Pink Breast cancer campaign scam Susan G Komen

[Admin]

It is time for the truth to be told about Susan G. Komen for the Cure. The organization is, flatly stated, engaged in fraud. Funded by drug companies and mammogram manufacturers, the organization preys upon women in order to grow its own financial power while feeding female victims into the conventional cancer industry grinder.

All across America, men and women participate in "run for the cure" events, raising tens of millions of dollars each year that go into the hands of Komen for the Cure. What these people don't know is that much of that money is spent on "free" mammograms. Those mammograms, in turn, actually cause breast cancer because they subject women to high doses of ionizing radiation.

The Susan G. Komen scam, in essence, is to raise money that's used to give women cancer and create a financial windfall for the very same companies that financially support Komen in the first place. "The Komen Foundation owns stock in General Electric, one of the largest makers of mammogram machines in the world. It also owns stock in several pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca," reports Tony Isaacs at NaturalNews (http://www.naturalnews.com/027307_cance ... t_ACS.html).

"DuPont, another huge chemical company and major polluter, supplies much of the film used in mammography machines. Both DuPont and GE aggressively promote mammography screening of women in their 40s, despite the risk of its contributing to breast cancer in that age group. And while biotech giant Monsanto sponsors Breast Cancer Awareness Month's high profile event, the Race for the Cure, it continues to profit from the production of many known carcinogens." (http://www.tbyil.com/breast-cancer-deception.htm)

Komen's corporate partners include General Mills, Zumba Fitness, Walgreens, The Republic of Tea, REMAX, New Balance, American Airlines, Bank of America, Ford Motor Company, Dell and many more (http://ww5.komen.org/corporatepartners.aspx).

The bottom line? Komen deceives women while powerful corporations rake in the profits. This isn't merely my own opinion. Two prominent doctors, in an article published in the British Medical Journal, have sharply condemned Komen for the Cure for lying about the "benefits" of mammograms.


Komen ads are false, say scientists
"The world's largest breast cancer charity used misleading statistics and deceptive statements about mammography to promote breast cancer awareness and screening," stated scientists. (http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyO ... ncer/34030)

Their names? Steven Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz, directors of the Center for Medicine and the Media at Dartmouth Medical School in Hanover, New Hampshire.

They join a growing number of other doctors and medical professionals who now see Komen for the Cure as afundraising fraud and are going public with detailed accusations against Komen's deceptions.

In the recently published BMJ article, Woloshin and Schwartz accused Komen of lying in its promotional propaganda for the 2011 Breast Cancer Awareness Month. In advertising, Komen falsely claimed the 5-year survival rate when breast cancer is caught early is 98%, while only 23% when not "caught early." This is how Komen tricks women into getting more mammograms which cause more cancer -- by claiming "early detection saves lives." But it's not science; it's pure propaganda. (See below.)

According to study authors Woloshin and Schwartz, Komen willfully ignored "a growing and increasingly accepted body of evidence [showing] that although screening may reduce a woman's chance of dying from breast cancer by a small amount, it also causes major harms."

Here's an image published by the British Medical Journal, detailing how Komen for the Cure is lying about mammography:
http://www.naturalnews.com/gallery/arti ... on_BMJ.jpg


Here's what the data actually say
Komen for the Cure is in the business of fear mongering. They want everyone to be scared out of their minds that breast cancer is going to strike down all the women in their life. And in order to deal with the fear, all you have to do is give more money to Komen.

It's sort of like an old-school evangelical group that asks for donations and says you'll be healed if you just "believe," but instead of claiming to heal people with the power of faith, the Komen cult claims to heal women with the power of ionizing radiation.

In reality, the actual 10-year risk of a 50-year-old woman dying of breast cancer is about half a percent: 0.53% (http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyO ... ncer/34030).

With mammograms used to detect breast cancer tumors, that 10-year risk of dying from breast cancer moves ever so slightly downward to 0.46%.

In other words, the real risk reduction of dying from breast cancer by receiving mammograms is only 0.07% -- seven women out of 10,000.


How mammograms kill women
Seven out of 10,000 is a far cry from the fear-mongering levels that Komen propagandizes. It's not quite the cancer apocalypse that Komen makes it out to be, huh? And in the mean time, Woloshin and Schwartz explain that anywhere from 20% to 50% of women who receive mammograms for a decade of their lives will have at least one "false alarm."

These false alarms often lead to women being treated with deadly chemotherapy cocktails. These expensive drugs enrich the very same drug companies that donate money to Komen for the Cure. This is all part of the cycle of fraud that exploits women's bodies for profit, all while conducting this sick fraud with the message of "finding a cure," emblazoned with pink ribbons. The magnitude of the deception in all this is pathological... even criminal.

"The Komen advertisement is deceptive in another way: it ignores the harms of screening," say Woloshin and Schwartz. "Between 20% and 50% of women screened annually for a decade experience at least one false alarm requiring a biopsy. Most importantly, screening results in overdiagnosis. For every life saved by mammography, around two to 10 women are overdiagnosed. Women who are overdiagnosed cannot benefit from unnecessary chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. All they do experience is harm," they write.

That harm often comes in the form of unnecessary chemotherapy that poisons women but financially benefits the drug companies. Here's another article on NaturalNews which also supports this conclusion:
http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html

Also read my previous article, "10 Facts about the Breast Cancer Industry You're Not Supposed to Know"
http://www.naturalnews.com/024536_cance ... reast.html

"Women need much more than marketing slogans about screening," wrote Woloshin and Schwartz. "They need -- and deserve -- the facts. The Komen advertisement campaign failed to provide the facts. Worse, it undermined decision making by misusing statistics to generate false hope about the benefit of mammography screening. That kind of behavior is not very charitable."

The article goes on to emphasize that mammograms are a wash, offering no net benefit to women's health:

The benefits and harms [of mammography] are so evenly balanced that the National Breast Cancer Coalition, a major US network of patient and professional organizations, "believes there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against universal mammography in any age group of women." (http://www.knowbreastcancer.org/controv ... screening/)

But instead of telling women the truth, Komen lies to women, vastly exaggerating the "benefits" of screening:

"Komen's public advertising campaign gives women no sense that screening is a close call. Instead it simply tells women to be screened, overstates the benefit of mammography, and ignores harms altogether," write Woloshin and Schwartz.


Komen has even fooled doctors
Beyond fooling the public, Komen's insidious disinformation campaign has even fooled most doctors. As Woloshin and Schwartz described how doctors are tricked by the "improved survival" statistics which mislead people into thinking that screening saves lives:

"In a recent survey we conducted with colleagues from the Max Planck Institute, most US primary care doctors mistakenly interpreted improved survival as evidence that screening saves lives."
(Wegwarth O, Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Gaissmeier W, Gigerenzer G. Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:340-49.)


Obscene executive salaries
"Susan G. Komen for the Cure is a multimillion-dollar company with assets totaling over $390 million . Only 20.9% of these funds were reportedly used in the 2009-2010 fiscal year for research "for the cure," writes Emily Michele at Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/story/154010/i_ ... %3A_kome...)

She goes on to explain, "I don't know about you, but I would never expect directors of a charitable "non-profit" organization to make more than most doctors, lawyers, or even politicians. Their CEO and president, Hala G. Moddelmog, made $531,924, plus $26,683 in change. That's more than President Obama makes."

This is all revealed in Komen's own IRS reporting forms:
http://ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/Cont ... Komen%20...

Komen spends about 39% of its money on "public health education," which is just another way to say "pinkwashing." This money is used to catapult the Komen propaganda so that future fundraising events can raise even more money, much of which is paid to Komen's fat cat executives as cushy salaries.

Just remember: When you run for the cure, a significant portion of the money you raise is going straight into the pockets of wealthy Komen executives. None of the money is actually being used to promote vitamin D or cancer prevention. "Detection," after all, is not prevention. It's just a way to push the cancer industry's agenda of treating more women with toxic chemotherapy chemicals (and more ionizing radiation).


Komen's activities are crimes against humanity -- and blacks in particular
Susan G. Komen for the Cure isn't just a dishonest, deceptive non-profit that exploits women for its own power and prestige; it also engaged in crimes against humanity. The use of deceptive statistics, lying propaganda, and false and misleading fundraising events push a machine of death and destruction that sacrifices the lives of women upon the altar of Big Pharma profits.

Notably, Komen usually targets black women, focusing their mobile mammogram trucks -- "mobile cancer stations" -- on low-income neighborhoods in cities like Detroit where breast cancer among African American women is far more common than in white neighborhoods. The result of all this is increased rates of breast cancer due to the mammography itself. This, in turn, results in statistics which are cited by Komen itself to spread fear and alarm over the disease, justifying their very existence.

It is, at every level, an insidious scam conducted at the cost of innocent human lives. Far from "finding a cure" for cancer, Komen spreads cancer, incites fear, lies to women and then cites the very cancer that it causes as justification for its existence.

Susan G. Komen is a danger to the American public. It functions as a recruitment branch of Big Pharma, ensnaring women with a seductive message of hope and inspiration while delivering suffering and death.

If you donate money to Komen, you are financially supporting this insidious, destructive non-profit monstrosity that destroys lives and brutalizes women. Women who undergo chemotherapy should be called, "chemically battered women," and Komen promotes this abuse of women through its reliance on false and deceptive propaganda.

The solution to all this? Boycott Komen. Refuse to raise money for this harmful organization that exploits women. Inform your friends about pinkwashing. Share this article. Help stop the exploitation of women by Komen and its lying propaganda.

Looking for a real way to prevent breast cancer? Take more Vitamin D. Komen won't educate women about vitamin D -- (surprised?) -- but here at NaturalNews, we have a powerfully informative infographic that tells the story:


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036711_Komen_for_the_Cure_mammography_fraud.html#ixzz2AzBICEbR


It`s Breast Cancer Awareness Month again and from shore to shore the country is awash in a sea of pink - from pink ribbons and donation boxes to pink products, charity promotions, celebrities by the score and even pink cleats on NFL players. Tragically, most people are unaware of the dark history of Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) and of the players past and present who have misused it to direct people and funds away from finding a true cure, while covering up their own roles in causing and profiting from cancer.

In this second installment of the six part series we will take a look at the some of the other foundations and charities that have become involved in Breast Cancer Awareness, including The American Cancer Society - "the world`s wealthiest non-profit organization".

The Foundations and Charities

A pink giant among breast cancer foundations is the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, famous for their annual Race for the Cure, and which has a huge list of corporate sponsors, including such notables as General Mills and Mars Snackfoods among their Million Dollar Elite club. The Komen Foundation has a lengthy list of risk factors, yet does not list exposure to toxins among them.

See:
http://ww5.komen.org/breastcancer/loweryourrisk.html

As noted in the 2003 article "Compromised", "Participants in the Race for the Cure are often greeted as they cross the finish line with live music, inspirational speakers and acres of colorfully adorned corporate booths. Pink, the chosen color of the international breast cancer movement, is everywhere, on hats, T-shirts, teddy bears and ribbons. A sense of community and camaraderie pervades the celebration by thousands of breast cancer survivors and friends of survivors."

"What`s missing is the truth," says Judy Brady of the Toxic Links Coalition in San Francisco. She wants to see a cure for breast cancer as much as anyone, but she and her group, along with several other activist breast cancer groups, have something to point out about the Susan G. Komen Foundation`s activities: "There`s no talk about prevention except, in terms of lifestyle, your diet for instance. No talk about ways to grow food more safely. No talk about how to curb industrial carcinogens. No talk about contaminated water."

Source: http://tampa.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A3332

Though giving some lip service to the "debate over mammograms", the Komen Foundation nevertheless promotes mammograms as an important screening tool and recommends that women get regular mammograms starting at age 40, stating that "despite some ongoing debate, mammography is still the best screening tool widely used today for the early detection of breast cancer."

The Komen Foundation owns stock in General Electric, one of the largest makers of mammogram machines in the world. It also owns stock in several pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca (now AzkoNobel)
.
AstraZeneca has long been a Komen booster, making educational grants to Komen and having a visible presence at the Race For the Cure. At the 1998 Food and Drug Administration hearings, the Komen Foundation was the only national breast cancer group to endorse the AstraZeneca cancer treatment drug tamoxifen as a prevention device for healthy but high-risk women, despite vehement opposition by most other breast cancer groups because of its links to uterine cancer.

Another prominent breast cancer organization is The National Breast Cancer Foundation, whose stated mission is "to save lives by increasing awareness of breast cancer through education and by providing mammograms for those in need." Their National Mammography Program includes the "Donate a Free Mammogram Program". Their education includes nothing about the toxins and environmental causes of cancer.

Similarly, the Prevent Cancer Foundation, gives advice on how to prevent and detect cancer, but fails to include toxins and environmental factors and is yet another foundation which heavily promotes mammograms. Currently, they are promoting their "Pledge to Screen Your Boobs & Enter to Win a Pink Vespa" program, seeking donations and stating that "early detection and screening can help to stop breast cancer before it strikes".

In other words, according to the various foundations and organizations which advocate screening and mammograms, the way to "stop cancer before it strikes" is to detect it after it has already struck.

The American Cancer Society - The World`s Most Profitable Non-Profit

If the Komen Foundation is a giant among breast cancer charities, the true 800 pound gorilla in all of the cancer non-profit organizations is the highly profitable American Cancer Society (ACS).

As reported in "American Cancer Society: The World`s Wealthiest `Non-profit` Institution`` in the International Journal of Health Services, the ACS "is fixated on damage control - screening, diagnosis and treatment, - and genetic research, with indifference or even hostility to cancer prevention. Together with the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the ACS has failed to provide Congress, regulatory agencies and the public with the strong body of scientific evidence clearly relating the escalating incidence of non-smoking related cancers to involuntary and avoidable exposures to industrial carcinogens in air, water, the workplace, and consumer products - food, cosmetics and toiletries - so that appropriate corrective and legislative regulatory and action has not been taken."

Like the other foundations mentioned earlier, the ACS has myriad ties to industries which profit from and contribute to cancer. One such relationship is the one they have maintained with AstraZeneca. Together with the NCI, in 1992 the ACS launched an aggressive "chemoprevention" program aimed at recruiting 16,000 healthy women who were supposedly at "high risk`` of breast cancer into a 5-year clinical trial of Zeneca`s tamoxifen. The women were told that the drug was essentially harmless, and that it could reduce their risk of breast cancer. What the women were not told was that tamoxifen was well-known to induce aggressive human uterine cancer or that it had previously been shown to be a highly potent liver carcinogen in rodent tests.

Other ties include board members tied to such companies as Glaxo-SmithKline Smith, Glaxo Welcome, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Block Drug Company, Reliant Pharmaceuticals, OSI Pharmaceuticals, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Various Lobbying Firms, Venture Capitalists, Sherwin-Williams Company and many others.

To get a better picture of some of the interlocking relationships between ACS board members and the corporations and institutions they are connected with, see:
http://www.muckety.com/8902C522F22BE4F0 ... ADEB8B.map

Among a great many questionable actions by the ACS that have been interpreted to be favorable to such institutions and industries in the past are:

* The ACS opposed proposed regulations in 1977-78 for hair coloring products that contained dyes suspected of causing breast cancer. In so doing, the ACS ignored the fact that these chemicals were proven liver and breast carcinogens.

* In 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. Accordingly, the ACS still trivializes or rejects evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, and has actively campaigned against laws that ban deliberate addition to food of any amount of any additive shown to cause cancer in either animals or humans.

* In 1992, the ACS issued a joint statement with the Chlorine Institute in support of the continued global use of organochlorine pesticides despite clear evidence that some such pesticides were known to cause breast cancer. In the joint statement, ACS Vice President Clark Heath, M.D., dismissed evidence of the risks as "preliminary and mostly based on weak and indirect association."

* In September 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.

The ACS is called "the world's wealthiest non-profit" for good reason. Despite annually pleading poverty and huge fundraising efforts across the nation, at the end of 2008, the combined ACS financial statements reflected net assets of over $1.5 Billion.

A 1992 article in the Wall Street Journal by Thomas DiLorenzo, professor of economics at Loyola College and veteran investigator of nonprofit organizations, revealed that the Texas affiliate of the ACS owned more than $11 million worth of assets in land and real estate, as well as more than fifty-six vehicles, including eleven Ford Crown Victorias for senior executives and forty-five other cars assigned to staff members. Arizona`s ACS chapter spent less than 10 percent of its funds on direct community cancer services. In California, the figure was 11 percent, and under 9 percent in Missouri.

Thus for every $1 spent on direct service in 1992, approximately $6.40 was spent on compensation and overhead. In all ten states, salaries and fringe benefits are by far the largest single budget items, a surprising fact in light of the characterization of the appeals, which stress an urgent and critical need for donations to provide cancer services. Nationally, only 16 percent or less of all money the ACS raised was spent on direct services to cancer victims, like driving cancer patients from the hospital after chemotherapy, and providing pain medication.

In the intervening years, the ACS has reported spending a larger percentage of the money it raises on program services, with 26% going to direct services and another 47% being spent on research, prevention and detection/treatment services. Unfortunately, the research funds are directed almost entirely to the same surgery, chemo and radiation therapies that have failed to win the war on cancer for almost four decades now. Likewise, prevention and detection/treatment services overlook toxins and environmental causes and promote more screening and mammograms.

It is a tried and failed program of the same forms of prevention, treatment and research that has benefited those who profit from continuing the failed war on cancer while obscuring and protecting the roles of those who have caused it.

In part three of this series we will examine the role of government institutions and the misdirected research into the real causes, prevention and cures for breast cancer.
Know The Truth!