the tipping point, or is there still hope?
Fortunately there are thousands of scientific studies extant today on the therapeutic value of
foods, herbs and spices in breast health, many of which can be found on the government's
own biomedical database known as MEDLINE. Decades of research have confirmed the
veracity of the Hippocratic phrase: "Let food be thy medicine," and until a prescription is
required to obtain and consume organic food, we can still draw from a vast cornucopia of
natural substances whose safety and efficacy that the conventional pharmacopeia to shame.