Cancer Charities

Part 2

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. We will be inundated with Cancer Charities raising money to "Find a Cure."

While the cause is noble, the method is severely flawed. Some critics have said these charities do not want to find a cure. If a cure was found, they would be out of a very lucrative job. Less than half the money raised actually goes to research, the rest goes to "Administrative" costs (CEO salary).

I tend to agree with them on this. But what really keeps me from supporting these charities is their lack of funding for any treatment that is not "medical." Some have claimed that these charities are nothing more than a front for major pharmaceutical companies. And when you look at where all the funding goes, it is tough to argue. Every new breakthrough treatment is a DRUG! And every time a new drug is brought out, within 2-3 years it is shown to be ineffective and in some cases more dangerous than the disease it was meant to "Cure." "We cured the cancer, but the patient died."

Along with no money given to alternative health care research, the FDA and other government agencies routinely persecute (yes persecute) alternative treatment providers and clinics. It is seems to be illegal to treat cancer without chemotherapy and radiation. Yet in Europe, Asia, Canada, Mexico and Australia, cancer patients are being cured with non-drug, non-radiation, non-chemo treatments.

Just follow the money. If people in the U.S. were cured of cancer without drugs, radiation, or chemo, who would lose out? Who would be opposed to safe, inexpensive, effective treatments for cancer? Yet we continue to blindly follow the radiation and chemo death march for cancer treatment. Chemo kills more patients than the cancer does.

I will not support these charities until they begin to fund alternative treatment options.

Breast Cancer Awareness Month

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. We will be overwhelmed by "Pink" for the next 31 days. Cancer charities will be in full fund raising mode (more on these in Part 2) and women will be "educated" on cancer prevention, detection and treatment.



The big push will be for Mammograms. Conventional wisdom tells us that mammograms catch cancer early, thus save lives. Early detection = Early Treatment = Higher Rate of Survival. While this is good in theory, when actual scientific facts are looked at; Mammograms do not save lives. In fact routine mammograms can cause cancer!



Mammograms are an x-ray of the breast. X-rays are a significant source of damaging radiation exposure. Pre-menopausal breast tissue is very sensitive to radiation exposure. Do you see where I am going with this?



Mammograms have a high incidence of False Positive results. As many as 70% of positive (for tumor) mammograms, upon biopsy, show no presence of cancer. Mammograms also have a high incidence of False Negative results. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), mammograms miss 40% of malignant tumors in women age 40-49 and 10 % over age 50.



Pre-menopausal breast tissue is more dense (along with being more sensitive to radiation) so it is much more difficult to see a tumor. Based on the research, many doctors are opposed to routine (annual) mammograms for women under 50. According to the NCI, "among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies."



Since rotine screening with mammograms was introduced, the incidence of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) has increased by 328%. Two hundred percent of this increase is due to mammogram radiation,



Mammograms can also spread cancer. By compressing the breasts, tumors and blood vessels can burst, releasing cancer cells throughout the rest of the body.



I professionally do not recommend mammograms as a screening tool, especially for any woman under age 50. Unless a tumor is suspected. An alternative to mammography is Thermography. Thermography uses no radiation, does not compress the breasts and has a higher specificity than mammograms.



The best way to treat cancer is prevention. Diet, exercise and nutrition play an important role. Vitamin D has been shown in research to prevent 77% of all cancers including breast cancer. Avoid smoking, refined sugars and grains, chemical exposure (cosmetics, perfumes, dyes, etc...) eat fresh fruits and vegetables, green tea, lycopene (tomatoes) and other anti-oxidant rich foods.



I encourange your questions and comments.

One Less!!!

I just saw another one of those dopey Gardasil ads...One less yada yada. Here we have yet another experimental vaccine thrust upon us and the ads designed to make you feel guilty for not injecting your daughters with this poison. "They'll get cancer if they don't get this vaccine..."

Let's look at the facts: The safety study will not be complete until June 2009!!!! They don't know if this vaccine is safe, causes cancer or other long term illness. This is insane. Since the vaccine's introduction, 8864 adverse events have been filed with VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) including 38 cases of Guillian-Barre Syndrome and 18 deaths (11 within one week of vaccination). And, according to a report of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, Gardasil has a -44.6% effacacy rate (negative). This means you are 44.6% more likely to get the disease if you are vaccinated.

To Merck: let's make Gardasil "One Less" dangerous vaccine thrust upon us!

Busy Weekend

The last weekend of the summer was sure a busy one for me. Friday night, the Lab Rat Brew Team fired up the ole brew pot for a batch of "Howling Bastard Pumpkin Ale." If first tastes of the wort is any indication, this will be a very good batch.

On to Saturday. The Force had a bye this week, so no football. Did some garage cleaning then went to Waverly Beach for Mixed Martial Arts fight. One of the main bouts was Bryan "House" Schultz (6' 11" 467lb) in his first fight, taking on another very large (6'10" 420lb) fighter coming in at 8-1. Guys this size don't do too many spinning kicks (at least not above the ankle). After a few punches, House got his opponent in a head lock and brought him to the ground and finished the fight in the first round.

Sunday morning brought the annual Fox Cities Marathon. I have been the Chiropractic Coordinator for the last 15 years. Treating the runners at the finish area with massage, stretching and adjustments. My fingers are still green from all the Bio-freeze I used. From the marathon to Dragon Soccer practice (U15 girls) to finish off the weekend.

Monday-football, Tuesday-bowling.....

Lipstick on a pig?

Wow, has this topic got people talking. My take....While I'm no fan of Barry Obama, I do not believe he purposely intended the remark to be directed towards Gov. Palin. I do believe he made a terrible error in judgement. The reaction by the audience he was speaking to was a loud cheer at the "Lipstick" comment. This crowd believed he was talking about Gov. Palin. Sen. Obama should have known the crowd would believe as such. And if he didn't, he is out of touch with his own supporters.

Even though Sen. Obama may not have directed his comment towards Gov. Palin, he should not have said them in the first place. Once again, his own actions prove he is incapable of making a proper decision and shows poor judgement.