"All the World's a Stage We Pass Through" R. Ayana

Friday, 22 February 2013

Running WITH the Money and AWAY From the Cure


Running WITH the Money and AWAY From the Cure
The American Cancer Society Cures Nothing – For Money

http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/c2c/share/34/347/728/3472830_370.jpg

by Tony Isaacs

The American Cancer Society (ACS) made news waves when they disputed the findings of the President's Cancer Panel on the role of toxins in causing cancer. Though the new report echoes what other experts have maintained for years, the ACS went out of its way to attack the report and downplay the role of toxins. Many critics have questioned the ACS's motives apparent conflicts of interest due to numerous ACS ties to chemical industries influence and donations.

Critics note that the ACS condemnation of the toxins report is far from the first time the Society has taken a stance that benefits those it has ties to while disputing expert reports and studies. Indeed, the ACS dispute of the report is merely the latest in a long line of controversial stances that appear to be self-serving and against the public interest.


Another example is the ACS's continued support of mammograms. Concerns over the safety and efficacy of mammograms have been widely reported dating all the way back to 1977, including several notable supporting studies supporting such concerns. In spite of those studies and concerns, the ACS has remained a staunch supporter of mammograms. Notably, the ACS has strong ties to the mammography industry.

Last year the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that mammograms increased "the burden of low-risk cancers without significantly reducing the burden of more aggressively growing cancers and therefore not resulting in the anticipated reduction in cancer mortality". After the JAMA paper, it was initially reported that the ACS would finally change their stance on mammograms - as they once did with tobacco after years of stonewalling. However, the pro-mammogram interests in the ACS apparently won out and such reports were later denied.

As Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society stated: "We are not redoing or rethinking our guidelines at this time, nor are we going to restate our guidelines to emphasize the inadequacies of screening."

Although the ACS annually pleads poverty, it actually takes in more money than any other US charity and has huge cash reserves, property and other assets - any pays out a relative pittance for actual research, prevention or patient services. Further, despite public promises to do everything to "wipe out cancer in your lifetime," the ACS has failed to make its voice heard in Congress and regulatory agencies. Instead, the ACS has repeatedly rejected or ignored opportunities and requests from Congressional committees and other agencies and groups to provide scientific testimony critical to legislate and regulate a wide range of occupational and environmental carcinogens.
  
The scope of the ACS failure to act is illustrated by increases in a wide range of cancers, including:

·         Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma has increased 76 percent mostly due to phenoxy herbicides and phenylenediamine hair dyes.

·         Testicular cancer has increased by 49 percent due to pesticides, harmful ingredients in personal care products and estrogen residues in meat.

·         Malignant melanoma has increased by 168 percent due to the use of toxic sunscreen products that fail to block long wave ultraviolet light.

·         Thyroid cancer has increased by 124 percent due in large part to ionizing radiation.

·         Childhood leukemia has increased by 55 percent due to ionizing radiation; domestic pesticides, nitrite preservatives in meats and parental exposures to occupational carcinogens.

·         Ovarian cancer (mortality) for women over the age of 65 has increased by 47 percent in African American women and 13 percent in Caucasian women due largely to genital use of talc powder.

·         Breast cancer has increased 17 percent due to a wide range of factors including birth control pills, estrogen replacement therapy, ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products, and mammogram and other diagnostic radiation.

The American Cancer Society has been called "the world's wealthiest non-profit" due to the tremendous amount of money it raises every year, its huge cash reserves, land holdings and other assets and salaries that range to above a million dollars for top executives as well as company automobiles and generous benefits packages.

Almost two decades ago, the nation's leading charity watch dog, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, warned against giving money to the American Cancer Society. The Chronicle stated that, "The ACS is more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives."

Others have openly questioned whether the ACS serves those it has ties to more than it does the public it has pledged to serve. Due to its vast wealth as well as questionable actions such as donating to political campaigns, some have even called for the elimination of the ACS non-profit status.

Although the history of the ACS's unresponsiveness and questionable actions has become a long and damning one, such was not always the case.  The ACS was not always the "800 pound gorilla" of charities with questionable ties to industries who caused and profited from cancer. Instead, the ACS traces its roots to humble beginnings when a group of gynecologists formed the  American Society for the Control of Cancer (ASCC) in 1913. The ASCC began with a simple goal: persuade physicians to learn how to look at the cervix and persuade women to allow regular exams.

Also unlike today's ACS, the earlier ASCC recognized the impact of environmental causes of cancer. In a report in Time magazine in 1937, ASCC head Clarence Cook Little stated:

"Investigators have at last got a glimmering of what causes cancer. Some people inherit a susceptibility to the disease. But they do not develop cancer unless some susceptible part of the body is unduly irritated by 1) carcinogenic chemicals, 2) physical agents (X-rays, strong sun light, repeated abrasions as from a jagged tooth), 3) possibly, biological products produced by parasites."

During the years of World War II, the ASCC became rebranded as the American Cancer Society and its board became increasingly infiltrated by people who were from American industry instead of doctors or scientists. By 1946, half their board members were non-scientists.

In the 1950s the leaders of the ACS included W. B. Lewis, vice president of the tobacco giant Liggett and Myers. The ACS showed little support or enthusiasm for British and American studies connecting smoking and cancer, including studies from researchers within the ACS. Even after massive studies provided evidence compelling evidence, the ACS still drug their feet. In 1954 they reluctantly adopted a resolution stating "present evidence indicates an association between smoking, particularly cigarette smoking, and lung cancers", but allowed their own researcher to publish his findings only so long as he listed numerous reservations about how the association might be tempered by air pollution, workspace dust and other things. For years afterward, the ACS stance was that more data was required before any firm conclusion could be reached.

Thus began a long history of the ACS stonewalling and taking positions counter to scientific evidence and in ways that benefited board members, donors and cancer causing industries.

Following is a list of some of the more dubious actions and inactions by the ACS which indicate a clear pattern of obstruction and indifference when it comes to the causes of cancer and unresponsiveness in taking positive actions to serve the public in preventing and curing cancer. The following list is by no means inclusive:

1971 - When studies unequivocally proved that diethylstilbestrol (DES) caused vaginal cancers in teenaged daughters of women administered the drug during pregnancy, the ACS refused an invitation to testify at Congressional hearings to require the FDA to ban its use as an animal feed additive.

1977 - The ACS called for a Congressional moratorium on the FDA's proposed ban on saccharin and even advocated its use by nursing mothers and babies in "moderation" despite clear-cut evidence of its carcinogenicity in rodents. Such a proposal reflects the consistent rejection by the ACS of the value of animal evidence in predicting human cancer risk.

1977-78 - The ACS opposed proposed regulations for hair coloring products that contained dyes suspected of causing breast cancer despite clear evidence those chemicals were clear-cut liver and breast carcinogens.

1978 - Tony Mazzocchi, then senior representative of the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union, stated at a Washington, D.C. roundtable between public interest groups and high-ranking ACS officials: "Occupational safety standards have received no support from the ACS."

1978 - Congressman Paul Rogers censured the ACS for doing "too little, too late" in failing to support the Clean Air Act.

1982 - The ACS adopted a highly restrictive cancer policy that insisted on unequivocal human evidence of carcinogenicity before taking any position on public health hazards.

1983 - The ACS refused to join a coalition of the March of Dimes, American Heart Association, and the American Lung Association to support the Clean Air Act.

1992 - The ACS issued a joint statement with the Chlorine Institute supporting the continued global use of organochlorine pesticides despite clear evidence they caused breast cancer. VP Clark Heath dismissed evidence of risk as "preliminary and mostly based on weak and indirect association."

1992 - The ACS aggressively launched a "chemoprevention" program along with the NCI to recruit 16,000 healthy women supposedly at "high risk'' of breast cancer into a 5-year clinical trial with the highly profitable drug tamoxifen. The women were told tamoxifen was essentially harmless and could reduce their risk of breast cancer. They were not told that tamoxifen was a highly potent liver carcinogen in rodent tests or that it was a well-known aggressive human uterine cancer agent
.
1993 - Anticipating the PBS Frontline special "In Our Children's Food," the ACS trivialized pesticides as a cause of childhood cancer and charged PBS with "junk science." The ACS asked, "Can we afford the PBS?" When media and concerned citizens contacted local ACS chapters, they received reassurances from a memorandum by ACS Public Relations Vice President stating only potentially high doses of direct contact were dangerous. Examples cited included farm workers who apply the chemicals and work in the fields after the pesticides have been applied, and people living near aerially sprayed fields.

1994 - The ACS published a highly flawed study designed to trivialize cancer risks from the use of dark hair dyes.

1996 - The ACS together with a diverse group of patient and physician organizations, filed a "citizen's petition" to pressure FDA to ease restrictions on access to silicone gel breast implants. What the ACS did not disclose was that the gel in these implants had clearly been shown to induce cancer in several industry rodent studies, and that these implants were also contaminated with other potent carcinogens such as ethylene oxide and crystalline silica.

1998 - The annual ACS "Cancer Facts & Figures report made this statement regarding breast cancer: "Since women may not be able to alter their personal risk factors, the best opportunity for reducing mortality is through early detection." The publication made little or no mention of prevention. Likewise, no mention was made of contamination of animals and dairy fats and produce with carcinogenic pesticide residues or the need to switch to safer organic foods.

1998 - The ACS allocated $330,000, less than 1 percent of its then $680 million budget, to research on environmental cancer.

1999 - The ACS trivialized risks of breast, colon and prostate cancers from consumption of rBGH genetically modified milk - which is outlawed by most nations worldwide.

2002 - The ACS announced its active participation in the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association's "Look Good...Feel Better Program," to "help women cancer patients restore their appearance and self-image following chemotherapy and radiation treatment." This program was partnered by a wide range of leading cosmetics industries, which failed to disclose information on the carcinogenic, and other toxic ingredients in their products donated to unsuspecting women.

2002 - The ACS reassured the nation that carcinogenicity exposures from dietary pesticides, toxic waste in dump sites, ionizing radiation from "closely controlled" nuclear power plants, and non-ionizing radiation, are all "at such low levels that cancer risks are negligible."

2010 - The ACS indifference to cancer prevention other than smoking remains unchanged, despite the escalating incidence of cancer, and its billion dollar plus budget.


In the past most ACS funds have come from public donations, and high-profile fund raising campaigns. However, over the last few decades, an increasing proportion of the ACS budget comes from large corporations, including the pharmaceutical, cancer, chemical and fast food industries. In 1992, the American Cancer Society Foundation was created to allow the ACS to solicit contributions of more than $100,000.

A close look at the heavy-hitters on the Foundation's board and the big donors gives an idea of which interests are at play at the ACS. The first members of the board of trustees included the president of Lederle Laboratories/American Cyanmid and the CEO of biotech giant Amgen. Amgen's success has rested largely on the product Neupogen, which is administered to chemotherapy patients to stimulate their white blood cell production. As the cancer epidemic grows, so does sales for Neupogen.

Many of the ACS $100,000 plus "Excalibur Donors" manufacture carcinogenic products. These include:


·         Petrochemical companies (DuPont, BP and Pennzoil)

·         Industrial waste companies (BFI Waste Systems)

·         Junk food companies (Wendy's International, McDonalds's, Unilever/Best Foods and Coca-Cola)

·         Big Pharma (AstraZenceca; Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Company and Novartis)

·         Biotech companies (Amgen and Genentech)

·         Cosmetic companies (Christian Dior, Avon, Revlon, Elizabeth Arden and Estee Lauder)

·         Auto companies (Nissan and General Motors)

 http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/533539_311760038937443_959436230_n.jpg

The AMERICAN  CANCER  SOCIETY and the PESTICIDE and CHEMICAL  INDUSTRIES

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002873069/212716447_Birth_Big_Pharma_600_xlarge.jpeg

A stark example of the influence chemical makers wielded with the ACS came in the spring of 1993 when the ACS helped attack an upcoming documentary about pesticide dangers.

Shortly before PBS was due to broadcast the documentary on "Frontline", a draft of the script was leaked to the powerful public relations firm Porter-Novelli. Porter-Novelli had notable clients on both sides of the fence, including the ACS as well as Ciba-Geigy, DuPont, Monsanto, Burroughs Wellcome, American Petroleum Institute, the Center for Produce Quality, the USDA, the NCI, plus other National Institutes of Health.


Porter-Novelli first crafted a rebuttal to help the manufacturers quell public fears about pesticide-contaminated food. Next, Porter-Novelli called up another client, the ACS, for whom Porter-Novelli had done pro bono work for years. The rebuttal that Porter-Novelli had just sent off to its industry clients was faxed to ACS Atlanta headquarters. Then it was circulated internationally by e-mail so that the 3,000 regional ACS offices could use it to help field calls from the public after the show aired.

The ACS memo stated: "The program makes unfounded suggestions . . . that pesticide residue in food may be at hazardous levels. Its use of a 'cancer cluster' leukemia case reports and non-specific community illnesses as alleged evidence of pesticide effects in people is unfortunate. We know of no community cancer clusters which have been shown to be anything other than chance grouping of cases and none in which pesticide use was confirmed as the cause."

Later, accuracy in Media's newsletter trumpeted quotes from the ACS memo in an article whose banner headline read "Junk Science on PBS." The article began "Can we afford the Public Broadcasting Service?" and went on to disparage the PBS documentary. "In Our Children's Food . . . exemplified what the media have done to produce these 'popular panics' and the enormously costly waste (at PBS) cited by the New York Times."

When public television producer Marty Koughman saw the article he was outraged and initially believed the ACS had somehow been duped. Later, however, Koughan figured out what was really going on after several failed attempts to get an ACS rebuttal. "When I realized Porter-Novelli represented five agrichemical companies, and that the ACS had been a client for years, it became obvious that the ACS had not been fooled at all," said Koughan. "They were willing partners in the deception, and were in fact doing a favor for a friend _ by flakking for the agrichemical industry."

Koughan's investigation had relied heavily on a ground-breaking report issued by the National Academy of Sciences in June of 1993 entitled "Pesticides in the Diet of Children." The report declared the nation's food supply was "inadequately protected" from cancer-causing pesticides and a significant threat to the health of children. An earlier report issued by the Natural Resources Defense Council in 1989, "Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in our Children's Food," had also castigated pesticide manufacturers.

Former director of the National Academy of Sciences Board of Agriculture Charles Benbrook had worked on the pesticide report by the Academy of Sciences. He charged that the role of the ACS as a source of information for the pesticide and product industry was "unconscionable." Investigative reporter Sheila Kaplan went a step further in a 1993 Legal Times article: "What they did was clearly and unequivocally over the line, and constitutes a major conflict of interest."



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZkSSURCm3FI/TBxpGyvK2vI/AAAAAAAAIDs/0Byii7Og_ts/s1600/14big_pharma.jpg

The AMERICAN  CANCER SOCIETY and the MAMMOGRAM and CANCER  INDUSTRIES

Despite increasing studies and reports which have warned of the dangers and questionable benefits from mammograms, the ACS continues to promote mammograms and lure women of all ages into mammography centers. By doing so, the ACS helps provide patients and huge profits to manufacturers of mammogram machines and films. Thus, the ACS continues in virtually all of its important actions to be strongly linked with the mammography industry, ignores the development of alternatives to mammography and exposes pre-menopausal women to radiation hazards from mammography with little or no evidence of benefits.

Why would the ACS, whose mission is supposed to be finding preventing and finding a cure for cancer, continue to stand so firmly behind the use of mammograms? Perhaps part of the answer comes from the fact that no fewer than five radiologists have served as ACS presidents. In addition, the mammography industry conducts research for the ACS and its grantees, serves on advisory boards, and donates considerable funds.

For example: DuPont, a leading mammography company as well as a leading producer of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals, has been a substantial backer of the ACS Breast Health Awareness Program. DuPont has also sponsored television shows and other media productions touting mammography, produced promotional literature for hospitals, clinics, doctors and medical organizations, produced educational films, and lobbied Congress for legislation promoting the availability of mammography services.

The highly publicized National Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaign further illustrates the conflicts of interest between the ACS and the mammography and other cancer industries. Every October, ACS and NCI representatives help sponsor promotional events, hold interviews, and stress the need for mammography. The flagship of this month-long series of events is the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month organization's sponsored National Mammography Day, which takes place on the third Friday in October. On this day and throughout October radiologists provide free or discounted mammogram screening.

While the country is awash in a sea of pink every year, what is conspicuously absent during Breast Cancer Awareness Month is any information on environmental and other avoidable causes of breast cancer. This has not been by accident. Breast Cancer Awareness Month was created by Imperial Chemicals (now AstraZeneca), which happened to be one of the world's largest manufacturers chemical carcinogens.

AstraZeneca owns a string of Salick Health Care cancer centers in U. S. hospitals. AstraZeneca subsidiary AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals is also the manufacturer of tamoxifen, the world's top-selling anticancer and breast cancer "prevention" drug.

In the 1990's, the ACS aggressively launched and promoted a "chemoprevention" program along with the NCI to recruit 16,000 healthy yet supposedly "high risk" women for a 5-year clinical trial with the highly profitable drug tamoxifen. The women were told tamoxifen was essentially harmless and could reduce their risk of breast cancer. They were not told that tamoxifen was a highly potent liver carcinogen in rodent tests or that it was a well-known aggressive human uterine cancer agent

National Breast Cancer Awareness Month is a masterful public relations deception for ACS favorite AstraZeneca as well as other sponsors who either profit from cancer or whose products cause cancer, providing undeserved good will from millions of American women. For an in depth look at the deception involved in National Breast Cancer Awareness Month see:

"Breast Cancer Deception - Hiding the Truth Beneath a Sea of Pink"
http://www.tbyil.com/breast-cancer-deception.htm


 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-luFwfpttSdw/UKK8TMjQg_I/AAAAAAAACgA/1Ni8pLmtMOY/s1600/Tha%2Bpharmaceutical%2Bindustry%2Bis%2BBIG%2BBUSINESS.jpg

The AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY and the CANCER DRUG INDUSTRY


The close relationship between the American Cancer Society (ACS) and cancer drug industry, with current annual sales in the tens of billions, has been amply illustrated by the aggressive attacks the ACS has directed through the years at potential competitors of the cancer drug industry.

Similar to infamous Senator Joseph McCarthy's “black list” and Richard Nixon's “enemies list”, the ACS maintained a "Committee on Unproven Methods of Cancer Management" for years which periodically "reviewed" alternative cancer therapies. The committee was comprised of "volunteer health care professionals" who were carefully selected proponents of orthodox, expensive, and usually toxic drugs patented by major pharmaceutical companies, and opponents of alternative or "unproven" therapies which are generally cheap, non-patentable, and minimally toxic.


To get an idea of the committee's bias, it was originally named “The Committee on Quackery” when it was formed 50 years ago. In the 1950s, it became "The Committee on Unproven Methods of Cancer Management" and then several years ago, hard-liners pushed through the last designation.

Periodically, the Committee provided statements on "unproven methods," which were then widely disseminated to clinicians, cheerleader science writers and the public. Once a clinician or oncologist was associated with "unproven methods," he or she has usually been blackballed by the cancer establishment. Funding for the accused "quack" had dried up followed by harassment.

The highly biased ACS witch-hunts the ACS has conducted against alternative therapies is in striking contrast to its extravagant and uncritical endorsement of conventional toxic chemotherapy. This in spite of the absence of any objective evidence of improved survival rates or reduced mortality following chemotherapy for all but some relatively rare cancers.

In response to grassroots pressure from cancer patients disillusioned by the lack of progress with conventional cancer therapies, 40 members of Congress requested the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), a Congressional think tank, to evaluate available information on alternative innovative therapies in 1986. After initial resistance, the OTA eventually published a September 1990 report that identified some 200 promising studies on alternative therapies and concluded that the NCI had "a mandated responsibility to pursue this information and facilitate examination of widely used 'unconventional cancer treatments' for therapeutic potential."

The ACS and NCI remained resistant, and in some instances hostile, to the OTA's recommendations. In the January 1991 issue of its Cancer Journal for Clinicians ACS referred to the Hoxsey therapy, a nontoxic combination of herb extracts developed in the 1940s by populist Harry Hoxsey, as a "worthless tonic for cancer." However, a detailed critique of Hoxsey's treatment by Dr. Patricia Spain Ward, a leading contributor to the OTA report, concluded just the opposite: "More recent literature leaves no doubt that Hoxsey's formula does indeed contain many plant substances of marked therapeutic activity."

Hoxsey's treatment is far from the only one attacked by the ACS which were later found to be effective. A growing number of other innovative therapies originally attacked by the ACS have recently found less disfavor and even acceptance. These include hyperthermia, Tumor Necrosis Factor, (originally called Coleys' Toxin), hydrazine sulfate, and Burzynski's antineoplastons. Thus far, the FDA has still not approved a single non-patented alternative drug. .




The AMERICAN  CANCER  SOCIETY'S QUESTIONABLE  NON-PROFIT PERFORMANCE

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2297/4510001502_5651b40016_m.jpgThe American Cancer Society has been aptly referred to as "the world’s wealthiest non-profit organization". It is the largest non-religious charity in the world and is the largest charitable organization in the United States. Second largest is the Salvation Army. However there is a big difference between the two. The Salvation Army is rated as one of the best charities based on their programs and the amount of funds they use as opposed to "dead" money for such things as salaries and administrative overhead. Meanwhile the ACS has performed poorly by comparison.

When Smart Money.Com ranked the largest charities in order of which ones spent the public’s money wisely, the ACS was rated number 93 out of 100. In 1992, the "Chronicle of Philanthropy" reported that the American Cancer Society was more interested in accumulating wealth than in saving lives. At the time, the ACS had about $700 Million in net assets on hand. By 2009, net assets on hand at the end of the year had almost doubled to over $1.3 Billion.

Much of the funds raised by ACS go to pay overhead, salaries, fringe benefits, and travel expenses of its national executives in Atlanta. They also go to pay Chief Executive Officers, who earn six-figure salaries in several states, and the huge number of other paid employees who work out of over 3,000 regional offices nationwide. Aside from high salaries and overhead, much of what is left of the ACS budget goes to basic research and research into profitable patented cancer drugs with industries it has close relationships with, as outlined earlier in this series.

The American Cancer Society’s far-flung and aggressive fund raising appeals routinely plead poverty and tell us that the ACS needs more funds to support its cancer programs. However, all the while the American Cancer Society holds over a billion dollars in cash, investments and real estate assets.

Big salaries, company perks and high overhead are not the only ACS expenses which have been questioned. An Associated Press Release back in March 30, 1998 shed unexpected light on ACS expenditures on lobbying. At the time, National Vice President for federal and state governmental relations Linda Hay Crawford admitted that the ACS was spending money on direct lobbying, which she said was "less than $1 million a year". She also admitted that the society had used its own employees to lobby during the previous year.

ACS lobbying expenses remained "below $1 Million" annually from 1998 to 2003. Then they climbed all the way to $2.7 Million in 2004. In 2005 the figure grew to $3.5 Million and then jumped to almost $10 million in 2006. The past five years, ACS lobbying expenses have averaged $5 Million a year.

Previous ACS lobbying has included tens of thousands of dollars in donations to Democratic and Republican governor's associations. As Crawford explained back in 1998, "We wanted to look like players and be players."

Others sharply disagreed with the practice. Tax experts have warned that these contributions may be illegal, as charities are not allowed to make political donations. Marcus Owens, director of the IRS Exempt Organization Division also warned that: "The bottom line is campaign contributions will jeopardize a charity's exempt status."

The Charities Information Bureau was quoted as stating that it "does not know of any other charity that makes contributions to political parties."



CONCLUSION


The American Cancer Society is far from the only charity or other organization whose problems and self-interests are more of a problem than a solution in the fight against cancer, it is just the biggest and most visible. The ACS’s example vividly illustrates why the “War on Cancer” will never be won so long as those who cause and profit from cancer are in control.

Instead of the cure we were promised 40 years ago, what we have gotten for all the billions of dollars spent is a bloated cancer industry, including charitable organizations and government agencies, whose continued existence, salaried positions and benefits depends on NOT finding a cure for cancer.

A vivid illustration of how companies that cause cancer and profit from cancer influence charitable organizations as well as cancer treatments and research can be found in the in-depth article "Breast Cancer Deception - Hiding the Truth Beneath a Sea of Pink":

http://www.tbyil.com/breast-cancer-deception.htm

As detailed in the article, the Breast Cancer Awareness Movement (BCAM) was started and controlled by a chemical company whose toxic emissions were one of the largest cancer causers in the United States. To this very day, the BCAM continues to be controlled by companies who seek to divert attention away from their toxic and unhealthy products and direct research and treatment towards highly profitable products and services by companies who play large roles in BCAM.

The kind of deception and industry ties which are found in the ACS and the BCAM movement are also found in virtually all of the organizations and entities connected with cancer, whether it is fundraising organizations, government agencies or the cancer drug and treatment industries.

Hopefully someday we will abandon the failed paradigm of trying to cure cancer by cutting out, poisoning out or burning out the symptoms of cancer, end the suppression of alternative therapies, and begin focusing on the true causes of cancer, cancer prevention and therapies which really work. A good start would be to stop wasting so much money and efforts on those who are part of the problem. A January 10th, article in the Morehead City, NC "News Times" reported on one person who decided to stop wasting their efforts.

Vernon Hill, a successful "Relay for Life" volunteer leader who had raised nearly 900 thousand dollars for the ACS, resigned after his internet research found that high ranking officers of the American Cancer Society were making as much as a million dollars a year with benefits, like a company car and lucrative pensions. He also found that a very small percentage of the money goes to actual research.

The good ol' boys network of cancer causers and cancer profiteers has ruled the war on cancer for 40 years. For the most part, their only successes have been in fattening their pockets and creating a system which prevents research and treatments which could make a difference. The sooner the public wakes up to the truth about the failed war on cancer and the organizations which have become part of the problem instead of the solution, the sooner we will be able to realize true cancer prevention and lasting cures.

Though not as well known as the bigger charities and foundations, there are organizations without industry ties which do not suppress alternative healing or research into toxins and other true causes of cancer. Examples include:



The Independent Cancer Research Foundation - http://www.new-cancer-treatments.org/  
The Annie Appleseed Project - www.annieappleseedproject.org/
The Cancer Prevention Coalition - www.preventcancer.com/  
The Breast Cancer Fund - www.breastcancerfund.or



From The Best Years In Life @  http://www.tbyil.com/ACS_Problems_Part1.htm and http://www.tbyil.com/ACS_Problems_Part2.htm  and http://www.tbyil.com/ACS_Problems_Part3.htm



For more information about cancer see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/cancer
For information about curing cancer see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/cancer%20cure 

- See ‘Older Posts’ at the end of each section


You Can Help This Unique Independent Site Stay Online in a Remote Forest
Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!
please press the Button -


Images – http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/c2c/share/34/347/728/3472830_370.jpg 
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/533539_311760038937443_959436230_n.jpg
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002873069/212716447_Birth_Big_Pharma_600_xlarge.jpeg 
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZkSSURCm3FI/TBxpGyvK2vI/AAAAAAAAIDs/0Byii7Og_ts/s1600/14big_pharma.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-luFwfpttSdw/UKK8TMjQg_I/AAAAAAAACgA/1Ni8pLmtMOY/s1600/Tha%2Bpharmaceutical%2Bindustry%2Bis%2BBIG%2BBUSINESS.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2297/4510001502_5651b40016_m.jpg



For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the random synchronistic search box @ http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com


And see




 New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati

New Illuminati Youtube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/feed



The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com



The Prince of Centraxis - http://centraxis.blogspot.com (Be Aware! This link leads to implicate & xplicit concepts & images!)



This site is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a small but heartfelt donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long and prosper!


From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

1 comment:

  1. All non-profit organizations are owned by a billionaire to put cash away tax free. They get volunteers to work for free, because they are so greedy. They pretend to help kids, or a noble cause, but in actuality they are avoiding paying taxes to help society, and not paying their workers, and not putting all the money they receive directly into helping the unfortunate people.

    ReplyDelete

Add your perspective to the conscious collective