Pink Fraud...by the people who MAKE Breast Cancer

[Guest guest]

The "Pink" FraudBrought to you by the people whoMAKE Breast Cancer Dr. Loretta Lanphier, ND, CN, HHP Been seeing a lot of pink ribbons lately? It's a suresign that it's National Breast Cancer Awareness Monthagain, an annual event that has been recognized everyOctober since 1985. It is sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, theAmerican Cancer Society, and over a dozen othermedical, governmental, and professional organizations. The coalition's trademark slogan is: "Early Detection is Your Best Protection." Who can argue with that? Cancer bad. Protection good. It's a no-brainer, right?Well, maybe we'd better take a closer look before wedecide. Perhaps the place to begin is to learn a bit about thehistory of this organization. National Breast CancerAwareness Month (NBCAM), or Breast Cancer AwarenessMonth as it was originally called, was the brainchildof a British chemical conglomerate called ImperialChemical Industries (ICI), which became ZenecaPharmaceuticals, and today is known as AstraZeneca. By their own admission, AstraZeneca has spent severalmillion dollars on the NBCAM project. What is behind their interest in Breast Cancer? For over the last 20 years, AstraZeneca was themanufacturer of one of the largest selling breastcancer drugs in the world:Nolvadex (tamoxifen citrate). (According to a notice posted at www.nolvadex.com, Nolvadex is no longer manufactured or sold in theUnited States as of June 2006; however, the drug'sgeneric form tamoxifen citrate is still available).Nolvadex is not a cure for cancer. It has been heavily prescribed as a drug to lessen therisk of reoccurrence in women who have previouslyreceived treatment for breast cancer. It was also approved for use as a "risk reduction"drug (the FDA would not allow the term "prevention"),and prescribed to women with no presence of breastcancer who are considered to be at elevated risk.This drug has been very profitable for AstraZeneca,with sales over $400 million annually, but it is alsoa very controversial drug. It has significant side effects that have been linkedto uterine cancer, liver cancer, heart disease,osteoporosis, depression, eye damage, blood clots, and even breast cancer--the very condition it issupposed to treat! But the story doesn't stop there.AstraZeneca (ICI) is a chemical giant, and is one ofthe world's top producers of organochlorides, whichare chlorine-based industrial chemicals. Organochlorides are used in the manufacture of a widevariety of compounds, including Agent Orange, PCB's,and DDT. Organochlorides are also known carcinogens, andstudies have found them to be specifically associatedwith increased incidence of breast cancer. So here we have a corporation--a very large andprofitable corporation with sales of $14 billion in1998-- that makes its money from industrial chemicalsthat cause cancer and drugs that treat (andpotentially cause) cancer. Incidentally, they also have a large financial stakein cancer treatment centers. This brings us to another major criticism of NBCAM:the focus of their efforts is almost exclusively ondetection and treatment of breast cancer, not onprevention. This only makes sense since their main financialbacker is a huge corporation that makes a fortune offthe treatment of a disease they contribute to causing. But beyond that, breast cancer and cancers in generalcan be prevented through changes in diet andlifestyle, like staying away from chemicals and drugsthat cause cancer! The problem with this is thatprevention is very inexpensive and not veryprofitable. One more interesting thing about AstraZeneca'srelationship with NBCAM is that part of thearrangement allows AstraZeneca to approve and/or vetoany marketing materials related to NBCAM. Thus, you will not find anything related toenvironmental causes of breast cancer or how it can beprevented by avoiding exposure to them. The American Cancer Society minimizes the cancer risksfrom industrial chemicals and pesticides, and will nottake a stand on environmental regulation.It is a very carefully controlled Public Relationsploy. Cancer treatment is big business in the United States.Some have called it "The Cancer Industry" or "Cancer,Inc." The corporate and financial connections form a longand winding road that goes far beyond AstraZeneca, andinclude such giants as DuPont and General Electric.Mammograms are the big buzz word as of late, and thepush is on for women to get them at a younger andyounger age. The threshold has now dropped to 40 years of age, eventhough there is no scientific evidence to show theneed for or benefit of a routine mammogram for anywoman under 50. In fact, some researchers believe thatmammograms may increase risk for breast cancer. But the powers that be, such as the American CancerSociety, continue to feed this misinformation to themedia."Early Detection" is the war-cry, with next tonothing about preventing breast cancer so that thereis nothing to detect. Meanwhile, a ton of money is being made off thismammogram frenzy. One study estimated that there aretwo to three times more mammogram machines installedin the U.S. than are necessary. General Electric sells more than $100 million worth ofmammogram machines annually, and DuPont provides muchof the film for these machines. Both of thesecompanies aggressively market mammograms to youngerwomen, and both are also financial supporters of theAmerican Cancer Society. So knowing what we know about NBCAM and Big Cancer,what is the best way to respond to the media andadvertising onslaught of the "Pink Ribbon" campaign? Is buying a vacuum cleaner or a box of crackers witha pink ribbon in it going to help at all in the fightagainst breast cancer? Actually, it is considered by some to be nothing morethan free advertising and good PR for companies whocome onboard. There are three fundamental problems. First, any money that is donated is most likely goingto be used to support organizations such as thosediscussed earlier in this article. The focus of theefforts is on detection and treatment, not oneducation that can help women to prevent the onset ofbreast cancer in the first place through healthy dietand lifestyle and avoidance of carcinogens. Secondly, in many cases the amount of donations fromthese sponsors is very minimal. One study showed thatwhile Clinique donated $10 from every $14 in salesduring their "In the Pink" lipstick sales, many othersgave next to nothing. American Express donated onlyone penny per transaction of any amount during "Chargefor the Cure." Thirdly, the funds collected are poorly accounted for,and the way the campaigns are advertised can be veryambiguous. Confusing terms such as "net profits to charity" areused, and sometimes it is not clearly explained thatthe donations are only promised for a limited time.Some sponsors have had it set up so that the monieswould be donated only after a certain sales quota wasreached.Most of the time consumers are not aware of this. The bottom line is that you should "Think Before YouPink." Don't let the media put you on a guilt trip ifyou don't jump on the pink bandwagon. Your time and energies are much better spent spreadingthe truth about prevention and healthy choices thatcan truly make an impact on this disease. © 2004 Oasis Advanced Wellness, Inc.