Stop Breast Cancer Before it Starts by Samuel S. Epstein MD & MD

Author:Samuel S. Epstein MD & MD
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: breast, cancer, pink ribbon, disease, health, women, statistics, prevention, cancer prevention, mammogram, treatment, chemotherapy, research, samuel epstein, wellness
Publisher: Seven Stories Press
Published: 2013-08-27T04:00:00+00:00

Appendix A

The American Cancer Society’s Reckless, If Not Criminal, Track Record on Prevention of Breast and Other Cancers

1977 The ACS opposed regulations for hair coloring products that contained dyes known to cause breast and liver cancer in rodents.

The ACS also called for a Congressional moratorium on the FDA’s proposed ban on saccharin and even advocated its use by nursing mothers and babies in “moderation,” despite clear-cut evidence of its carcinogenicity in rodents. This reflects the consistent rejection by the ACS of the importance of animal evidence as predictive of human cancer risk.

1984 The ACS created the October National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, funded and promoted by Zeneca, an offshoot of the UK Imperial Chemical Industry, a major manufacturer of petrochemical products. The ACS leads women to believe that mammography is their best hope against breast cancer. A recent ACS advertisement promised that “early detection results in a cure nearly 100% of the time.” Responding to questions from a journalist, an ACS communications director admitted: “The ad is based on a study. When you make an advertisement, you just say what you can to get women in the door. You exaggerate a point. Mammography today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business.” Even more seriously, the Awareness Month publications and advertisements studiously avoid any reference to the wealth of information on avoidable causes and prevention of breast cancer.

1989 Launched in 1989 by the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA) and the National Cosmetology Association, the Look Good . . . Feel Better Program was “dedicated to teaching women cancer patients beauty techniques to help restore their appearance and self-image during cancer treatment.”

Just what could be more noble? Or so it might just seem. The October 2005 Look Good Program was supported by 22 CTFA-member cosmetic companies, including multibillion-dollar household name global giants. Each year, member companies “donate over one million individual cosmetic and personal care products, valued at $10 million, and raise more than $2 million.” The Program was administered nationwide by the ACS, “which managed volunteer training, and served as the primary source of information to the public.”

There is no doubt that the products donated by the cosmetic companies, such as eye and cheek colors, lipsticks, moisture lotions, pressed powders and other makeup, are restorative. However, there is also no doubt that the ACS and the companies involved were oblivious to or strangely silent on the dangers of the Look Good products, whose ingredients were readily absorbed through the skin.

A review of twelve Look Good products, marketed by six companies, revealed that ten contained toxic ingredients. These pose risks of cancer, and also hormonal (endocrine disruptive) effects.

Evidence for the cancer risks is based on standard tests in rodents, and on human (epidemiological) studies. Evidence for the hormonal risks is based on test-tube tests with breast cancer cells, or by stimulating premature sexual development in infant rodents. Unbelievably, the ACS explicitly warns women undergoing cancer chemotherapy—“Don’t use hormonal creams.”

Take, for example, Estee Lauder’s LightSource Transforming Moisture Lotion, Chanel’s Sheer Lipstick, and Merle Norman Eye Color.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.