Cancer tutor secret product,how to remove blackheads in hindi language hindi,treat edema after labiaplasty,home swab test for herpes simplex - Plans On 2016

admin 28.07.2014

The American Cancer Society (ACS) made news waves when they disputed the findings of the President’s Cancer Panel on the role of toxins in causing cancer. Critics note that the ACS condemnation of the toxins report is far from the first time the Society has taken a stance that benefits those it has ties to while disputing expert reports and studies. Although the ACS annually pleads poverty, it actually takes in more money than any other US charity and has huge cash reserves, property and other assets – any pays out a relative pittance for actual research, prevention or patient services. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has increased 76 percent mostly due to phenoxy herbicides and phenylenediamine hair dyes. Testicular cancer has increased by 49 percent due to pesticides, harmful ingredients in personal care products and estrogen residues in meat.
Malignant melanoma has increased by 168 percent due to the use of toxic sunscreen products that fail to block long wave ultraviolet light. Childhood leukemia has increased by 55 percent due to ionizing radiation; domestic pesticides, nitrite preservatives in meats and parental exposures to occupational carcinogens. Ovarian cancer (mortality) for women over the age of 65 has increased by 47 percent in African American women and 13 percent in Caucasian women due largely to genital use of talc powder. Breast cancer has increased 17 percent due to a wide range of factors including birth control pills, estrogen replacement therapy, ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products, and mammogram and other diagnostic radiation. Almost two decades ago, the nation’s leading charity watch dog, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, warned against giving money to the American Cancer Society. Others have openly questioned whether the ACS serves those it has ties to more than it does the public it has pledged to serve.
Also unlike today’s ACS, the earlier ASCC recognized the impact of environmental causes of cancer. During the years of World War II, the ASCC became rebranded as the American Cancer Society and its board became increasingly infiltrated by people who were from American industry instead of doctors or scientists. Thus began a long history of the ACS stonewalling and taking positions counter to scientific evidence and in ways that benefited board members, donors and cancer causing industries. Following is a list of some of the more dubious actions and inactions by the ACS which indicate a clear pattern of obstruction and indifference when it comes to the causes of cancer and unresponsiveness in taking positive actions to serve the public in preventing and curing cancer.
1971 – When studies unequivocally proved that diethylstilbestrol (DES) caused vaginal cancers in teenaged daughters of women administered the drug during pregnancy, the ACS refused an invitation to testify at Congressional hearings to require the FDA to ban its use as an animal feed additive.
1977-78 – The ACS opposed proposed regulations for hair coloring products that contained dyes suspected of causing breast cancer despite clear evidence those chemicals were clear-cut liver and breast carcinogens. 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.

1983 – The ACS refused to join a coalition of the March of Dimes, American Heart Association, and the American Lung Association to support the Clean Air Act.
1992 – The ACS issued a joint statement with the Chlorine Institute supporting the continued global use of organochlorine pesticides despite clear evidence they caused breast cancer. 1994 – The ACS published a highly flawed study designed to trivialize cancer risks from the use of dark hair dyes. 1998 – The ACS allocated $330,000, less than 1 percent of its then $680 million budget, to research on environmental cancer. 2010 – The ACS indifference to cancer prevention other than smoking remains unchanged, despite the escalating incidence of cancer, and its billion dollar plus budget. In the past most ACS funds have come from public donations, and high-profile fund raising campaigns.
A close look at the heavy-hitters on the Foundation’s board and the big donors gives an idea of which interests are at play at the ACS.
In future installments of this series, we will examine the close relationships the American Cancer Society has with the pesticide, chemical, mammogram and cancer industries, the wealth and uncharitable performance of the ACS, how the ACS has wielded influence to suppress alternative treatments and more.
Though the new report echoes what other experts have maintained for years, the ACS went out of its way to attack the report and downplay the role of toxins. Indeed, the ACS dispute of the report is merely the latest in a long line of controversial stances that appear to be self-serving and against the public interest. Concerns over the safety and efficacy of mammograms have been widely reported dating all the way back to 1977, including several notable supporting studies supporting such concerns. After the JAMA paper, it was initially reported that the ACS would finally change their stance on mammograms – as they once did with tobacco after years of stonewalling. Due to its vast wealth as well as questionable actions such as donating to political campaigns, some have even called for the elimination of the ACS non-profit status. Instead, the ACS traces its roots to humble beginnings when a group of gynecologists formed theĀ  American Society for the Control of Cancer (ASCC) in 1913.
Such a proposal reflects the consistent rejection by the ACS of the value of animal evidence in predicting human cancer risk. The women were told tamoxifen was essentially harmless and could reduce their risk of breast cancer.
Examples cited included farm workers who apply the chemicals and work in the fields after the pesticides have been applied, and people living near aerially sprayed fields.
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.

Likewise, no mention was made of contamination of animals and dairy fats and produce with carcinogenic pesticide residues or the need to switch to safer organic foods.
However, over the last few decades, an increasing proportion of the ACS budget comes from large corporations, including the pharmaceutical, cancer, chemical and fast food industries. Isaacs articles are featured at Natural News, the Health Science Institute’s Healthiertalk website, CureZone, the Crusador online, AlignLife, the Cancer Tutor, the American Chronicle and several other venues. Many critics have questioned the ACS’s motives apparent conflicts of interest due to numerous ACS ties to chemical industries influence and donations. In spite of those studies and concerns, the ACS has remained a staunch supporter of mammograms. However, the pro-mammogram interests in the ACS apparently won out and such reports were later denied. Instead, the ACS has repeatedly rejected or ignored opportunities and requests from Congressional committees and other agencies and groups to provide scientific testimony critical to legislate and regulate a wide range of occupational and environmental carcinogens. The ASCC began with a simple goal: persuade physicians to learn how to look at the cervix and persuade women to allow regular exams. In 1992, the American Cancer Society Foundation was created to allow the ACS to solicit contributions of more than $100,000.
Amgen’s success has rested largely on the product Neupogen, which is administered to chemotherapy patients to stimulate their white blood cell production. The ACS showed little support or enthusiasm for British and American studies connecting smoking and cancer, including studies from researchers within the ACS. Isaacs also has The Best Years in Life website for baby boomers and others wishing to avoid prescription drugs and mainstream managed illness and live longer, healthier and happier lives naturally.
Even after massive studies provided evidence compelling evidence, the ACS still drug their feet. In addition, he hosts the Yahoo Oleandersoup Health group of over 2000 members and the CureZone Ask Tony Isaacs – Featuring Luella May forum. For years afterward, the ACS stance was that more data was required before any firm conclusion could be reached. Isaacs and his partner Luella May host The Best Years in Life Radio Show every Wednesday evening on The Wolf Spirit Radio Mr.

Have more energy in the morning 80
Herpes type 1 how contagious kissing
Alternative medicine magazine uk download
  • Aylin_05, 28.07.2014 at 19:34:55
    Sores or the fluids from the sores hen pox or genital herpes.
  • Elnur_Suretli, 28.07.2014 at 23:14:59
    Cationic antimicrobial peptides expressed by leukocytes and epithelial cells consideration of the.
  • SEVKA, 28.07.2014 at 19:22:37
    Infections (like genital herpes) as a result of its.
  • Puma, 28.07.2014 at 22:34:25
    Powder that broadly you to the identical provider that I used to get.
  • Simpson, 28.07.2014 at 11:55:23
    Kissing your family members for a while.