Dr. Robert Hadsell, Officer of Cancer Communications, NCI, "All testing by NCI has found no evidence of activity against cancer" by laetrile, in letters sent throughout the US and abroad.

Dr. Jesse Steinfeld, former Surgeon General of the USHS, Laetrile "has repeatedly been tested in animal tumour systems at the NCI. In no instance did laetrile have activity in any animal tumour system. There is no basis for the use of laetrile in man based on the data derived from experiments in animals," in an interoffice memo sent to Dept Heads of the Mayo Clinic, jan 1974.

Dr. Charles Moertel, of the Mayo Clinic, "Extensive animal tumour studies conducted independently at two outstanding cancer research centres—New York memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) and the Southern Research Institute-—have shown this drug to be totally without evidence of anticancer activity." In a letter published in the Rochester (Minn.) Post Bulletin, Jan 21 1974.

The facts are, as partially detailed in the letter of March 22, 1974 from Dean Burk to Seymour Perry, that positive, statistically highly significant, anticancer activity by Laetrile in animal tumour systems has been observed in at least 5 independent institutions in 3 widely separated countries of the world, with a variety of animal cancers;

1). Southern Research Institute (Birmingham Alabama), for the NCI, in a majority of 280 BDF1 mice bearing Lewis lung cancers, treated with up to 400 mg Laetrile (Amygdalin MF) per kg body weight, with respect to increased median life span (Dec 3, 1973).

2). Sloan Kettering (New York) with CD8 F1 mice bearing spontaneous mammary carcinomas, inhibition of formation of lung metastases, inhibition of growth of primary tumours, and greater health and appearance of animal hosts, upon treatment with 1-2 gm Laetrile/per kg body weight/day. (June 13, 1973)

3). Scind Laboratories, University of San Francisco, 400 rats bearing Walker 256 carcinoma (200 treated with Amygdalin, 200 controls), with 80% increase in life span at optimum dosage (500 mg Amgdalin/kg body weight). (Oct 10, 1968) Cf. FDA-IND 6734 application, pp. 247-248, 00080-00093. NCI Director Carl Baker wrote Congressman Edwin W. Edwards on Jan 26, 1971: "The data provided by the McNaughton Foundation certainly indicates some activity in animal tumour systems" (emphasis added).
http://www.whale.to/p/burk.html

The key word here is that the HCN must be FORMED. It is not floating around freely in the Laetrile and then released. It must be manufactured. The enzyme beta glucosidase, and only that enzyme, is capable of manufacturing the HCN from Laetrile. If there are no cancer cells in the body, there is no beta-glucosidase. If there is no beta-glucosidase, no HCN will be formed from the Laetrile (1).

Laetrile does contain the cyanide radical (CN). This same cyanide radical is contained in Vitamin B12, and in berries such as blackberries, blueberries and strawberries. You never hear of anyone getting cyanide poisoning from 12 or any of the above-mentioned berries, because they do not. The cyanide radical (CW) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are two completely different compounds, just as pure sodium (Na+) - one of the most toxic substances known to mankind - and sodium chloride (NaCl), which is table salt, are two completely different compounds.

If the above is true, how did the story ever get started that Laetrile contains "free" hydrogen cyanide? It was the Food and Drug Administration.

1. For a more detailed analysis of the theoretical action of Laetrile against cancer cells, see G. Edward Griffin, World Without Cancer (Thousand Oaks, CA: American Media, 1974).
http://worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/laetrileandcyanide.html

Following are additional complications from soy:

Myth: Soy estrogens (isoflavones) are good for you.

Truth: Soy isoflavones are phyto-endocrine disrupters. At dietary levels, they can prevent ovulation and stimulate the growth of cancer cells. Eating as little as 30 grams (about 4 tablespoons) of soy per day can result in hypothyroidism with symptoms of lethargy, constipation, weight gain and fatigue.

Myth: Soy foods are safe and beneficial for women to use in their postmenopausal years.

Truth: Soy foods can stimulate the growth of estrogen-dependent tumors and cause thyroid problems. Low thyroid function is associated with difficulties in menopause.

Myth: Phytoestrogens in soy foods can enhance mental ability.

Truth: A recent study found that women with the highest levels of estrogen in their blood had the lowest levels of cognitive function. In Japanese Americans tofu consumption in mid-life is associated with the occurrence of Alzheimer's disease in later life.

Myth: Asians consume large amounts of soy foods.

Truth: Average consumption of soy foods in Japan and China is 10 grams (about 2 teaspoons) per day. Asians consume soy foods in small amounts as a condiment, and not as a replacement for animal foods.

Myth: Modern soy foods confer the same health benefits as traditionally fermented soy foods.

Truth: Most modern soy foods are not fermented to neutralize toxins in soybeans, and are processed in a way that denatures proteins and increases levels of carcinogens.
http://www.fact-ltd.org/soyhype.html

Lie 1: Conventional medicine can cure your cancer.
Lie 2: It is criminal the way alternative medicine holds out false hope and diverts patients away from reliable medical treatment.
Lie 3: We put the patient's interests first.
You will notice that lie 2 refers back to lie 1.

Conventional medicine has three weapons against cancer.

1. Surgery
2. Chemotherapy
3. Radiation therapy

Surgery is successful if the cancer is removed before it has spread. So it could be described as a cure for cancer, just as amputation of the head cures headaches. I still have a sneaking feeling that it can't really be called a cure if you don't convert the cancerous tissue to healthy tissue.

Radiation therapy is based on the theory that your body is better at fighting the damage done by radiation therapy than the cancer is. So if you almost kill the body there is hope that you will completely kill the cancer. It occasionally has been known to work so that can be classified as a cure, if the body replaces the killed tissue with healthy tissue.

http://healthforu.info/health/diethealth/Cancer-Diets-Lies.php

People running the scam are not interested in facts. The fact is that cobalamine is another vitamin that our bodies need and it also contains cyanide. Apricot kernels are in fact classified as very low-risk, indeed much lower risk than the chemotherapy for which the drug companies are desperate to prevent competitors. Chemotherapy does kill you, but it is never diagnosed as chemotherapy poisoning. Instead it is recorded as a death from pneumonia or whatever other complaint the chemotherapy encouraged.

I have been eating a tablespoon of apricot kernels each day for more than a dozen years and don't expect to die of cyanide poisoning.

Vitamin C

The only possible justification for the drug company myths that vitamin C can kill you is that Pauling tried injecting massive doses directly into the bloodstream of people with large advanced tumours. It killed the tumour completely...no half measures. The only trouble is that it couldn't remove the tumour, which started rotting in place. The toxins released by the rotting tumour killed the patient.

Drug companies are terrified that people will discover that injectable vitamin C is more effective than antibiotics, especially now that so many bacteria are resistant to antibiotics. Dr Bellfield, a veterinary surgeon in California injects 200000mg of injectable vitamin C into dogs to cure conditions considered by the drug companies to be incurable such as hip dysplasia and viral hepatitis. Yes C can fight viruses but antibiotics can't, so when your doctor gives you an antibiotic for viral infection his only motive is profit.

There is one tiny bit of truth in the drug company stories. C will cause diarrhoea. That is how you know not to take too much. It is a rich man's medicine if you plan to take it every day. All you do is start with 500mg three times per day. If that gives you diarrhoea cut down the quantity. If it doesn't, increase the quantity until your body tells you that it can't handle the quantity, then back off a little. So the diarrhoea is actually a useful guide, not the end of the world as the drug companies would like you to think.

http://healthforu.info/health/diethealth/Deadly-Diet-Lies.php

Most dermatologists will say this increase is due to the fact that more people are getting far too much sun exposure in their younger years.

A closer look at the matter, however, reveals a far different story. Skin cancer awareness programs have been effective at increasing the number of people undergoing full-body screening exams, and the result is a huge increase in the number of skin biopsies being performed. It seems that even with biopsies there is still considerable confusion and disagreement among pathologists when it comes to identifying melanoma. It’s apparently not a cut-and-dried diagnosis.

Looking at the same tissue, one pathologist will see a benign lesion while another will see it as melanoma. Thus, the dramatic increase in biopsies has led to more melanoma diagnoses, many of which are false, as a new study shows.
http://stanford.wellsphere.com/cancer-article/does-sun-exposure-cause-skin-cancer/521827

Abide by these instructions and it could spell disaster for your health. By following their "no safe level of sun exposure" rule, you'll put yourself at higher risk for deadly cancers, heart disease and more.

It's time to set the record straight. Real science supports more, not less, sun exposure. If you know how to safely take advantage of the sun, you'll live a happier, longer life for it. You'll see how to enjoy the warm, golden, mood-lifting rays of the sun once again.

The True Crisis is a Deficiency of Vitamin D
When the sun's rays strike your skin, an amazing hormonal reaction begins. Your skin absorbs the light and uses it to make vitamin D3. Think of it as the human version of photosynthesis.
http://www.rense.com/general75/uv.htm

Here is what they apparently are objecting to.

The FDA and FTC state that it is LEGAL for DRUG Companies to advertise known harmful DRUGS, drugs that have been documented to kill and maim patients, as “SAFE and EFFECTIVE” for the prevention and treatment of disease.

But the FDA – and the other puppets for the Pharmaceutical Industry - your Senators and Congressmen - have now made it ILLEGAL for anyone to sell natural, wholesome FOOD, if one claims eating GOOD FOOD can help in the prevention and treatment of disease.

The FDA and FTC say that we are “allowed” to say that good food can “promote” or “maintain” health, but we are NOT allowed to say that good food can “prevent disease.” That last statement has now been declared ILLEGAL – it is “against the law.”

Yet Webster’s dictionary DEFINES “Health” as the “Freedom from Disease.” So if a food “helps maintain HEALTH”, by definition – it helps PREVENT disease. THAT is truth!

But the FDA and FTC now say that such a claim is against the law. They have declared it against the law to TELL TRUTH!

Obviously, the goal of both the FDA and the FTC is to PROTECT the obscene profits of the Pharmaceutical companies, at the expense of the health of all Americans.
http://www.drday.com/rumors/ftc_letter.htm

Finally, here is a brief history of the American Cancer Society, again with significant portions in CAPITAL LETTERS. Please note that the organization was called "The American Society For The Control Of Cancer" when it first began. I suppose that as greed, avarice, hunger for power and money set in, the name changed to just, the big, fat, do-nothing name, "The American Cancer Society." Here we go:

"The American Cancer Society was founded in 1913 as the American Society for the Control of Cancer (ASCC) THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY WAS FOUNDED IN 1913 AS THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE CONTROL OF CANCER by fifteen prominent physicians and business leaders in New York City. It was one of the most remarkable moments in the history of public health.

In those early days, cancer was rarely mentioned in public. The disease was steeped in a climate of fear and denial. CANCER CLAIMED 75,000 LIVES A YEAR IN THE U.S. ALONE. The Society's founders knew they had to bring cancer out of the closet if progress was to be made. The number of doctors, nurses, patients and family members who had to be reached was overwhelming. Despite the enormity of their task, the founders and their colleagues set about writing articles for popular magazines and professional journals, publishing Campaign Notes, a monthly bulletin of cancer information, and recruiting physicians throughout the country to help educate the public.
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/american-cancer-societymission.html

This list includes CANCER, ARTHRITIS, DIABETES, HEART DISEASE, and hundreds of other "names" of ailments which the establishment has secured patents on. They own the words of all the diseases and the words TREAT, CURE, MITIGATE etc. If I sell you string beans for you diabetes, I am now selling an illegal unapproved drug. No matter how many people we CURED with apricot seeds, the vitamin B-17 that is found in them and some other aids, it does not matter. As a matter of fact, we have had over a 90 percent success rate with the apricot seeds and other aids, but our records do not matter.

A chemical will never cure cancer. There has never been a chemical drug that has cured any ongoing chronic metabolic disease. But the law is set up so that only a chemical is allowed to Cure a disease. If it's not approved by the FDA, it is not allowed to be used in the treatment for a disease. Only pharmaceutical companies have the money to get something approved. (Approval testings cost approx. 50-300 million dollars)
http://www.apricotsfromgod.info/politics.htm

Lynes told Health Action '92 that the US Court of Appeals for New York, in 1987, ruled that the patient has a legal right to unconventional cancer treatment. This critically important judicial decision is not the law throughout the United States, but has set a precedent. Lynes also cited a much older US law going back to 1847, made by a US Supreme Court judge who ruled that the individual may resist that which does him or her harm, be it an assassins assault, or a groups attempt to poison.

The critical thing to remember, Lynes counsels, is that it is the fundamental right of the citizen to resist. Another point that Lynes brings up was a Supreme Court decision in 1990, [Cruzan v. Missouri, June 25, 1990] "a competent person has a liberty interest under the due process clause in refusing unwanted medical treatment."

Chemotherapy, according to Lynes, is a useless poison, and he makes his case by referring to research done in 1990 by a top statistician in Germany. Ulrich Abel, Ph.D., spent a year, reviewing numerous chemotherapy trials [several thousand articles]. His conclusion was that chemotherapy cannot extend life when it comes to cancer of the major organs.
http://www.apricotsfromgod.info/curesuppression.htm

Contrary to popular belief and assurances by the U. S. media and the cancer establishment- the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and American Cancer Society (ACS)- mammography is not a technique for early diagnosis. In fact, a breast cancer has usually been present for about eight years before it can finally be detected. Furthermore, screening should be recognized as damage control, rather than misleadingly as "secondary prevention."
http://www.preventcancer.com/patients/mammography/ijhs_mammography.htm

In sharp contrast, NCI makes little or no effort to warn the public of well-documented risks, based on experimental and/or epidemiological evidence, from unknowing exposure to a wide range of industrial carcinogens, including those in consumer products, food, cosmetics, toiletries, and household products. As importantly, the National Cancer Institute has also failed to warn of potential carcinogenic risks on the basis of incomplete or suggestive, although not definitive, evidence and also to direct high priority to research and advocacy on such risks. Such failure disregards fundamental principles of public health and the scientific basis of the Precautionary Principle. This mandates the categorical responsibility of industry to provide unequivocal evidence on the safety of any new candidate product or process before its introduction into commerce, thereby ensuring that it does not pose potential or recognized human or environmental risks.
http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/nci/nci_fails_to_share.htm

Teaming up with taxpayer-supported NCI and “charitable” ACS was a masterful public relations coup for AstraZeneca, providing the company with valuable, albeit undeserved, goodwill from millions of American women.

AstraZeneca profits from treating breast cancer, and hopes to profit still more from the prospects of large-scale national use of Tamoxifen for breast cancer "prevention." The NCI and the ACS both embraced AstraZeneca's new drug, aggressively launching a "chemoprevention" program in 1992 aimed at recruiting 16,000 healthy women at "high risk" of breast cancer. The five-year clinical trial claimed that Tamoxifen reduced breast cancer risks by 30 percent. The risks of this toxic drug, including potentially fatal uterine cancer and blood clots, were noted but trivialized. As the trials progressed, it became clear that the risk of serious complications outweighed professed benefits. Women have still not been informed about delayed risks of liver cancer. Equally troubling, neither the ACS nor the NCI has pursued evidence that regular use of a cheap, nonpatented, over-the-counter drug—aspirin—has been shown to reduce risks of breast cancer. (A 1996 study found that women who took aspirin three times a week for five years reduced their risk by up to 30 percent, a finding worth pursuing.)
http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/nci/drug_ties.htm

According to Clinical Oncology for Medical Students and Physicians (published jointly by the University of Rochester School of Medicine and the American Cancer Society) even massaging the tumor should be avoided. It says:

"Massage of tumor is followed by massively increased numbers of circulating tumor cells in the blood stream... Experimental data further suggest that surgical trauma decreases natural host resistance to the formation of metastasis... Needle biopsy is occasionally used, [but]... a needle track may harbor nests of cells which may form the basis for a later recurrent spread. Incisional biopsy of certain highly malignant tumors through an open operative field may be contraindicated because the risk of spread of the tumor throughout the operative field"
http://worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/biopsies.html

Twenty years ago I was hired at Memorial Sloane Kettering (MSK) cancer centre in New York as the science writer, later promoted to assistant director of public affairs. Shortly after I went to work there I went to visit an elderly Japanese scientist, Kanematsu Sugiura, who astonished me when he told me he was working on Laetrile (B17), at the time it was the most controversial thing in cancer, reputed to be a cure for cancer. We in public affairs were giving out statements that Laetrile was worthless, it was quackery, and people should not abandon proven therapies. I was astonished that our most distinguished scientist would be bothering with something like this, and I said why are you doing this if it does not work. He took down lab books and showed me that in fact Laetrile is dramatically effective in stopping the spread of cancer. The animals were genetically programmed to get breast cancer and about 80 - 90% of them normally get spread of the cancer from the breast to the lungs which is a common route in humans, also for how people die of breast cancer, and instead when they gave the animals Laetrile by injection only 10-20% of them got lung metasteses. And these facts were verified by many people, including the pathology department.
http://worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/ralphmoss.html

• The PSA test, used to screen men for detecting prostate cancer has been declared all but useless by a pioneer in the procedure.
• Dr. Stamey and colleagues examined more than 1,300 prostate tissue samples removed by urologists at Stanford over the past 20 years.
• In the first five-year group, 43 percent had a prostate cancer relationship to PSA testing, that relationship dropped to only 2 percent in the most recent group.
• "Our study raises a very serious question of whether a man should even use the PSA test for prostate cancer screening any more," said Dr. Stamey, referring to his study published in the October issue of the Journal of Urology.
• In 1987, Dr. Stamey, the pioneer in PSA testing published his original findings in the New England Journal of Medicine showing that increased blood PSA levels could be used to indicate prostate cancer.
• However, now, Dr. Stamey believes the PSA test is not a useful predictor of prostate cancer, but only reflects a harmless increase in prostate size.
• Dr. Stamey also believes it's time to stop removing every man's prostate who has prostate cancer.
• "We originally thought we were doing the right thing, but we are now figuring out how we went wrong.
• All men will get prostate cancer if they live long enough, said Dr. Stamey, and if there is an excuse such an elevated PSA test, a biopsy will be performed, and cancer will be found.
• But the cancer found will likely be insignificant.
• Dr. stamey recommends a yearly digital rectal exam for all men over 50, as opposed to PSA testing to detect prostate cancer.
• "If a cancer is felt in the prostate during a rectal examination, it is always a significant cancer and certainly needs treatment," Dr. Stamey said.
http://www.lifeone.org/prostate_cancer.html

"Dr. Andrew C. Ivy, who has been conducting research upon this drug, is absolutely honest intellectually, scientifically, and in every other way. Moreover, he appears to be one of the most competent and unbiased cancer experts that I have ever come in contact with, having served on the board of the American Cancer Society and the American Medical Association and in that capacity having been called upon to evaluate various types of cancer therapy. Dr. George G. Stoddard, President of the University of Illinois, in assisting in the cessation of Dr. Ivy's research on cancer at the University of Illinois, and in recommending the abolishment of the latter's post as Vice President of that institution, has in my opinion shown attributes of intolerance for scientific research in general."

It is a matter of common knowledge that the entire subject matter is highly controversial and thus further and additional research and development would entail more time. A controversy among renowned Surgeons, Pathologists, Cancerologists and Radiologists should not deter or silence this Committee from carrying out the mandate contemplated and expressly directed by the late Chairman of your Committee, Senator Charles W. Tobey, by virtue of the resolution passed by the Senate.
http://www.whale.to/a/report_cancer.html

It’s strange to think that I can still remember the smell after all this time. The year was 1978, not long after my 15th birthday, and I’d sneaked into my brother’s bedroom. There, on a wall of shelves that stretched to the ceiling, were the heaviest books we had in our house—24 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The maroon spines were coated in a film of dust, I remember. The pages smelled as if a musty old pillow had been covered in mint.

I carefully pulled out the volume marked HALICARNASSUS TO IMMINGHAM and turned to the entry for Hodgkin’s disease. It took forever to read the half-dozen paragraphs, the weighty book spread open on my lap like a Bible. There was talk of a mysterious “lymphatic system,” of “granulomas” and “gamma rays,” as though this disease—the one the doctor had just told me I had—was something out of science fiction. But the last line I understood all too well: Seventy-five percent of the people who got it would die within five years.
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/conventional-cancer-treatment.html

But this hasn't happened. Quite the opposite. A casual examination of the Internet shows that information in regard to hydrazine sulfate is composed of a mixture of “endorsements” of hydrazine sulfate from individual patients and their advocates—and the seemingly authoritative disparagement of it by cancer establishment sources. It is this “condemnation” of hydrazine sulfate I wish to address—the scientific gobbledygook of so-called studies, side effects, carcinogenicity, toxicity, cautions, critiques and inferences woven together by our cancer agencies' most talented “spin doctors” into a web of outright misrepresentations, deception and scientific fraud. (As an example of this fraud, NCI has posted an entry on the Internet, “date last modified: 6/18/04,” stating “hydrazine sulfate has shown no anticancer activity in randomized clinical trials,” which as will be seen is patently untrue and does not reflect the ten years of randomized clinical trials performed by Harbor-UCLA Medical Center from 1981-1990 and the many published, peer-reviewed clinical studies based on that body of work.)
http://www.hydrazinesulfate.org/

As background, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a variety of new drugs over the past few years that, at best, are minimally effective. Sometimes, they confer a few months of extra survival; oftentimes there is no proof that they do even that. They also may carry an increased risk of serious side effects, and in almost every case they are very expensive.

According to the Times authors, "for many such uses there is scant clinical evidence that the drugs are effective, despite costing as much as $10,000 a month." Medicare approval may therefore waste money and needlessly expose patients to the adverse effect of drugs that might hurt them, and make their final months more miserable.
http://www.cancerdecisions.com/020109.html

However, the environmental factor has been vigorously defended by many scientists such as Dr. Samuel Epstein,
author of The Politics of Cancer. In the US alone there are currently some one million cases of cancer with a death rate of just over 60 per cent. As The Cancer Conspiracy points out the cancer war is a lost one despite the billions of dollars spent on research and treatment. In fact, if we consider the total social cost of cancer, it is clear that prevention would be far less costly. The trouble is that cancer treatment is a business and the private sector discounts social costs in favour of profits with the condonation and collusion of government. Surely we cannot avoid making the charge of corporate crime for companies responsible for the release of carcinogens into our environment. Nor could we ever account for the human cost of suffering by patients and their loved ones.
http://members.shaw.ca/cancerconspiracy/cancerconspiracy.pdf

The ANH has released its critique on the study by Dr Jennifer Lin and colleagues at the Harvard Medical School, which concludes that the lack of effects demonstrated could have been predicted before the start of the 8-year study involving over 7,600 women with heart disease or high risk of it who averaged 60 years of age.

“This study was destined from the outset to obtain a negative result” said Dr Damien Downing, medical director of ANH, a practicing medical doctor who has practiced nutritional and environmental medicine for over 25 years. Dr Downing also criticized the journal editor for publishing the study “in the knowledge that the data do not support the conclusions."
http://www.healthfreedom.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=649&Itemid

The paper was based on all of the randomized, controlled clinical trials Australia and the US that reported a statistically significant increase in 5-year survival due to the use of chemotherapycovering the period January 1990 until January 2004. The study concluded that chemotherapy contributes to slightly over 2% to improved survival in cancer patients.

The following appeared in the Los Angeles Times on August 18, 1973, under the heading: CANCER "CURE" LAETRILE

Helene Brown, FDA spokesperson, ... said:
... there are now 10 kinds of cancer which can be cured or controlled by chemotherapy—the treatment of disease by drugs.

Less than a month later, while speaking at an ACS national conference on cancer nursing, Mrs. Brown said flatly: "Present medical knowledge makes it possible to cure seventy percent of cancers, if they are detected early."
http://alternativecancer.us/conventional.htm#Chemo

Here, you'll learn:

• The top 18 causes of breast cancer that you can control or change
• How breast cancer provides billions in profits for drug companies
• Why the breast cancer industry isn't looking for a real cure
• Which simple nutrient prevents 77% of ALL cancers
• The latest research on natural breast cancer prevention therapies that really work
• Names and web addresses of my top recommended anti-cancer herbs and supplements
• The real reason why cancer mortality is much higher in blacks than whites (and why you were never told the truth about this...)
• The shocking truth about the miserable failure of over-hyped breast cancer drugs
• How chemotherapy causes permanent organ damage to cancer patients
• Why "pink products" are often just a marketing sham
• Why the cancer industry ultimately doesn't want people to prevent cancer
• How certain cancer non-profits are actually front groups for Big Pharma
• How the cancer industry victimizes black women by keeping them ignorant of simple cancer prevention strategies
• The truth about deadly mammograms (and why mammography harms ten times as many women as it helps!)
• The top 22 ways to prevent or even cure breast cancer
• Which anti-cancer foods work best to halt tumor growth
• How the male-dominated cancer industry exploits women for corporate profits
• Which breast cancer non-profit you can really trust!
• Which herb from the Amazon rainforest shows powerful anti-tumor activity
• Why your geographic location on the planet impacts your breast cancer risk (includes graphs)
• Why running in circles to raise money for a "cancer cure" is a complete waste of time
• How top cancer non-profits have abandoned cancer prevention in favor of screening and "treatment"

http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_Breast_Cancer_Deception_0.html