Corporate-Owned Media Blames Women for Getting Cancer, page 4

reply to post by Pervius

---

Even when tampons were made in America, contamination was a major problem. Toxic Shock Syndrome is the recognized result and is "rare" - but the chronic effects are -arguably- common.

reply to post by muzzleflash

---

No kidding, huh?

I had one mammogram - never again. The risks are way too high and there are better alternatives.

Just found a GREAT paper on chronic disease and environmental chemicals, from the network of groups involved with the Canadian Partnership for Children’s Health and Environment and the Ontario Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance. Here's the breast cancer clip from the table itemizing the chemicals that contribute to chronic disease.

Early Exposures to Hazardous Chemicals/Pollution and Associations with Chronic Disease

• Breast cancer: ionizing radiation, benzene and organic solvents, 1.3-butadiene, aromatic amines, BPA, phthalates, parabens, alkylphenols, PAHs, OC and triazine pesticides, PBDEs and other POPs, metals, tobacco and ETS, vinyl chloride, ethylene oxide. (See also Table 6.)

This bit from the Executive Summary should be compared to the IOM paper cited in the OP.

Overall conclusions include the fact that chronic diseases and interrelated contributory factors are far more complex than is implied in, or amenable to response strategies focused solely on individual behavioural changes.

......Environmental influences on health are multifaceted, involving multiple pollutants, exposure routes, on a scale ranging from macro to micro (e.g., from built environment features to the loading of floor dust with toxic substances), multiple interrelationships, and life course vulnerabilities. It is already well- established that the in utero and perinatal “environment” and maternal and early childhood circumstances play major roles in the risk of later life disease. Within this new paradigm for disease causation, the DOHaD concept and the related field of epigenetics, a rapidly expanding body of research indicates a role for early life exposure to environmental contaminants in this lifelong continuum of disease vulnerability.

Corporate industry is really turning up the heat on this one. Gotta wonder why. ...Seems the liberal do-gooders want to clamp down on industry and put a crimp in profits - by passing laws regulating toxic chemicals! Just to protect public health! Well, we can't have that, can we? Jack it back to blame the victims: bad diet, irresponsible lifestyle and genetics. That'll larn 'em.

Pathways to Breast Cancer: A Case Study for Innovation in Chemical Safety Evaluation

Breast cancer, the most common invasive cancer in women, is hypothesized to be linked to industrial chemical exposure through the environment and the use of consumer products. A major challenge in understanding the extent to which chemicals contribute to breast cancer is a lack of toxicity information—a data gap—for tens of thousands of commonly used chemicals. Through its Green Chemistry Initiative, California is attempting to address this data gap by seeking ways to develop toxicity information for chemicals used in consumer products. A bill recently introduced in the U.S. Congress to reform the decades‐old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) calls for the generation and disclosure of information on the toxicity of industrial chemicals. …..

Chemical toxicity testing—and the public policies that require it—can be critical tools in breast cancer prevention, providing a practical basis for reducing potentially harmful exposures


Full report available for download at:
coeh.berkeley.edu...

And don't forget loam's thread - it's the male version: MEN: You are Being Chemically Castrated.

A number of international treaties and national laws on chemical pollution were upstaged by the World Economic Forum's September report focusing on the costs of chronic disease and the NCD Pandemic. It looks like all our governments choked, and went with blaming the victims over protecting public health by regulating disease-causing chemicals.

I'm trying to figure out what's going on behind the scenes - track the status of some of these treaties and laws, find out who the key players are (besides the 1%), and the politics of the "environmental" organizations, including:

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are some of the most toxic chemicals on the planet.

While POPs are not used in every country, they can show up anywhere. Through what is known as the "grasshopper effect," these toxic compounds can travel great distances through a repeated cycle of evaporation and precipitation. These substances may also be stored for decades in fatty tissue, allowing them to be spread by migratory animals that ingest them. As a result, "no region is exempt from POPs," ...."Everybody has some amount of these chemicals in their bloodstream."

High levels of exposure to POPs have been linked to a wide range of health problems, including allergies, immune system disruption, nerve damage, reproductive disorders, birth defects, and cancer. Fetuses and infants are particularly susceptible since the POPs that have accumulated over decades in their mothers" bodies may be passed to them during pregnancy and nursing. Prenatal exposure has been linked to reduced fetal and postnatal growth, neurological deficits, delayed development of motor functions, and impaired short-term memory.

The tendency of these chemicals to build up in fatty tissue means that they become increasingly concentrated at higher levels in the food chain, making fish, mammals, and predatory birds especially vulnerable to their toxic effects. Human communities that consume high levels of meat are thus particularly at risk.

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

A chemical can be listed in the Stockholm Convention as a persistent organic pollutant when it shows that it persists in the environment, bioaccumulates in organisms (increases in concentration up the food chain), travels through the environment over long distances from the region of its release to other regions of the globe, and is toxic to the environment and human health.

Currently, there are twenty-two chemicals listed in the convention including DDT, lindane, PCBs and dioxins and furans and some brominated flame retardants. The objective of the convention, which has 175 Parties as of 19 September 2011, is to restrict and eliminate these chemicals from production and use in order to protect human health and the environment.

A bill recently introduced in the U.S. Congress to reform the decades‐old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) calls for the generation and disclosure of information on the toxicity of industrial chemicals.

Global Environment Fund

For over two decades GEF has sought to turn its global expertise in energy and the environment into top-tier returns for our investors.

reply to post by soficrow

---

I always said that is more than the global governments knows about the pollution killing earth that they want the public to know, because as usual is plenty of profits to be made from both, pollutants while manufacturing goods or exploitation of earth resources and profits from controlling and blaming populations from becoming sick.

Greed will kill humanity eventually.

reply to post by marg6043

---

is more than the global governments knows about the pollution killing earth that they want the public to know, because as usual is plenty of profits to be made from both, pollutants while manufacturing goods or exploitation of earth resources and profits from controlling and blaming populations from becoming sick.

So true - they know the poisons are killing people, but they want to sell treatments (not cures) just to keep people working til they die (without collecting retirement or disability) - and they want the profits from the resources, and around it circles. ...I think the global corporations have nations over a barrel - and it's just easier to blame the victims.

reply to post by Rafe_

---

i can think of a lot more things then personal lifestyle habbits that cause cancer

No kidding, huh? ...But corporate industry wants to offload ALL responsibility onto the victims. Doesn't seem ...fair, does it?

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by soficrow

---

Radiation is the most dangerous treatment around, has not changed much since its introduction and people still die from the side effects of it than from the cancer itself, but this is also been suppress on the population so the radiation treatment still stays as the best treatment available.

It is just shameful.

6 years ago I was undergoing treatments for Hodgekins Lymphoma. This included 6 months of chemotherapy and a month of radiation. Looking back on it all now, I kind of prefer the chemotherapy because I had to deal with the side effects at that moment, whereas its only been in the past few months that I've really have to deal with side effects from the radiation. All of my radiation was just to the right of my breast bone, so all of those vital organs were exposed. Nearly 1/4 of my heart is covered with scar tissue (greatly aggravating the tachycardia I already suffered from), I've lost 1/3 of my lung capacity, I still have trouble swallowing things like bread and pasta, and in the past few months I've started to have terrible chest wall pain. I was 15 at the time (and still developing physically), so my right breast is nearly a cup size smaller than my left breast (which makes it really hard to buy a well-fitting bra). I also have a much higher risk of developing leukemia, lung cancer, and yep, you guessed it, breast cancer.

It wasn't even a month from the day I was diagnosed to the day I began chemotherapy. My family was so blindsided by my diagnoses that we didn't even really think to ask about accepted alternative treatments or what the side effects might be. Outside of hair loss and nausea, I was only told that the chemotherapy could greatly reduce my chances of having children. With the radiation, I was only told that it could make it difficult to swallow things since the radiation would be over my esophagus. Nothing long term was ever mentioned until after I finished my treatments. I won't deny that the treatments more than likely saved my life, but that doesn't stop me from saying that they were beyond barbaric and that I can't believe that the treatments that I received were considered "advanced." I find it very hard to believe that with all of the money that goes into the cancer industry, there hasn't been anything surface that is more humane than what is currently offered.

I know I shouldn't be surprised, because just like any other big industry the biggest profit possible is the end goal, but this is ridiculous. It was so bad for me that I almost wonder if I would have been better off just dying. I know that sounds bad, and trust me I love life and being alive, but I am always going to have side effects from the treatments that supposedly saved me. Something has got to give. Either better (re: more humane) treatments have to come out, we need to find and fix the cause of the increase in cancers (I agree with the cases many have mentioned previously in this thread), or we need to allow nature to take its course. We can't keep treating people like this.

reply to post by Pervius

---

Even though they banned it's use in the United States, Corporations are still making it and exporting it to other countries.

Countries like China who spray it all over. It gets in the crops they are growing, canned up and shipped back to America as "Western Family" cheapo food for poor people of America to eat.

Isn't Corporate America funny? They don't mind killing Americans, never have, never will. It's business.

And don't forget "Transboundary Pollution," especially the "grasshopper effect."

Transboundary Pollution

Grasshopper Effect
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are able to travel great distances by attaching to dust particles that are blown north by the wind when there is no precipitation. When precipitation occurs, POPs are transported to the ground where they will then evaporate and begin travelling north again.

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by Rafe_

---

i can think of a lot more things then personal lifestyle habbits that cause cancer

No kidding, huh? ...But corporate industry wants to offload ALL responsibility onto the victims. Doesn't seem ...fair, does it?

It is not but it is downright effective.How often did i not hear some story about someones family member getting cancer or any other disease ending with the mentione But he never smoked ,ate healty,went to the gym....
Always when i hear such things and responses i notice how people seem to look for blame in the person in question yet never seem to stop to think about the other very likely causes.

This type of thinking shows it all.

reply to post by Rafe_

---

How often did i not hear some story about someones family member getting cancer or any other disease ending with the mentione But he never smoked ,ate healty,went to the gym....

Always when i hear such things and responses i notice how people seem to look for blame in the person in question yet never seem to stop to think about the other very likely causes.

Older people like grandparents know there's more to the story, because they remember when no one got cancer - but younger people buy into the corporate campaign - it's genetic or you did it to yourself.

Since the 1970's, research into the health impacts of pollution and environmental contamination has been showing the links. But it's a legal game - adversarial and nasty - and protecting public health is NOT the priority.

More on the environment and cancer.

An association was found between several sites and particular socioeconomic groups. For instance, there are elevated rates of lung cancer and stomach cancer among blue collar workers; colon cancer and breast cancer among white collar workers and lip and stomach cancer among self-employed farmers. The overall cancer morbidity was close to the expected levels for all groups except self-employed farmers, who showed a marked deficit.

Intrauterine Environment and Breast Cancer Risk in Women: A Population-Based Study

Because preg- nancy toxemia is associated with low levels of estrogens and neonatal jaun- dice, severe prematurity, and dizygotic twins with high levels of estrogens, our findings suggest that estrogens and other hormonal factors, known to influ- ence breast cancer risk in the adult, may also play a critical role during the intrauterine period.

The CDC Chokes

Only about 47% of breast cancers that occur in the United States can be attributed to established risk factors. While animal studies indicate that environmental contaminants can cause breast tumors, clear links between environmental exposures (other than ionizing radiation) and human breast cancer have not been established.

Exposure to chemicals such as poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), benzene, and organic solvents and passive smoking have been suspect in causing breast cancer, but the evidence is weak and more research is needed.

Pesticides and industrial products concern researchers because of their presence in the environment, their ability to be absorbed by fat, and their potential to act as endocrine disruptors. An endocrine disruptor is a synthetic chemical that, when absorbed into the body, either mimics or blocks hormones and disrupts the body's normal functions.

One path to cancer includes flu infection messing with proteins called "Proprotein convertases (PCs)" - and down the road leading to cancer in survivors.

Proprotein convertases (PCs) are a unique family of enzymes that turn a wide range of nonfunctional human proteins into active, functional proteins. Without them, our bodies would not be able to sustain life.

….PCs have been shown to be involved in a wide variety of disease processes. ….They may play a role in the development of various types of cancer, atherosclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, hormonal disorders, and various important infections, like influenza, anthrax, and numerous other viral and bacterial toxin diseases.

The campaign to blame victims, citing "bad diet, irresponsible lifestyle and genetics" affects more than women with breast cancer. This comment moved me - posted on CBC's Cancer Wars: Are We Winning?.

So many people assume that cancer is either a disease of old age or is preventable by lifestyle factors. I doubt that Clifton Leaf was a smoking, heavy drinking, obese, inactive kid when he got cancer. Neither was my kid. My kid also came from a very healthy, outdoor mountain recreation lifestyle with a pretty healthy diet. No real exposure to pollutants - and no family history (except prostate in the 75+ year range). So the huge question is where do these childhood cancers come from? Where would they even get a virus from, and what kind what it be?

I feel that if we could answer the questions of how even very young children of all ages and backgrounds can get cancer ( I saw them from 6 months to 18 years old from all ethnicities and socio-economic backgrounds whilst going through our family's own hell), then we'd learn a great deal about how cancer develops, if it's preventable, how much is hereditary, what environmental factors are involved, and how to stop it.

(By the way, my kid is doing fine ten years on - one of the lucky ones in the end).

The Church of HIV: Inventing the AIDS Virus
  Posted 8 days ago with 64 member flags

Conclusive Evidence That "ALL" Vaccines Are Very Harmful Even Causing Death
  Posted 17 days ago with 57 member flags

DIY lets cure cancer simple as that
  Posted 3 days ago with 19 member flags

Why are dead people waking up around the world?
  Posted 7 days ago with 12 member flags

Dying For A Smile
  Posted 15 days ago with 11 member flags

Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging - Full Movie
  Posted 14 days ago with 10 member flags

Harvard To Be Tried for Alzheimer\'s Research Fraud
  Posted 7 days ago with 10 member flags

Man loses penis to flesh eating bacteria
  Posted 6 days ago with 9 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: