Pink Fraud

[Guest guest]

The " Pink " Fraud

- Brought to you by the people who

make Breast Cancer

 

Dr. Loretta Lanphier, ND, CN, HHP

 

 

Been seeing a lot of pink ribbons lately? It's a sure

sign that it's National Breast Cancer Awareness Month

again, an annual event that has been recognized every

October since 1985.

It is sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, the

American Cancer Society, and over a dozen other

medical, 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 we

decide.

 

Perhaps the place to begin is to learn a bit about the

history of this organization. National Breast Cancer

Awareness Month (NBCAM), or Breast Cancer Awareness

Month as it was originally called, was the brainchild

of a British chemical conglomerate called Imperial

Chemical Industries (ICI), which became Zeneca

Pharmaceuticals, and today is known as AstraZeneca.

 

By their own admission, AstraZeneca has spent several

million dollars on the NBCAM project.

 

What is behind their interest in Breast Cancer?

 

For over the last 20 years, AstraZeneca was the

manufacturer of one of the largest selling breast

cancer drugs in the world:

Nolvadex (tamoxifen citrate).

(According to a notice posted at www.nolvadex.com,

Nolvadex is no longer manufactured or sold in the

United States as of June 2006; however, the drug's

generic form tamoxifen citrate is still available).

Nolvadex is not a cure for cancer.

It has been heavily prescribed as a drug to lessen the

risk of reoccurrence in women who have previously

received 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 breast

cancer 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 also

a very controversial drug.

It has significant side effects that have been linked

to uterine cancer, liver cancer, heart disease,

osteoporosis, depression, eye damage, blood clots,

and even breast cancer--the very condition it is

supposed to treat!

 

But the story doesn't stop there.

AstraZeneca (ICI) is a chemical giant, and is one of

the world's top producers of organochlorides, which

are chlorine-based industrial chemicals.

Organochlorides are used in the manufacture of a wide

variety of compounds, including Agent Orange, PCB's,

and DDT.

Organochlorides are also known carcinogens, and

studies have found them to be specifically associated

with increased incidence of breast cancer.

 

So here we have a corporation--a very large and

profitable corporation with sales of $14 billion in

1998-- that makes its money from industrial chemicals

that cause cancer and drugs that treat (and

potentially cause) cancer.

Incidentally, they also have a large financial stake

in cancer treatment centers.

 

This brings us to another major criticism of NBCAM:

the focus of their efforts is almost exclusively on

detection and treatment of breast cancer, not on

prevention.

 

This only makes sense since their main financial

backer is a huge corporation that makes a fortune off

the treatment of a disease they contribute to causing.

 

But beyond that, breast cancer and cancers in general

can be prevented through changes in diet and

lifestyle, like staying away from chemicals and drugs

that cause cancer! The problem with this is that

prevention is very inexpensive and not very

profitable.

 

One more interesting thing about AstraZeneca's

relationship with NBCAM is that part of the

arrangement allows AstraZeneca to approve and/or veto

any marketing materials related to NBCAM.

 

Thus, you will not find anything related to

environmental causes of breast cancer or how it can be

prevented by avoiding exposure to them.

The American Cancer Society minimizes the cancer risks

from industrial chemicals and pesticides, and will not

take a stand on environmental regulation.

It is a very carefully controlled Public Relations

ploy.

 

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 long

and winding road that goes far beyond AstraZeneca, and

include such giants as DuPont and General Electric.

Mammograms are the big buzz word as of late, and the

push is on for women to get them at a younger and

younger age.

The threshold has now dropped to 40 years of age, even

though there is no scientific evidence to show the

need for or benefit of a routine mammogram for any

woman under 50. In fact, some researchers believe that

mammograms may increase risk for breast cancer.

 

But the powers that be, such as the American Cancer

Society, continue to feed this misinformation to the

media.

" Early Detection " is the war-cry, with next to

nothing about preventing breast cancer so that there

is nothing to detect.

 

Meanwhile, a ton of money is being made off this

mammogram frenzy. One study estimated that there are

two to three times more mammogram machines installed

in the U.S. than are necessary.

 

General Electric sells more than $100 million worth of

mammogram machines annually, and DuPont provides much

of the film for these machines. Both of these

companies aggressively market mammograms to younger

women, and both are also financial supporters of the

American Cancer Society.

 

So knowing what we know about NBCAM and Big Cancer,

what is the best way to respond to the media and

advertising onslaught of the " Pink Ribbon " campaign?

 

Is buying a vacuum cleaner or a box of crackers with

a pink ribbon in it going to help at all in the fight

against breast cancer?

Actually, it is considered by some to be nothing more

than free advertising and good PR for companies who

come onboard.

 

There are three fundamental problems.

First, any money that is donated is most likely going

to be used to support organizations such as those

discussed earlier in this article. The focus of the

efforts is on detection and treatment, not on

education that can help women to prevent the onset of

breast cancer in the first place through healthy diet

and lifestyle and avoidance of carcinogens.

 

Secondly, in many cases the amount of donations from

these sponsors is very minimal. One study showed that

while Clinique donated $10 from every $14 in sales

during their " In the Pink " lipstick sales, many others

gave next to nothing. American Express donated only

one penny per transaction of any amount during " Charge

for the Cure. "

 

Thirdly, the funds collected are poorly accounted for,

and the way the campaigns are advertised can be very

ambiguous.

Confusing terms such as " net profits to charity " are

used, and sometimes it is not clearly explained that

the donations are only promised for a limited time.

Some sponsors have had it set up so that the monies

would be donated only after a certain sales quota was

reached.

Most of the time consumers are not aware of this.

 

The bottom line is that you should " Think Before You

Pink. " Don't let the media put you on a guilt trip if

you don't jump on the pink bandwagon.

Your time and energies are much better spent spreading

the truth about prevention and healthy choices that

can truly make an impact on this disease.

 

© 2004 Oasis Advanced Wellness, Inc.