End Times and Current Events
September 20, 2018, 05:39:38 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (KJB)
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Susan G. Komen Deception

Shoutbox
August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
View Shout History
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Susan G. Komen Deception  (Read 1805 times)
tennis shoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 390


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: December 06, 2012, 10:49:50 pm »

^^^ +1 on the testimony.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: December 07, 2012, 09:08:27 am »

Heb 8:10  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11  And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12  For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more
.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: August 31, 2013, 02:21:55 pm »

Millions Wrongly Treated For ‘Cancer,’ National Cancer Institute Panel Confirms
http://www.shiftfrequency.com/sayer-ji-millions-wrongly-treated-for-cancer-national-cancer-institute-panel-confirms/
8/11/13

A devastating new report commissioned by the National Cancer Institute reveals that our 40-year long ‘War on Cancer’ has been waged against a vastly misunderstood ‘enemy,’ that in many cases represented no threat to human health whatsoever.

If you have been following our advocacy work on cancer, particularly in connection with the dark side of breast cancer awareness month, you know that we have been calling for the complete reclassification of some types of ‘breast cancer’ as benign lesions, e.g. ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), as well as pointing out repeatedly that x-ray based breast screenings are not only highly carcinogenic but are also causing an epidemic of “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” in US women, with an estimated 1.3 million cases in the past 30 years alone.

This week, a National Cancer Institute commissioned panel’s report published in JAMA online confirmed that we all – public and professionals alike – should stop calling low-risk lesions like DCIS and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) ‘cancer.’

There are wide-reaching implications to this recommendation, including:
•Millions of women in this country have been diagnosed with DCIS, and millions of men with HGPIN, and subsequently [mis]treated. Are they now to be retroactively reclassified as ‘victims’ of iatrogenesis, with legal recourse to seek compensation?

Anyone engaged in a cancer screening will now need to reconsider and weigh both the risks and benefits of such a ‘preventive’ strategy, considering that the likelihood of being diagnosed with a false positive over 10 years is already over 50% for women undergoing annual breast screening.

•The burgeoning pink ribbon-bedecked ‘breast cancer awareness’ industry will be forced to reformulate its message, as it is theoretically culpable for the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of millions of US women by propagating an entirely false concept of ‘cancer.’

As reported by Medscape:

The practice of oncology in the United States is in need of a host of reforms and initiatives to mitigate the problem of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of cancer, according to a working group sanctioned by the National Cancer Institute.

Perhaps most dramatically, the group says that a number of premalignant conditions, including ductal carcinoma in situ and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, should no longer be called “cancer.”

Instead, the conditions should be labeled something more appropriate, such as indolent lesions of epithelial origin (IDLE), the working group suggests. The Viewpoint report was published online July 29 in JAMA.

Fundamentally, overdiagnosis results from the fact that screen-detected ‘cancers’ are disproportionately slower growing ones, present with few to no symptoms, and would never progress to cause harm if left undiagnosed and untreated.

As you can see by the graph above, it is the fast-growing tumors which will be more difficult to ‘detect early,’ and will progress rapidly enough to cause symptoms and perhaps even death unless treated aggressively. But even in the case of finding the tumor early enough to contain it through surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation, it is well-known that the minority subpopulation of cancer stem cells within these tumors will be enriched and therefore made more malignant through conventional treatment. For instance, radiotherapy radiation wavelengths were only recently found by UCLA Jonnsson Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers to transform breast cancer cells into highly malignant cancer stem-cell like cells, with 30 times higher malignancy post-treatment.

What this means is that not only are millions of screen-detected abnormalities not ‘cancer’ in the first place but even those which can be considered fast-growing are often being driven into greater malignancy by the conventional chemotherapy, radiation and surgery-based standard of cancer care itself.

Our entire world view of cancer needs to shift from an enemy that “attacks” us and that we must wage war against, to something our body does, presumably to survive an increasingly inhospitable, nutrient-deprived, carcinogen- and radiation-saturated environment, i.e. Cancer As An Ancient Survival Mechanism Unmasked.

When we look at cancer through the optic of fear and see it as an essentially chaos-driven infinitely expanding mass of cells, we are apt to make irrational choices. The physiological state of fear itself has been found to activate multidrug resistance proteins within cancer cells, explaining how our very perception of cancer can influence and/or determine its physiological status and/or trajectory within our body.

The NCI panel report opined:

The word “cancer” often invokes the specter of an inexorably lethal process; however, cancers are heterogeneous and can follow multiple paths, not all of which progress to metastases and death, and include indolent disease that causes no harm during the patient’s lifetime.

For more details on what GreenMedInfo.com’s founder Sayer Ji calls the “Cancer Malignancy Meme,” see his video presentation at the Mind Body Week DC conference, wherein he discuss the ‘Rise of Biomedicine’ within the context of the mind-body connection, and breast cancer overdiagnosis in particular.

We must keep in mind that this proposed redefinition of cancer is no small academic matter, but will affect the lives of millions of women. Consider that every year, approximately 60,000 women in this country are diagnosed with DCIS, a diagnosis so traumatic that it results in significant psychiatric depression 3 years after even a ‘false positive’ diagnosis. For those less fortunate women, numbering in the millions over the past 30 years, who were told they had ‘cancer’ and needed to undergo lumpectomy, radiation, chemotherapy and/or mastectomy, the NCI panel’s recommendation is a hard pill swallow after the damage has already been irrevocably done.

So, what’s the solution? There is a growing movement towards the use of thermography as a primary diagnostic tool, as it uses no ionizing radiation, and can detect the underlying physiological processes that may indicate inflammation, angiogenesis, cancer-specific metabolic changes, etc., many years before a calcified lesion would appear within an x-ray mammogram. Also, the mainstay of any truly preventive strategy against cancer is diet, nutrition, exercise and avoiding chemical and radiation exposures – the things that we can do  in our daily lives to take back control of and responsibility for our health.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: October 16, 2013, 11:12:29 pm »

Of course it isn't, b/c all of it is a scam!(like every other secular "fundraiser")

http://msn.foxsports.com/lacesout/pink-nfl-merchandise-isnt-raising-that-much-money-for-cancer-research/

Pink NFL merchandise isn’t raising that much money for cancer research

Posted by Sid.Saraf on October 16th, 2013 at 1:03 pm

October is the pink month for the NFL. Players, coaches, cheerleaders and even stadiums are adorned with the color to promote Breast Cancer Awareness Month. The league also sells pink merchandise (hats, jerseys, etc.) and donates a portion of the proceeds to the American Cancer Society.

How much of the proceeds? Well, not a whole lot. ESPN’s Darren Rovell is reporting (via Business Insider) that the league takes a “25 percent royalty from the wholesale price (1/2 retail), donates 90 percent of royalty to American Cancer Society.”

So, how much money is that exactly? Here’s the breakdown: If you drop $100 on a pink Seahawks jersey, $12.50 is going to the NFL. Then $76.25 is divided by the company that makes the merchandise and the company that sells it, which is often the league and its individual teams.

So, what’s left for the American Cancer Society? Try $11.25.
By the way, the ACS has operating costs of its own, which means that 71.2 percent of the money it receives actually funds cancer research.

In the end, 8.01 percent of pink NFL merchandise sold actually goes to cancer research.

Before people jump all over the NFL for this, the money it is raising is better than donating nothing. The league is also doing a service by promoting breast cancer awareness, which it should be commended for.

However, before you drop some cash on that pink merchandise, you might stop and think. Would you be better served by donating money directly to the American Cancer Society?

Maybe.

But if you’re just looking to add a cute pink top to your gameday ensemble, then rock on. You’ll be doing at least something to help cancer research in the process.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #34 on: October 17, 2013, 04:00:03 am »

Quote
but even those which can be considered fast-growing are often being driven into greater malignancy by the conventional chemotherapy, radiation and surgery-based standard of cancer care itself.

That has been suspected for years. People are told they have cancer and need radiation treatment and next thing you know, they are dead.

I also agree that there are some conditions that are not technically "cancer" that the medical/pharmacy community claims are cancer, and some conditions they just outright lie and call it cancer to get people scared into treatment, like for the HPV virus they claim causes cancer in teen girls (and now they claim boys too!), which turns out by the government's own research, over 90 percent of HPV cases resolve on their own without treatment. And even so, the treatment covers only 4 of the 12 or so virus strains they claim causes the cancer. To me, that means only 20 percent of those virus strains are a potential problem. And they want to vaccinate every teen girl and boy for a condition that affects an extremely small percentage of the population? Uh, no!

Cancer treatment and research is one of the biggest scams in medical history. That is a fact.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: November 12, 2013, 02:21:35 pm »

MORE Propaganda...

GMA's Amy Robach Diagnosed with Cancer After on-Air Exam
11/12/13
http://tv.yahoo.com/news/gmas-amy-robach-diagnosed-cancer-air-exam-153100330.html

Good Morning America anchor Amy Robach underwent a routine mammogram live on the air last month as part of a segment on women's health. And the procedure may end up saving her life.

On Monday, Robach revealed that when she went to get the results of the screening, she was diagnosed with breast cancer and now plans to have a double mastectomy.

Robach said she was initially reluctant to have the mammogram when producers approached her about it. But she eventually agreed, and had the exam on the air on Oct. 1.

"That day, when I was asked to do something I really didn't want to do, something I had put off for more than a year, I had no way of knowing that I was in a life-or-death situation," she wrote in a blog post Monday. "Sitting in that kitchen with Marie Monville, I had cancer and didn't know it. In fact, I would have considered it virtually impossible that I would have cancer. I work out, I eat right, I take care of myself and I have very little family history; in fact, all of my grandparents are still alive."

Robach says she plans to have the mastectomy on Nov. 14. "Only then will I know more about what that fight will fully entail, but I am mentally and physically as prepared as anyone can be in this situation," she writes. "And while everyone who gets cancer is clearly unlucky, I got lucky by catching it early, and there are so many people to thank for making sure I did. Every producer, every person who urged me to do this, changed my trajectory."
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #36 on: November 12, 2013, 03:10:17 pm »

No more Susan G. Komen charity walk in 7 cities, due to a drop in participation!

http://www.kpho.com/story/22504600/komen-drops-3-day-walk-in-az-starting-in-2014

Quote
Final Susan G. Komen 3-Day walk in Phoenix

Posted: Jun 04, 2013 9:16 PM Updated: Nov 08, 2013 8:22 AM
By Phil Benson - email

PHOENIX (CBS5) -

It's the start of the final Susan G. Komen 3-day walk in Phoenix to raise money for breast cancer research.
MORE
'3-Day For The Cure' walk raises $3.9M in AZ

After a 60-mile journey, they crossed the finish line Sunday.

Participants in The Susan G. Komen 3-Day for the Cure finished the long walk at Scottsdale Stadium.
Continue reading >>

The event won't be back next year because of a steady drop in participants.

In June, the Susan G. Komen Foundation announced it is no longer going to hold the national 3-Day walk in seven markets, including Phoenix.

Officials blamed "declining participation in the last five years."

"While the 3-Day has brought great awareness to the breast cancer cause, participation levels over the last four years have made it difficult to sustain an event of this magnitude in 14 cities," the foundation said.

"Like you, we are saddened to see the national 3-Day series leave our community, but based on the information shared with us, we support the decision as being in the best interest of resources and our promise to end breast cancer forever," Phoenix foundation officials said.

The 2014 Susan G. Komen 3-Day will return to Atlanta, Dallas/Fort Worth, Michigan, Philadelphia, San Diego, Seattle and the Twin Cities.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21384



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: December 02, 2013, 08:53:56 am »

Bombshell Study Finds 44% Increased Breast Cancer Risk for Women Having Abortions

A new systematic review and meta-analysis of abortion and breast cancer (ABC link) in China was just published four days ago in the prestigious, peer-reviewed international cancer journal, Cancer Causes and Control.

In this meta-analysis (a study of studies, in which results from many studies are pooled), Dr. Yubei Huang et al. reported that, combining all 36 studies on the ABC link in China that have been published through 2012, the overall risk of developing breast cancer among women who had at least one induced abortion was significantly increased by 44%.

These results, said the authors, “were consistent with a previously published systematic review”. That review was the one I published in the British Medical Association’s epidemiology journal with colleagues from Penn State Medical Center in 1996, which study reported an overall significant 30% increased risk of breast cancer in worldwide studies.
 
Since the our study came out in 1996, the “mainstream” abortion advocates entrenched in universities, medical societies, breast cancer charities, journals, and especially, government agencies like the National Cancer Institute (In reality, the NCI is just another corrupt federal agency like the IRS and the NSA) have relentlessly targeted the ABC link with fraudulent studies and other attacks, culminating in a 2003 international phony “workshop” by the NCI, which officially declared the ABC link non-existent.
 
Since 2003, armed with this new official “truth”, NARAL and their ilk have viciously been attacking pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) for “lying” to women by telling them about the ABC link as a reality. In places like Maryland and New York City, they even went so far as to enact laws to muzzle the PRCs. Thankfully, the courts have struck down such laws as violations of free speech rights–so far.
 
But the new Chinese meta-analysis is a real game changer. Not only does it validate the earlier findings from 1996, but its findings are even stronger, for several reasons:
 
1. The link is a slightly stronger one, i.e., 44% v. 30% risk increase with abortion;
 
2. It shows what is called a “dose effect”, i.e., two abortions increase the risk more than one abortion (76% risk increase with two or more abortions), and three abortions increase the risk even more (89% risk increase with three or more abortions). Risk factors that show such a dose effect have more credibility in terms of actually causing the disease.
 
3. Huang et al. state: “The lack of a social stigma associated with induced abortion in China may limit the amount of underreporting”. Putative underreporting of abortions by healthy women has been routinely invoked to discredit the ABC link–the lack of credible evidence notwithstanding. This line of attack—variously called the “response bias” or “recall bias” or “reporting bias” argument, has now been neutralized.
 
4. Huang et al. explain why two earlier high-profile studies in Shanghai did not find the link, essentially by citing and extending arguments I had articulated in the British Journal of Cancer in 2004. In that published letter, I explained that the Shanghai population was unsuitable for studying the ABC link in the usual manner, because the prevalence of induced abortion was so high (greater than 50%) in the general population. Huang et al. provided strong evidence for that explanation, by performing what is called a meta-regression analysis of all the Chinese studies, which meta-regression showed that the more prevalent abortion was in the study population, the lower risk increase associated with abortion.
 
5. The Huang study follows right on the heels of two new studies this year from India and Bangladesh, studies which reported breast cancer risk increases of unprecedented magnitude: over 600% and over 2,000%, respectively, among women who had any induced abortions.

Finally, the new Chinese meta-analysis follows on the heels of the recent decisions of the US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the religious freedom rights of companies wanting to opt out of Obamacare, since Obamacare insurance funds contraceptive steroids and abortions. The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer and the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute filed amicus curiae briefs for these cases, briefs which were specifically cited in the 10th Circuit’s decision with respect to the cancer-causing effects of these steroid drugs (innocuously referred to as “the pill”, in common parlance). At least two of these cases have just been accepted by the US Supreme Court for review in their next session.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/12/02/bombshell-study-finds-44-increased-breast-cancer-risk-for-women-having-abortions/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: December 02, 2013, 04:49:30 pm »

I read about this a couple of years ago. This is no coincidence.

1Cor 6:13  Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
1Co 6:14  And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
1Co 6:15  Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
1Co 6:16  What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
1Co 6:17  But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
1Co 6:18  Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21384



View Profile
« Reply #39 on: January 04, 2014, 07:00:09 am »

Women who had an abortion are 626% more likely to have breast cancer: Indian study

January 3, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Women who have had an abortion are 6.26 times more likely to develop breast cancer than women who have no such history, a new study in India has found.
 
A report published in the current issue of the Indian Journal of Cancer suggests that abortion makes the breast's muscle tissue (epithelium) more likely to act as a cancer-producing agent. “It has been suggested that abortions leave the breast epithelium in a proliferative state with an increased susceptibility to carcinogenesis,” it says.
 
Perhaps more unnerving, that was not the greatest cancer risk facing women.
 
Women who consume oral contraceptive pills have a 9.5 times higher rate of breast cancer than women who do not use the drugs, researchers said.
 
"We found long-term use of oral contraceptive pills (OCP) higher among those suffering from breast cancer compared to healthy individuals," said lead researcher Dr. Umesh Kapil of the department of gastroenterology and human nutrition at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in New Delhi.
 
In the report, Dr. Kapil explained that cancer is a hormonally mediated disease and that breast cancer is caused by repeated exposure of breast cells to circulating ovarian hormones.
 
He said long-term use of OCPs, which contain estrogen and progesterone, may be increasing the risk of breast cancer by causing a hormonal imbalance. His research suggests a strong relationship between use of oral contraceptive pills and the disease.
 
The study also looked into the association of other reproductive factors that affect the prevalence of breast cancer, and found that early onset of menstruation, higher age at marriage, higher age at first and last child birth, lower duration of breastfeeding, higher number of abortions, history of oral contraceptive pill use, and a family history of breast cancer are all associated with a significant increase in breast cancer occurrence.
 
The researchers found that mean age at first menstruation in cancer patients was about 13 years, as compared to about 14.5 years in the healthy controls. They observed that this difference was statistically significant.
 
The report noted that first pregnancy "induces irreversible changes that either render the breast tissue itself less susceptible to induction of cancer or reduced the carcinogenic stimulus to the breast."
 
The researchers found that women who had an age of marriage more than 20 years old had an almost three times higher risk of breast cancer, while the age at first childbirth was found to be associated with a twofold higher risk in women who had their first child after the age of 21.
 
Age at last childbirth of more than 27 years resulted in a 329 percent higher incidence of breast cancer.
 
"Lactation also has a direct physical effect on the breast, such as changes in breast ductal epithelial cells leading to mechanical 'flushing-out' of carcinogens," the researchers said.

The study found that the risk of breast cancer increased 14.9 times in women having mean duration of breastfeeding of less than 13 months. The average duration of breastfeeding in cancer cases was about 11 months, while in controls it was about 21 months.
 
The study was a hospital-based survey conducted in the tertiary care hospital in New Delhi. Three hundred and twenty newly diagnosed breast cancer cases in the AIIMS departments of Surgery/Surgical Oncology were matched with an equal number of healthy individuals, which constituted the control group.
 
The average age of the women was 45.5 years. A majority of the participants lived in urban areas. All the women were married, and the majority of both groups were housewives. About 46 percent of the cases and 36 percent of the controls belonged to lower-middle socioeconomic status.
 
The AIIMS research team concluded that, "the results of the present study reveal a strong association of reproductive factors with breast cancer in the Indian population."
 
The full text of the AIIMS study titled "Reproductive factors and breast cancer: A case-control study in tertiary care hospital of North India" is available here.
http://www.indianjcancer.com/article.asp?issn=0019-509X;year=2013;volume=50;issue=4;spage=316;epage=321;aulast=Bhadoria

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/women-who-had-an-abortion-are-626-more-likely-to-have-breast-cancer-indian?utm
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21384



View Profile
« Reply #40 on: January 04, 2014, 02:00:09 pm »

Susan G. Komen for the Cure Contributions Plummet After Planned Parenthood Controversy

Susan G. Komen for the Cure saw a 22 percent drop in contributions in the year following the controversy over its decision, quickly reversed, to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings.
 
Citing audited financial statements posted on its website this week, a spokeswoman for the Dallas-based breast cancer charity said contributions — including donations and corporate sponsorships — dropped from about $164 million from the fiscal year ending in March 2012 to $128 million in the year ending March 2013.
 
After news of the plan to quit offering grants to Planned Parenthood broke in January 2012, several executives left the organization and fewer people took part in its fundraising Races for the Cure across the country. The organization announced last summer that it would cancel half of its three-day charity walks for this year because of a drop in participation.

The statements also showed that revenue from Race for the Cure and three-day events had a 19 percent drop for the same fiscal period, falling from about $258 million to $208 million. Total revenue, which included the race fees, contributions, other fundraising and interest, dropped 18 percent in that time period, from $399 million to $325 million.
 
Komen spokeswoman Andrea Rader attributed the drops to the Planned Parenthood controversy, in addition to economic uncertainty and other events vying for charity dollars.
 
But she also said the organization now is seeing its numbers stabilize and noted Komen currently has 150 corporate sponsors. She said even people angered by the Planned Parenthood issue are coming around because they know what Komen does for their community. “They tend to say, ‘OK, we were mad about that but we’re not mad anymore,’” she said.
 
“We just hope that people will continue to understand that our work is very important,” Rader said.

Komen founder Nancy Brinker, whose promise to her dying sister begat the fundraising powerhouse that has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in cancer research, announced in the summer of 2012 she would step down as CEO when a replacement was found. It was announced in the summer of 2013 that Dr. Judith A. Salerno would replace her as CEO. Salerno was formerly executive director and chief operating officer of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences.
 
The organization also this week disclosed 2013 salary information, saying that Brinker has taken a $158,700 pay cut with her move from CEO to global strategy chair. Brinker’s annual salary for her new role is $390,000, down from $548,700 in 2012. Salerno, named president and CEO in June, has a salary of $475,000.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/04/susan-g-komen-for-the-cure-contributions-plummet-after-planned-parenthood-controversy/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #41 on: January 05, 2014, 02:24:28 am »

Quote
“They tend to say, ‘OK, we were mad about that but we’re not mad anymore,’” she said.

Really? That's wishful thinking. Many people are still really mad, because of the obvious deception you people used.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2014, 04:00:03 pm »

I understand what that article said linking abortion to breast cancer, however, this one bewildered me...

Quote
The researchers found that women who had an age of marriage more than 20 years old had an almost three times higher risk of breast cancer, while the age at first childbirth was found to be associated with a twofold higher risk in women who had their first child after the age of 21.
 
Age at last childbirth of more than 27 years resulted in a 329 percent higher incidence of breast cancer.

 Huh

So is Lifesite news saying it's unhealthy to have children(inside of marriage, that is) after the age of 21? Are they saying after the age of 27 is bad too? What has this got to do with the abortion agenda? Or is Lifesite news advocating teen pregnancies?

Again, this Catholic news web site really lost me here.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: February 12, 2014, 12:13:54 pm »

http://healthyliving.msn.com/diseases/breast-cancer/annual-mammograms-dont-reduce-breast-cancer-deaths-study-contends-1
Annual mammograms don't reduce breast cancer deaths, study contends

But some outside experts cite flaws in the 25-year review of screening's effects on women.

(HealthDay News) -- The value of yearly mammograms is under fire once again, with a long-running Canadian study contending that annual screening in women aged 40 to 59 does not lower breast cancer death rates.

For 25 years, the researchers followed nearly 90,000 women who were randomly assigned either to get screening mammograms or not.

"Mammography detected many more invasive breast cancers," said lead researcher Dr. Cornelia Baines, professor emeriti at the University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health. "Survival time was longer in women getting mammography."

"[However], the number of deaths from breast cancer was the same in both groups at 25 years," she said.

"It is increasingly being recognized that there are significant harms from screening, and that screening can do much less now than 40 years ago because of improved therapy," Baines added. "Twenty-two percent of the mammography group with screen-detected invasive beast cancer were over-diagnosed and unnecessarily inflicted with therapy."

Over-diagnosis is defined as the detection of harmless cancers that will not cause symptoms or problems during a patient's lifetime.

The study, which began in 1980 in 15 screening centers in six Canadian provinces, was published Feb. 11 in the online edition of the journal BMJ.

Women in the mammography group had a total of five mammograms -- one a year for five years. Those aged 40 to 49 in the mammography group and all women aged 50 to 59 in both groups also had an annual physical exam. Women aged 40 to 49 in the no-mammography group had a single physical exam followed by typical care.

During the next 25 years, 3,250 women who got screening mammographies were diagnosed with breast cancer, compared with 3,133 in the no-mammography group, according to the study. While 500 women in the mammography group died during the follow up, 505 in the no-mammography group did.

In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updated its recommendations on screening mammograms, suggesting them for women aged 50 to 74 every two years. Among women aged 40 to 49, the task force recommended only a discussion with a woman's doctor on the pros and cons of screening.

But other U.S.-based organizations, including the American Cancer Society, continue to recommend annual screening mammograms for women beginning at age 40.

The American College of Radiology, which also supports annual screening mammograms for women aged 40 and older, reacted strongly to the Canadian findings. In a statement issued Feb. 11, the college called the report "an incredibly misleading analysis based on the deeply flawed and widely discredited Canadian National Breast Screening Study."

Among those flaws, according to the college: the quality of mammograms done in the study was poor and the skills of the imaging technologists were not adequate
.


The new report isn't a surprise, said Dr. Carol Lee, chairwoman of the college's breast imaging communications committee. "When it was first reported 20 years ago, it didn't show a benefit," she said.

The findings are at odds with many other reports that show a benefit for routine screening, Lee added.

"Screening mammography has been shown over and over again to decrease mortality from breast cancer," she said.

Lee said she is "concerned [the new study] is going to discourage women from having mammograms
."


In an editorial accompanying the study, experts from the University of Oslo, the Harvard School of Public Health and other institutions agreed with the Canadian researchers that the rationale for screening needs to be reassessed by policy makers.

Baines said her research points to the value of offering screening mammograms only to those at higher risk of breast cancer.

"In time, the hope is to offer screening to a subset of the population [that has] been identified, probably by genetic markers, to be very likely to benefit from screening," she said.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: April 29, 2014, 11:26:52 am »

Former Georgia technician falsified nearly 1,300 mammogram reports
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/28/former-georgia-technician-falsified-nearly-1300-mammogram-reports/
4/28/14

PERRY, Ga. –  Sharon Holmes found a lump in her left breast quite by accident. At work one day as a high school custodian, her hand brushed up against her chest and she felt a knot sticking out. She was perplexed. After all, just three months earlier, she had been given an all-clear sign from her doctor after a mammogram.

A new mammogram in February 2010 showed she in fact had an aggressive stage 2 breast cancer. The horror of the discovery was compounded by the reason: The earlier test results she had gotten weren't just read incorrectly. They were falsified.

She wasn't alone in facing this news. The lead radiological technologist at Perry Hospital in Perry, a small community about 100 miles south of Atlanta, had for about 18 months been signing off on mammograms and spitting out reports showing nearly 1,300 women were clear of any signs of breast cancer or abnormalities.

Except that she was wrong. Holmes and nine other women were later shown to have lumps or cancerous tumors growing inside them.

Holmes said the discovery was horrific enough. With a son in his 20s and another in high school at the time, she trembled at the thought of leaving them without a mother. "To me, that meant a death sentence," she said. She underwent successful surgery the month after the cancer was discovered to remove the lump from her breast and followed that with chemotherapy and radiation treatments.

Her breast has been cancer-free for four years and subsequent cancers found elsewhere, in her lymph nodes and thyroid, have been successfully treated. Now she just prays it doesn't come back.

But to find out later that she had been deceived made it even worse. "I'm thinking I'm doing what I'm supposed to do, getting my tests done, and then I find out someone else isn't doing their job," Holmes told The Associated Press.

The tech, Rachael Rapraeger, pleaded guilty earlier this month to 10 misdemeanor charges of reckless conduct and one felony charge of computer forgery. She was sentenced to serve up to six months in a detention center, to serve 10 years on probation during which she can't work in the health care field and to pay a $12,500 fine.

The reasons she gave were vague. She told police she had personal issues that caused her to stop caring about her job, that she had fallen behind processing the piles of mammogram films that stacked up. So she went into the hospital's computer system, assumed the identities of physicians, and gave each patient a clear reading, an investigative report says. That allowed her to avoid the time-consuming paperwork required before the films are brought to a reading room for radiologists to examine, her lawyer Floyd Buford told the AP.

Her actions were uncovered in April 2010 after a patient who'd received a negative report had another mammogram three months later at another hospital that revealed she had breast cancer. As hospital staff began to investigate, it was determined that the doctor whose name was on the faulty report had not been at the hospital the day the report was filed. Rapraeger quickly confessed to her supervisor that she was responsible and was fired from her job about a week later, according to an investigator's report.

Rapraeger told police she knew what she was doing wasn't right, but that she didn't consider the consequences until she realized a patient with cancer had been told her scan was clear.

She didn't return a phone call from The Associated Press seeking comment. Her attorney said she feels great remorse about any pain that she caused.

Cary Martin, CEO of Houston Healthcare, which operates Perry Hospital, released a statement saying he is "pleased this component of Ms. Rapraeger's unfortunate action is concluded" and declined to comment further.

Sara Bailey also received a false-negative report. By the time it was discovered, her breast cancer progressed to the point that doctors had to remove her entire breast rather than just going in and removing a lump, she said.

The surgery was successful and the cancer hasn't returned, but Bailey carries a bitterness inside her that surfaces when she talks about her experience.

"I'm not hurting and I don't think I have cancer, but I'm not a woman anymore," the 80-year-old said, her eyes welling with tears and her voice catching as she talked about the loss of her breast.

The emotional wound was opened again this month when Rapraeger received a sentence that Bailey saw as a slap on the wrist.

"I feel like we were thrown under the bus, and there will be an election day," Bailey said, explaining that she plans to organize an effort to get Houston Judicial Circuit District Attorney George Hartwig voted out of office.

Hartwig said he understands how Bailey feels and knows some people think Rapraeger got off easy, but he said his office weighed the evidence in the case very carefully and concluded the plea was a fair outcome. Even though Rapraeger did make statements and admissions to police, they were too general to prove specific instances of wrongdoing, he said.

"Given the entirety of the case and the issues that were there, I really feel like we did the best we could do to get a measure of justice for these women," he said, adding that it would have been even more disappointing if the case had gone to trial and she'd been found not guilty and walked out of there with no penalty.

For her part, Holmes, 49, has tried to move on, and testifying at Rapraeger's sentencing helped with that.

"I wanted her to know I'm a person, not just a name on a paper," she said.

But she's still angry because lingering effects from her chemotherapy and radiation -- treatments she said her doctors told her might not have been necessary if the cancer had been caught by the original mammogram -- have kept her from returning to work as a high school janitor.

Like Bailey, she thought Rapraeger's sentence was too light, and she was disappointed that Rapraeger didn't speak in court, instead letting her attorney read a statement for her.

"If she had gotten up and at least said, `I'm sorry for what I did. I'm sorry these women had to go through this,' that, to me, would have meant that she was truly sorry for what we went through," Holmes said.

Mary Brown had a mammogram in August 2009. She was contacted by the hospital in May 2010 and told to come back for another. That one came back positive, and she had a mastectomy to remove her right breast. She considers herself lucky that she apparently had a slow-growing cancer and didn't need to have chemotherapy or radiation.

Brown, a 78-year-old Jehovah's Witness, credits her strong faith in God with helping her get through the ordeal and with helping her forgive Rapraeger.

"I don't have any hard feelings about her. Whatever she did, she brought it on herself," Brown said, though she conceded her relative good fortune might also be coloring her reaction. "Maybe if I had been dying sick from it I would feel different."
 
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: June 02, 2014, 05:38:32 pm »

http://beforeitsnews.com/global-unrest/2014/05/a-dentist-exposes-the-root-canal-coverup-2459204.html
A Dentist Exposes The Root Canal Coverup
Tuesday, May 20, 2014 14:49

One of the  most feared dental procedures is the root canal.  It can also be one of the most painful.  For the thousands of people who have them, most  are unaware of the danger that it may pose to their health.  More than 25 million root canals are performed each year in the United States.

What is a root canal?

A root canal is a procedure where the dentist drills out decay, removes the infected pulp and then places a file down the canal to remove the remaining pulp.  The canals are then filled with a plastic material (gutta percha).  The tooth is now basically dead and remaining in your mouth.

What are the issues with root canals?

The issue lies with anaerobic bacteria that remains in the tooth canal which can be released into the blood stream causing mild to serious health conditions such as MS, ALS and even cancer.  Dr Hal Huggins’ website shares the specific issues with having something that is “dead” in your mouth and which toxic bacteria have been found when tested.



Recently, Dr Robert Jones, a researcher, discovered a very high correlation between root canals and breast cancer. He performed a five year study of 300 breast cancer patients which showed that 93% of the women with breast cancer had root canals.

Dr George Meinig, DDS wrote a book called “The Root Canal Cover-up” which addresses the issues of root canals .  In this book he discusses an extensive research study in which 5,000 animals were involved.  The research revealed that bacteria and toxins were able to escape into the blood circulation around the bony socket of the tooth.  They were also able to show how these organisms were responsible for a high percentage of the chronic and degenerative disease conditions which are epidemic in America.

    Approximately 25% of the population have strong immune systems and are able to live symptom and issue free after a root canal.  This causes dentists and endodontists to believe, falsely, that root canals are perfectly safe.   However, there are approximately 75%  who’s immune systems have been compromised through poor nutrition, accidents, illnesses, stress, etc.  These are the individuals who develop symptoms that cause them to go from doctor to doctor in attempts to find answers to their maladies.  A high percentage of these cases are due to the bacteria coming from their root canal filled teeth, or from tooth extractions, or other foci of infection.

Recently, Dr Robert Jones, a researcher, discovered a very high correlation between root canals and breast cancer.  He performed a five year study of 300 breast cancer patients which showed that 93% of the women with breast cancer had root canals.  Seven percent had other dental issues.   An interesting note was that tumors, in most cases, manifested on the same side of the body as the root canal(s) or where dental restoration we performed.  Dr Jones determined that toxins from the bacteria in the infected tooth and jawbone may inhibit the body’s natural ability to suppress tumor development.

    My personal story is similar.  I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2000.  The cancerous nodule was located on the right side of my thyroid gland.  I had one root canal tooth in my mouth which was located on the right side of my body in a lower molar.  When fighting cancer naturally I had 11 amalgam fillings removed along with pulling the root canal tooth.  When extracted my dentist noted that there was black sludge under the tooth along with necrosis of the jaw bone.  It was after I cleaned up my mouth that I began to experience a more rapid healing from cancer.

Dental health is important to your full body health.  One of the things that I use are Young Living dental products that contain Thieves Oil.  Clove is a key ingredient in this blend and it has been shown to help heal teeth and combat dental bacteria that contributes to gingivitis.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21384



View Profile
« Reply #46 on: October 02, 2015, 11:27:46 am »

Planned Parenthood President Admits to Congress: ‘We Do Not Have Mammogram Machines’

During her testimony on Tuesday before a Congressional panel investigating Planned Parenthood’s alleged harvesting and sale of aborted babies, the president of the organization admitted that the abortion giant does not provide mammograms despite beliefs otherwise.

“Planned Parenthood’s annual report says that you are providing over 489,000 breast cancer screenings, and you’ve stated that none of your clinics actually have the mammogram machines. How many of your affiliates have those mammogram machines?” asked Rep. Mia Love, R-Utah.

“Well our health centers are part of our affiliates. We have more than 650 health centers. So an affiliate is simply the corporate structure for those health centers,” Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards responded.

“How many of them have mammogram machines?” Love repeated.

“I think I spoke earlier, we do not have mammogram machines at our health centers,” Richards replied. “And we’ve never stated that we did.”

She then explained that the organization only offers referrals for mammograms.

“As I think was mentioned earlier, for women who go for a breast exam—just as I got for my annual—you get a breast exam, and if you need a mammogram, you’re referred to a radiological clinic, and that’s what we do at Planned Parenthood,” Richards outlined

Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wy., also brought up the matter during her testimony.

“None [of your facilities] to your knowledge have a mammogram machine?” Lummis asked.

“Right, we have different kinds of arrangements depending on the state to refer women for mammograms,” Richards replied.

When Lummis asked what kind of surgical procedures Planned Parenthood offers for women, Richards said that there were just two: abortion and colposcopy, the latter of which involves examining one’s reproductive organs for disease.

“We provide surgical abortions and we provide colposcopy. We do a variety of services,” she explained. “We have core services across the country, but some … provide broader services [such as primary care].”

As previously reported, during the 2012 presidential debate, Barack Obama expressed support for Planned Parenthood, citing mammograms among the services that he believed the organization offers to women.

“[T]here are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for—not just contraceptive care—they rely on it for mammograms [and] for cervical cancer screenings,” he said.

Earlier that year, Casey Mattox with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) wrote to Obama’s Health and Human Services Department to request copies of all mammogram permits for Planned Parenthood facilities across the country, and was told that none exist.

“In response to your information request, we have performed a thorough and diligent investigation of our records,” the response letter stated. “Unfortunately, our search did not uncover any documents pertinent to your request.”

Following the release of a series of undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood officials detailing the organization’s harvesting and sale of aborted babies, Congress is seeking to reallocate the group’s $235 million a year in federal funding to women’s health organizations that do not perform abortions.

http://christiannews.net/2015/09/30/planned-parenthood-president-admits-to-congress-we-do-not-have-mammogram-machines/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21384



View Profile
« Reply #47 on: October 14, 2015, 05:42:19 am »

Debunking the Planned Parenthood Mammogram Myth

 Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms despite continued claims from high-profile supporters that it does, according to a Fact Checker report released by The Washington Post in late September.
 
In a Sept. 29 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., claimed that Planned Parenthood provided mammograms.
 
“All the signatories [of a letter supporting defunding Planned Parenthood] are men, none of whom will get pregnant, or need a cervical screening for cancer, or a mammogram, or a pap smear, or other life-saving services that are provided by Planned Parenthood,” Maloney said.
 
But the claim that Planned Parenthood “provides” mammograms is false, according to report author Michelle Ye Hee Lee. And the claim earned three-out-of-four Pinocchios from Fact Checker, meaning it contained “significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”
 
An Oct. 1 video release by Live Action highlighted those contradictions by juxtaposing statements indicating the abortion giant provides mammograms with Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards’ admission before Congress that “we do not have mammogram machines at our health centers. And we’ve never stated that we did.” The video has drawn more than 2,650,000 views on Facebook since its release.
 
The video includes statements from Richards, President Barack Obama during his 2012 campaign, Whoopi Goldberg in her Sept. 30 appearance on The View, and Hannah Robison, Miss Tennessee in the 2015 Miss America Pageant. All four appear to promote the idea that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms.
 
Ye Hee Lee explained the discrepancy by emphasizing the ambiguity of the word Planned Parenthood uses to explain the services it offers women. Planned Parenthood says it provides “access” to mammograms. Access can be interpreted to mean “provides,” or it can mean what Planned Parenthood actually does by referring women to facilities that offer mammograms if a breast exam at a facility uncovers something abnormal.
 
“When Democratic lawmakers or other supporters assert that Planned Parenthood ‘provides’ mammograms, this is highly misleading language because it could be interpreted to mean that the group directly administers the X-rays,” Lee said. “It is slightly more accurate to say that women have ‘access’ to mammograms via Planned Parenthood, though it’s still slippery language.”
 
The language is especially slippery when less than 3 percent of breast exams at Planned Parenthood facilities result in referrals for mammograms, according to the report. Women older than 40 typically receive mammogram referrals, but women in that age bracket represented only about 7 percent of Planned Parenthood’s clients in 2013. Of the 487,029 breast exams that year, only about 14,000 led to mammogram referrals—a much smaller number than the 327,653 abortions performed the same year at Planned Parenthood.
 
Live Action started a petition supporting defunding Planned Parenthood and has received more than 298,000 signatures toward its 300,000 goal. But so far, two attempts to defund Planned Parenthood on the federal level have failed.

 “President Obama and some in Congress have opted to keep taxpayer funds flowing to Planned Parenthood, even though the nation’s largest abortion chain is under four congressional investigations​ and several state investigations,​ looking into at least three criminal acts it has committed,” Live Action president Lila Rose said.
 
But some Republicans are mounting another defunding attempt. A coalition of 38 pro-life leaders has voiced support for defunding Planned Parenthood through reconciliation, a legislative process that limits debate on budgetary bills to 20 hours. The coalition aims to prevent filibuster in the Senate.
 
“Over 1 million abortions are performed annually in the United States, with nearly 330,000 occurring in Planned Parenthood facilities,” the coalition said in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees. “Tax dollars would be put to better use at local community health centers, which provide all the same health services Planned Parenthood does (and usually more), but do not abort the lives of unborn children and callously harvest their body parts for profit.”
 
http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/debunking-the-planned-parenthood-mammogram-myth.html
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21384



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: January 18, 2016, 09:40:33 pm »

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Boldhunter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: January 26, 2016, 09:22:26 pm »

Great expose! So tired of these thieves preying on people who've lost a loved one
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy