In January 2005, cancer became the leading cause of death in the United States. Each year about 211,000 cases of breast cancer are diagnosed in the USA. The number of new breast cancer cases increased from 82 per 100,000 women in 1973 to 195 per 100,000 women in 2000. The main cause of death prior to that was heart disease. The estimated death rate from breast cancer is 40,600: 40,200 females and 400 males.

Much is said in the public media about a genetic link with this cancer. Yet, genetics play only a small role in the development of breast cancer — less than 7 percent. In the September 8, 2006 issue of USA TODAY one of the lead articles was on Killer Cancer Genes ID’d. It mentioned that 122 breast cancer-causing genes have been identified. The scientist quoted in the article mentioned that we may not be able to tackle all the genes in a tumor but that we may have to work on silencing the cancer-causing genes. Doctors in the future may find that silencing even one of these genes could be enough to keep a tumor in check or kill it. They mention in the article that treatments could be a decade or more to develop.

Yet, the technology for tomorrow is here today in the supplements we have at our disposal. For example, methylation of DNA and gene silencing are affected by nutrition. Many articles exist on silencing genes and how the use of methyl-folic acid, methyl-vitamin B12, selenium, trimethylglycine powder and zinc help to methylate the DNA.
http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/breast-health-iodine-other-nutrients.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=oaw-june162009

This is particularly ironic, because unarguably, it was excitement over the hypothesized anticancer effects of soy, an area first funded by the National Cancer Institute in 1991, which initially drew attention to the health effects of soyfoods (1).

This article attempts to briefly highlight those studies most pertinent to this controversy so that dietitians are better able to advise their clients about this issue.
Background

The low breast cancer mortality rates in soyfood-consuming countries, particularly Japan, combined with the knowledge that weak estrogens, such as the soybean isoflavones, can exert antiestrogenic effects in some situations, logically led to speculation that soy might reduce breast cancer risk. Isoflavones, which are found in nutritionally relevant amounts only in soybeans, have a similar chemical structure to estrogen but have traditionally beenconsidered to be weak estrogens. Early support for the protective effects of soy against breast cancer came in the form of an animal study published in 1990, which reported that rats fed diets containing soy developed approximately 50% fewer chemically-induced mammary tumors than control rats (2). One year later, a case-control study conducted in Singapore reported that soy intake was associated with an approximate 50% reduction in premenopausal breast cancer risk (3).
http://www.vegetarian-nutrition.info/vn/soy_breast_cancer.php

Most people remain unaware that soy is known to contain an array of potent chemical toxins. The modern manufacturing processes of high-profit industries make no effort to remove these potent toxins. High levels of phytic acid, trypsin inhibitors, toxic lysinoalanine and highly carcinogenic nitrosamines are all present in soy products.

Phytoestrogens that disrupt endocrine function and are potent antithyroid agents are present in vast quantities in soy, including the potentially devastating isoflavone Genistein. Infants exclusively fed soy-based formula have 13,000 to 22,000 times more estrogen compounds in their blood than babies fed milk-based formula, the estrogenic equivalent of at least five birth control pills per day. Premature development of girls has been linked to the use of soy formula, as has the underdevelopment of males. Infant soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.

Soy is linked to infertility, breast cancer, hypothyroidism, thyroid cancer, and many other disorders.

"Imagine drugs that are known, by years of scientific documentation, to be both carcinogenic and to also cause DNA and chromosome damage being prescribed and administered through the food supply to populations of many countries around the world without the knowledge or consent of the individuals consuming these foods ... with no way to track dosage, individual reactions, or harmful side-effects ... and without any concern for some people’s increased vulnerability to these drugs, such as cancer patients. It sounds crazy, but that is exactly what is happening around the world when Soy is added to our food supply. Soy contains the scientifically documented carcinogenic and DNA damaging and chromosome damaging natural chemicals genistein and daidzein." - True Health, the magazine of Carotec Inc., Naples, Florida. May/June 2004.
http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/

Epidemiologic Evidence of anAbortion/Breast Cancer Link

Two Japanese studies showed a positive association between induced abortion and breast cancer: a 1957 study reported a statistically significant relative risk of 2.61, and a 1968 study found a relative risk of 1.51. A landmark 1970 study by MacMahon et al. showed that childbearing was helpful in reducing breast cancer risk. The study estimated that ?women having their first child when aged under 18 years have only about one-third the breast cancer risk of those
whose first birth is delayed until the age of 35 years or more.? Their findings indicated that abortion might be an independent risk factor for the disease. Results ?suggested increased risk associated with abortion?contrary to the reduction in risk associated with full-term births.?
http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf

As the word spread, executives from Estée Lauder and Self magazine asked Haley for permission to use her ribbon. Haley refused, and Self magazine was startled by Haley's answer. “She wanted nothing to do with us. Said we were too commercial.” But they really wanted to have her ribbon. They consulted their lawyers and were advised to come up with another color. They chose pink, a color that focus groups say is ‘soothing, comforting and healing’—everything breast cancer is not. Soon Charlotte Haley’s grassroots peach ribbon was history, and the pink ribbon became the worldwide symbol for breast cancer.

Breast cancer has become the darling of corporate America. Companies use the pink ribbon to sell their products and boost their image with consumers as they boost their bottom line. Meanwhile, breast cancer rates continue to rise every year. Ending the breast cancer epidemic will take more than just pink ribbons and awareness. Learn more about pink ribbon marketing and what you can do to help create real change to end the breast cancer epidemic.
http://bcaction.org/index.php?page=politics-faq#Q4

Most of the products out there are an anti-perspirant/deodorant combination, check yours! Deodorant is fine, anti-perspirant is not. Here's why: The human body has a few areas that it uses to purge toxins; behind the knees, behind the ears, groin area, and armpits. The toxins are purged in the form of perspiration. Anti-perspirant, as the name clearly indicates, prevents you from perspiring, thereby inhibiting the body from purging toxins from below the armpits. These toxins do not just magically disappear. Instead, the body deposits them in the lymph nodes below the arms since it cannot sweat them out. Nearly all breast cancer tumors occur in the upper outside quadrant of the breast area. This is precisely where the lymph nodes are located. Additionally, men are less likely (but not completely exempt) to develop breast cancer prompted by anti-perspirant usage because most of the anti-perspirant product is caught in their hair and is not directly applied to the skin. Women who apply anti-perspirant right after shaving increase the risk further because shaving causes almost imperceptible nicks in the skin which give the chemicals entrance into the body from the armpit area. PLEASE pass this along to anyone you care about. Breast cancer is becoming frighteningly common. This awareness may save lives.
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/breastcancer.htm#deodorant

Mammograms are basically x-rays to the breast involving ionizing radiation. (Nuclear bombs also emit ionizing radiation.) The procedure involves severe compression to the breast tissue each time a film is taken. For screening purposes, it is common for a woman to receive a total of four x-ray films taken per visit to a mammogram clinic. This involves two angles of each breast filmed, resulting in a total of four films typically taken per visit. But, if something suspicious shows up, it is not uncommon to have extra films taken for clarification, resulting in more ionizing radiation administered to the breast tissue and more physical and possibly damaging compression.

I believe there are three main reasons NOT to get mammograms for cancer screening
purposes:
1) THE RADIATION REASON
(The radiation involved may CAUSE cancer.)

2) THE COMPRESSION REASON
(The severe tissue compression involved may induce metastases if a tumor already exits.)

3) THE INEFFECTIVENESS REASON
(Mammography is an extremely INEFFECTIVE diagnostic tool involving high numbers of false positives and false negatives. It requires follow-up invasive surgical biopsy for certainty.)
http://www.outsmartyourcancer.com/pdf/MammogramArtcileForSite.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msoyRYSoSJk&o=1672350&u=53089598&l=1608440&g=6810

It’s sensitivity has been successfully demonstrated in lesions as small as 4 mm. Additionally, DII, can now be used in the clinical monitoring of localized breast cancer to access therapeutic response. In conjunction with mammography and ultrasound, DII can be utilized in the early detection of breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION
Mammography is considered to be the “gold standard” technology for the diagnosis of breast cancer. However, serious deficiencies in this regard are well documented in both medical and lay publications. In recent NY Times articles, several focused on the debate over mammography, acknowledging that 20 to 25% of existing cancers are missed in women under age 50 [1]. Even as improved film-screen technology, digital mammography, MRI, high resolution ultrasound , and PET scanning present their cases, the call for additional, more sensitive and more effective methodology, continues unabated.. As reported in Medical Imaging Magazine [2], many of the newest modalities fall short in breast cancer screening. Digital mammography’s recent introduction into the breast cancer diagnostic weapons cache, while accompanied by considerable fanfare, is not likely to significantly lower the false negative rate in dense breasts. MRI still is not a practical screening tool because of expense, the need to inject a contrast agent, and non-specificity, with similar drawbacks for PET.
http://www.infraredsciences.com/pdf/IEEE%20Biomedical%20Imag.pdf

The digital infrared imaging (DII) discussed herein has 99% detection sensitivity in a study of 109 tissue proven cases of breast cancer. Its sensitivity has been successfully demonstrated in lesions as small as 4 mm. Additionally, DII, can now be used in the clinical monitoring of localized breast cancer to access therapeutic response. In conjunction with mammography and ultrasound, DII can be utilized in the early detection of breast cancer.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F9009%2F28599%2F01279447.pdf&authDecision=-203

She started the flax oil. For the first few days she felt more tired than ever. The fourth day she began to feel a surge of energy. She continued to feel stronger and stronger. Within a couple of weeks she felt so good that she re-joined all the clubs and activities that she had to abandon before. She went on a trip to Eastern Canada that involved a lot of walking and said that she had no problems at all.

Two weeks ago she had an appointment with the surgeon and found that the other breast was fine and that she had no sign of problems. He told her to come back in a year for another check-up.

She phoned me yesterday to thank me again for the info that gave her life back. According to her, she was already taking vitamin supplements and good eating habits but it was the flax oil that made this miraculous difference. She said that she would continue to take the 5 tablespoons of flax oil in yogurt.
Andy
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/breastcancerhealingtestimonies.html

That Harvard study fascinated me and I searched the medical literature for possible explanations. In January 1996, I discovered the book by Singer and Grismaijer and their explanation of impaired lymphatic flow intrigued me. I have since read everything that I can find on lymphatic flow. What I have found has amazed me, but that is another story. I can supply you with lots of info if you like. In essence, what Singer and Grismaijer found was that the odds of getting breast cancer dramatically increased with bra-wearing over 12 hours per day.
http://www.all-natural.com/bras.html

In the shower, Syd noticed that Soma's shoulders and breasts were outlined by dark red grooves. He remembered a puzzled Fijian woman asking his wife about her brassiere:

"Doesn't it feel tight?"

"You get used to it," Soma had replied.

Could bras be constricting breast tissue, Syd wondered, hampering lymph drainage and causing degeneration?

Soma decided to stop wearing hers. But when Syd searched the medical literature he found no known causes of breast cancer, which rarely appears before a woman's mid-thirties, most often after 40. The highest death rates from breast cancer are in North America and northern Europe, with the developing world catching up fast.
http://www.chetday.com/breastcancerandbras.htm

In fact, hundreds of studies have linked high intake of these fruits and vegetables with reduced risk of breast (and other types of) cancer. A good motto is “Eat Eight”—8 or more 1/2 cup servings of fruits and vegetables each day. Foods richest in cancer fighting nutrients are fruits and vegetables that are organically-raised, locally grown, fresh and in season. Select those with the deepest colors (e.g., a pale tomato has much less lycopene than a vine ripened, deep red organic one).

[2] Diet influences detoxification. Detoxification enzymes in the liver are responsible for clearing toxins we are exposed to on a daily basis. Constituents found in healthy foods (e.g., chlorophyll in leafy green vegetables, garlic, broccoli, lemons and citrus and many other foods) can optimize the enzymes that remove carcinogens or prevent their activation.

[3] A healthy diet reduces inflammation. Studies since the 1980’s have linked the use of anti-inflammatory medications with a reduced risk of many cancers, including breast cancer. Systemic inflammation (which is generally without observable symptoms) is a significant factor in developing breast cancer, and also in the progression of established cancers.

A diet that prevents a chronic inflammatory state can help prevent breast cancer, as well as be useful for those with diagnosed breast cancer. To help control inflammation, avoid refined processed carbohydrates and sweets, eat foods rich in omega-3 fats (cold-water fish, flaxseeds, walnuts, grass-fed meat dairy and poultry, high-omega-3 eggs). Limit excessive intake of omega-6 fats from vegetable oils (except olive oil), commercially raised meat dairy and poultry.

http://www.breasthealthproject.com/nutrition.html

Take Herceptin (trastuzumab). In October2005, The New England journal of Medicine sparked a huge reaction when it published studies which showed that adding Herceptin to standard cancer therapy reduced the recurrence rate of certain breast cancers. Herceptin was an "astonishingly effective... wonder drug", enthused the media, while doctors talked of "revolutionary", "stunning", "jaw-dropping" findings. In the NEJM, Jo Anne Zujewski of the US National Cancer Institute, wrote: "In 1991, I didn't know... we would cure breast cancer... in 2005, I'm convinced we have", and in an editorial, Gabriel Hortobagyi of the MD Anderson Cancer Center: "This observation suggests a dramatic and perhaps permanent perturbation of the natural history of the disease, and may even be a cure."

And the reality? In September 1998, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "fast-tracked" Herceptin for advanced (metastatic) breast cancer in women whose tumours carried the HER/2-neu marker: 25 to 30 percent of those with advanced cancer. Herceptin on its own shrinks tumours in around 15 per cent of cases; in combination, it extends life by on average about five months against chemotherapy alone.
http://martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/wonder_drugs2.html

These organizations, and many others, are interested in one thing, and one thing only - your money. Quite frankly none of them could care less about you or your baby. If you want a healthy baby YOU are going to have to do a lot of homework. As much as you may like and trust your medical doctor, remember that he or she was trained by medical schools that have been controlled by the pharmaceutical industry for many decades.

Let's play a little game to see if I am right. After studying the items I talk about, and after studying the articles I link to below, ask yourself this question: "How many of these things did my doctor tell me about?" This is not to cast blame on your doctor, but to point out to you that your doctor has essentially been trained by corporations who are more interested in their "earnings per share" than they are interested in your baby.

The things a mother eats, and doesn't eat, and puts on her body, both during pregancy and during breast feeding, can have a profound effect on the intellect, memory, mental problems, etc. of their baby. Early childhood problems such as ADD, ADHD, brain cancer, autism, etc. may be primarily caused by the things a mother eats, and doesn't eat, during pregnancy and breast feeding.
http://www.cancertutor.com/Pregnant.html

Some of the cells in a developing fetus are very similar to cancer cells! Alternative cancer people generally call these cells "trophoblastic" cells. Whether orthodox medicine uses this term I do not know.

But the important thing to understand is that these fetal cells are very similar to cancer cells. For example, they have high energy, are fast growing and probably have a very low "voltage."

Alternative cancer treatments can be divided into two general groups:
First, those that target the cancer cells DIRECTLY,
Second, those that target the cancer cells INDIRECTLY.

For example, the herb Paw Paw targets cancer cells directly by "looking for" (this, of course, is a metaphoric term) cells that consume high energy levels. Paw Paw then kills the cancer cells, which consume high amounts of energy. Unfortunately, many fetal cells also have this same property, and Paw Paw may kill these cells also!! Thus, the major manufacturer of Paw Paw does not recommend their herb be taken by pregnant women or women who might become pregnant.

But what I want you to understand is that not all alternative cancer treatments, that could kill fetal cells, come with such a warning!! You cannot depend on your vendor to know what is going on!! It is rare when pregnant women get cancer, and many vendors (and alternative practitioners) simply haven't run into this problem, so they don't know about it.
http://www.cancertutor.com/Other02/Pregnant_With_Cancer.html

Root canals create a safe-haven for cancer-causing bacteria. These cancer-causing microbes do not originate in the root canals. Rather, the microbe originates in the breasts and then some of them live the "good life" while hiding in the root canal(s), free from any interference of the immune system.

What Dr. Rau proved was that a bacteria-type microbe caused breast cancer. This has been known for over a century, but orthodox medicine refuses to acknowledge this obvious fact. See the book: Four Women Against Cancer, by Dr. Alan Cantwell, M.D., for more information on this topic.

In other words, a microbe causes breast cancer, however, some of these microbes then hide in the root canals, allowing constant reinfection. Thus, once the cancer-causing microbe gets inside the root canal, it can constantly reinfect the patient. Thus, it is virtually impossible to totally get rid of breast cancer without removing all root canals.
http://cancertutor.com/Other/Breast_Cancer.html

He concluded that scientists must look in new directions if they are ever to make progress against this unremitting killer.

Adding its voice, the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, decrying the failure of conventional therapy to stop the rise in breast cancer deaths, noted the discrepancy between public perception and reality. "If one were to believe all the media hype, the triumphalism of the [medical] profession in published research, and the almost weekly miracle breakthroughs trumpeted by the cancer charities, one might be surprised that women are dying at all from this cancer" it observed. Noting that conventional therapies -- chemotherapy, radiation and surgery -- had been pushed to their limits with dismal results, the editorial called on researchers to "challenge dogma and redirect research efforts along more fruitful lines."
http://www.apricotsfromgod.info/chemotherapyreport.html

"Resveratrol has the ability to prevent the first step that occurs when estrogen starts the process that leads to cancer by blocking the formation of the estrogen DNA adducts. We believe that this could stop the whole progression that leads to breast cancer down the road," study author Eleanor G. Rogan, a professor in the Eppley Institute for Research in Cancer and Allied Diseases at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, said in a prepared statement.

In laboratory testing, Rogan and her team found that as little as 10 umol/L of resveratrol could suppress DNA adducts associated with breast cancer. A glass of red wine contains between 9 and 28 umol/L of resveratrol.

Rogan and colleagues also found that reseveratrol suppressed expression of CYP1B1 and the formation of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, two known risk factors for breast cancer.
Resveratrol induces an enzyme called quinone reductase, which reduces the estrogen metabolite back to inactive form and reduces breast cancer risk, Rogan explained.

The findings, which were in the July issue of Cancer Prevention Research, will have to be confirmed in human trials, she noted.
http://www.facr.org/article-416.html

Your risk of surviving malignant breast cancer is just about the same as it was 50 years ago, when the only treatment was mastectomy; about one in three. The incidence of breast cancer is steadily rising and the numbers are appalling. Between 1973-1998 the incidence of breast cancer rose by over 40%.

Ovarian cancer is particularly scary because by the time it's detectable, in 70 to 80 percent of women it has already spread to other parts of the body and thus has a high mortality rate. It accounts for nearly 20 percent of gynecologic cancers, and it ranks fifth in cancer fatalities in women. Most ovarian cancer occurs in menopausal women around the age of fifty.
http://www.oasisserene.com/learning/estrogen-dominance/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=oaw-January%2009

BCA uses the term “pinkwashers” to refer to companies that say they care about breast cancer by promoting a pink ribbon campaign, but manufacture products that are contributing to the epidemic. Yoplait, for example, asks women to support the breast cancer cause by eating yogurt. But the yogurt is made with dairy from cows that have been treated with the artificial growth hormone rBGH. There are numerous health concerns surrounding the use of rBGH, and breast cancer is one of them.

On February 9, 2009, General Mills announced that they will take rBGH dairy out of Yoplait yogurt, something that just four months ago they assured us was impossible.

Car companies that encourage consumers to buy and drive cars in the name of breast cancer are also pinkwashers, as car exhaust contains chemicals that are linked to the disease. And, cosmetics companies that make products with parabens, phthalates, or other ingredients linked to breast cancer are pinkwashing when they put the pink ribbon on their products.
http://www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org/Pages/FocusOnPinkwashers.html

Wearing pink for breast cancer, or buying pink products, is a demonstration of your support for the enslavement of women by a highly-unethical industry that seeks to turn women's bodies into profit centers. Wearing pink shouts, "I support the ignorance of women! I support Big Pharma! I support male-dominated corporate control over the health of women's breasts!"

Buying pink products sends the same message. Whether it's a can of soup, a pair of pink batteries or even a pink "vacation" (yes, they do exist), these products are jumping on the pink bandwagon for one reason only: consumers buy it. Painting any product pink results in a sales surge.

http://www.healthy-communications.com/pink_washing_the_cancer_deceptio.htm

Each year, 180,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 44,000 will die of the disease. The US has one of the highest breast cancer rates in the world. Fifty years ago the incidence of Breast Cancer for a woman's lifetime risk was one in twenty. Now it has skyrocketed to one in eight. Clearly the so-called war on cancer has not even made a dent in the breast cancer epidemic as the rates continue to climb at the rate of one per cent per year.

The motto of Breast Cancer Awareness Month is "Early Detection is Your Best Protection". The National Cancer Institute stated in 1995 that "Breast cancer is simply not a preventable disease". This tune was reiterated in 1997 by the American Cancer Society who also announced that "there are no practical ways to prevent breast cancer -- only early detection."1 So mammograms are the front line of defense. Celebrities like Rosie O'Donnell offer free t-shirts with the honorable words "I've Been Squished" if you'll make a date with your local x-ray department.
http://www.innerself.com/Health/breast_cancer.htm