Re:Cure/Cause...Early Detection DOES NOT = Prevention!

[Guest guest]

Thanks, David.

 

Looks as if some aware folks are beginning to challenge these Breast

Cancer Barbecue and Backslapping Events. That is good. Makes me

wonder if maybe at the next one out here in Peoria, I shouldn't go

there with some kind of challenging sign myself.

 

Not too long ago, my wife introduced me to a friend of hers who makes

a nice living traveling around this country administering mamograms

to those who live too far away from a hospital to get one. She gets

paid especially well for going to Alaska to give mamograms to

eskimoes.

 

During our brief conversation, besides managing, by my frankness, to

offend both my wife and her friend, I got the friend to admit that

the " prevention " clinics she and others run when administering the

mamograms, are NOT about prevention at all, but rather about " early

detection. "

 

That is a SUPERLATIVE LIE the mainstream has gotten a majority of

this country's population to believe---that prevention=early

detection=prevention.

 

I am sure I'm repeating myself by mentioning this, but it is one of

the starkest, nastiest things I have heard with regard to lies told

by doctors to the public:

 

About a year ago, I turned on the radio and happened to tune to call-

in show on which listeners were phoning in questions to three

gastroenterologists. One caller had the following question: " My

father died from colon cancer. My brother has it now, also. Is there

anything I can do or change in my life to try to keep from getting

colon cancer? "

 

The doctors' answer? " NO, there is NOTHING you can do to try to keep

from getting colon cancer. All you can do is get regular

colonoscopies. " Yep. All THREE of them shamelessly outright lied to

that man.

 

I can immediately list off the top of my head some things that man

can do to cut down his chances of getting colon cancer, and a couple

of them are things my cousin, who is a gastroenterologist, mentioned

to me once. They are nothing special, though:

 

1) If you are significantly overweight, lose weight, down to your

ideal weight, if possible. But at least lose as much weight as you

can toward your optimal weight.

 

2) Drink AT LEAST eight 8 oz glasses of water per day, and preferably

quite a bit more than that.

 

3) Eat plenty of " fast pass-through " fibrous vegetables and fruits,

such as peppers, tomatoes, celery, pineapple, apples, etc.

 

4) Eat vegetables and fruits known for having anti-cancer properties,

such as sweet potatoes, cabbage, cruciferous vegetables in general,

asparagus, blueberries, pomagranates and others.

 

4) Get regular daily, moderate exercise---a brisk half-hour walk at

least 5 days a week is good.

 

5) Reduce your daily stress level. You can do this through daily

quiet time, meditating, relaxation techniques, etc. If you have a

particularly stressful job, you might think about changing over to a

job that's less stressful.

 

6) Eliminate refined foods from your diet---white flour, white sugar,

white rice---and packaged, processed, store-bought foods.

 

I have no doubt that a person who does just those 6 things I've

mentioned would significantly reduce his chances of getting colon

cancer.

 

A crying, dirty shame on those gastroenterologists!

 

Elliot

 

 

 

, David Elfstrom

<listbox@e...> wrote:

> [This one's for you Elliot]

> >Whenever I see someone wearing one of those " Race For The Cure " T-

> >shirts I want to ask him, " What in the world is the matter with

you?

> >Open your eyes! " or at least to mention to him/her that we have

lost

> >the war on cancer, and that mainstream cancer treatment does not

> >work. But those people are so brain-washed into thinking they did a

> >wonderful, humanitarian service by participating in " the race " that

> >my words are just wasted on them.

>

> You Can Race For The Cure,

> But You Can't Run From The Cause

> http://www.stopcancer.org/voices/lyman.html

>

> by Francesca Lyman

>

> Environmental and travel journalist and editor of the American

Museum of

> Natural History book, " Inside the Dzanga-Sangha Rain Forest "

(Workman, 1998).

>

> A woman's chance of developing breast cancer has doubled during the

past 50

> years, and in the last 10 years alone, the rate of disease has

increased 33

> percent. Hundreds of breast cancer organizations have formed to

tackle this

> medical crisis, but while most fund raise for cures, others say

it's also

> time to raise awareness about " preventable causes. "

>

> " IT'S JUST phenomenal how it keeps growing, " says Linda Frame, a

senior

> clinical advisor at the Susan G. Komen Foundation, describing the

explosion

> of participation in the Komen " Race for the Cure " Series. The race

is one

> of the best known events held during October - Breast Cancer

Awareness

> Month - when thousands of women and men in dozens of cities come

out to

> rally for better research and treatment of the disease.

>

> Since 1983, the Race has grown " from one local race with 800

participants

> to a national series of 107 races with more than one million

participants "

> this year, according to Komen. In Dallas alone, adds Frame, the

Race grew

> from about 27,000 participants last year to 33,000 this year.

>

> In San Francisco's Golden Gate Park, too, the Race staged well-

produced

> events with speakers, jazzed up with music and an array of booths

open to a

> diverse range of organizations.

>

> Focus Turns To Prevention

>

> " It's a real feel-good event, and terrific for raising public

awareness, "

> says Barbara Brenner, director of Breast Cancer Action, an activist

group

> based in San Francisco. But her group takes an edgier tack.

>

> Some breast cancer advocates are upset with President Clinton for

> downplaying the passage of an important bill for what they say are

> political reasons. NBC's Lisa Myers reports.

>

> " Now that we're there on awareness, it's time to do something to

stop the

> cancer from happening. "

>

> This year, Brenner's group was joined by " Women Walking Tall, " a

group of

> guerilla theater performers dressed in black, marching on 10-foot

stilts,

> their heads shrouded in veils, who clashed philosophically, at

least, with

> walkers wearing the pink ribbons that symbolize the cause. Their

height is

> a subtle reference to the fact that tall women were once

associated - if

> only in legend - with higher risks of breast cancer.

>

> Some carried banners citing corporations known for environmental

pollution.

> " We carried banners that said, 'You can race for the cure, but you

can't

> run from the cause,' " says Judy Brady, a 20-year breast cancer

survivor and

> activist, " and we asked, 'Who's causing the cancer?' "

>

> Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in U.S. women, with

some

> 182,000 invasive cases newly diagnosed each year, as well as

another 1,400

> in men. Surprisingly, though, little is known about the causes of

this

> complex, multi-factorial disease, a fact that is frustrating to

advocates.

>

> Traditionally, the largest organizations have focused on raising

money for

> research, education, screening and treatment. Since Komen began in

1982,

> for example, its foundation and affiliates have raised more than

$240

> million. The National Association of Breast Cancer Organizations,

> representing 60,000 members and 500 local organizations, sees hope,

> attributing better use of mammography to detect cancer, " combined

with the

> benefit of more, and more effective, treatments " for the first

significant

> decrease in U.S. breast cancer death rates in many decades.

>

> Environmental Causes

>

> While acknowledging the importance of screening and treatment,

another wing

> of the movement is advocating a wider focus of research, addressing

> " preventable environmental causes, " says Andrea Martin of the

Breast Cancer

> Fund. In what some advocates call a " pink revolution, " such groups

as the

> Breast Cancer Fund, Breast Cancer Action, and others want more

efforts put

> into prevention.

>

> Most breast cancer organizations pay little attention to

environmental

> factors linked to the disease, says Martin. " All the new research

into

> genetics is exciting, " notes Martin, " but no more than 10 percent

of breast

> cancer cases can be laid at the feet of hereditary factors. That's

why we

> need to turn the microscope around. "

>

> " Women who for years thought the answer was better diagnosis and

treatment

> are now saying that the only way we're going to deal with this

killer is to

> reduce our everyday exposure to carcinogens and toxins, " says Devra

Lee

> Davis, a research scientist and visiting professor at the Heinz

School,

> Carnegie Mellon University, who is a leading exponent of the idea

that

> cancers " are made, not born. "

>

> Historically, one's risks of getting the disease have been linked

to such

> factors as family history, age at menarche and menopause, whether

one has

> borne and breastfed children, and lifestyle factors such as diet,

alcohol

> consumption and exercise. Nevertheless, most - some 75 percent - of

all

> breast cancers occur in women with no known risk factors. The

National

> Cancer Institute has concluded, " No one knows why some women

develop breast

> cancer and others do not. "

>

> Research On Causes Limited

>

> Pollution, some say, may very well be a key factor. According to

a 1989

> study published in Archives of Environmental Health, breast cancer

rates

> were higher in the 339 counties with hazardous waste sites and

groundwater

> contamination than in counties that had no such sites. Other high

clusters

> of breast cancer have been linked to specific geographic areas

suffering

> from pollution.

>

> So far the research on environmental causes of breast cancer is

limited,

> however. Ionizing radiation, or X-rays, has been linked to the

disease.

> Researchers also suggest that exposure to manmade chemicals known

as

> " endocrine disruptors " that obstruct the normal hormonal activity

in the

> body could cancer. Others link the disease to organochlorine

pesticides,

> which cause cancer and disrupt hormones.

>

> Some groups are taking their members in a more militant direction,

calling

> for preventive " public policies that reduce the risks we already

know

> about, " says Brenner.

>

> Joined by a coalition, these groups asked cities to " follow the

lead of San

> Francisco, Berkeley, and Oakland, Calif., who have declared

October " Stop

> Cancer Where It Starts " Month, acknowledging the impact of toxins

released

> into the environment and working to reduce them. "

>

> Berkeley plans to include the precautionary principle in its future

laws,

> and is encouraging " industries located in the Bay Area to

contribute to the

> health of its workers and all residents by implementing ways to

attain the

> desired level of zero toxic emissions. "

>

> The city will eliminate polyvinyl chloride in its new construction

and

> renovation, set up criteria for 'Healthy Buildings,' replace toxic

> pesticides where possible, and switch diesel fleets to cleaner

fuels.

>

> " There's no harm in doing this, but we need to further test this

out so

> that we can better understand causes, " says Frame.

>

> This year, Komen itself did grant some research money for

environmental

> studies. Such studies, she says, " may not just help solve breast

cancer but

> help our understanding of other diseases as well. "

>

> Martin applauds Komen's initiative. However, as a survivor twice

diagnosed,

> she adds, " We need research, but we also need to act on that

research. We

> can give scientists work from now until doomsday, but at the same

time,

> let's not wait for the proof in our own bodies. "