This is the San Francisco City Hall contributing to the misjudgment of so many who still jump on the Pink Ribbon Campaigns.  According to Breast Cancer Action, an organization that is making actual changes to the carcinogenic ingredients used in our lives, we are being distracted by all of this pink fundraising.  They call it gaslighting and in an article by the nonprofit's executive director, Karuna Jaggar, it is clear that this is a serious deception.

Jaggar expains gaslighting as a "deliberate psychological manipulation that causes someone to question their own sanity while making them feel dependent on the perpetrator of that harm."  "It's clear that pink-ribbon culture is sanctioned gaslighting, celebrated during its very own pink month."  

"We are told to fight like a girl and kick cancer's ass," says Jaggar.   She explains the dangers of the lighthearted manner in which we are told to "save the tatas" and "save second base" while provocative pictures of sexy breasts are the focus.  It's deceptive and creating a culture of normalcy.  Cancer is not normal and it is being given to us while we march merrily in the streets.

​Jaggar notes repeatedly hearing, "is anyone still dying from breast cancer anymore?"  The answer explained by Breast Cancer Action is YES!.  The unbelievable fact is that the numbers have not been persuades to change in nearly 30 years with millions in fundraising and pink frills.  The fact that women of color are more likely to die remains the same.  The truth that traditional treatment continues to cause permanent effects also has not changed.

I have a long standing policy, (post my pink ribbon days), that says Do Not Buy Pink Ribbon Products.  In fact, the policy comes with an annual letter writing campaign to corporations that use pink ribbons to sell products.  

Breast Cancer Action agrees with the less than generous position of most companies that use pink ribbons to sell to fearful women.  They claim many companies are using pink ribbons to distract us from other PR and marketing issues.  They call out the NFL with their cheerleaders in pink after claims of sexual assault and their economic exploitation of the same women who's uniforms were pink this October.

Curing cancer begins with removing the cancer causing elements in your life.  It means knowing that permissive government regulations allow multiple carcinogens into your daily world by the hundreds each day.  Add those poisonous products and consumables to the challenges of a toxic world and BOOM, you are a time bomb.

Organizations like Breast Cancer Action are about identifying and uncovering the causes of cancer from the most basic of starting points.  They are vigilant about reporting the hormone disruptors and toxic levels of personal care products.  They are going after manufacturers and asking them to make formula changes that reduce your chances of cancer.  They are hitting the source of the problem without fanfare or parades.  They believe in the Search for the Cause, Not Just the Cure.  When you consider how you will fight cancer, look for the wisdom of those organizations that have you as their foremost concern

by Dr. Mercola
Nearly everyone knows that white flour is not healthy for you, but most people don’t know that when white flour is bleached, it can actually be FAR worse for you. It’s generally understood that refining food destroys nutrients. With the most nutritious part of the grain removed, white flour essentially becomes a form of sugar. Consider what gets lost in the refining process:

• Half of the beneficial unsaturated fatty acids
• Virtually all of the vitamin E 
• Fifty percent of the calcium
• Seventy percent of the phosphorus
• Eighty percent of the iron
• Ninety eight percent of the magnesium
• Fifty to 80 percent of the B vitamins

And many more nutrients are destroyed -- simply too many to list.

The Journey of the Wheat Berry
Have you ever wondered how white flour is made?
The website Healthy Eating Politics has an interesting article about the process. 
Most commercial wheat production is, unfortunately, a “study in pesticide application,” beginning with the seeds being treated with fungicide. Once they become wheat, they are sprayed with hormones and pesticides. Even the bins in which the harvested wheat is stored have been coated with insecticides. If bugs appear on the wheat in storage, they fumigate the grain. 

A whole grain of wheat, sometimes called a wheat berry, is composed of three layers: 

• The bran
• The germ
• The endosperm

The bran is the layer where you’ll find most of the fiber, and it’s the hard outer shell of the kernel. The germ is the nutrient-rich embryo that will sprout into a new wheat plant. The endosperm is the largest part of the grain (83 percent), making up most of the kernel, and it’s mostly starch. 

White flour is made from the endosperm only, whereas whole-wheat flour combines all three parts of the wheat berry. 
Old time mills ground flour slowly, but today’s mills are designed for mass-production, using high-temperature, high-speed steel rollers. The resulting white flour is nearly all starch, and even much of today’s commercially processed whole wheat flour has lost a fair amount of nutritional value due to these aggressive processing methods.

White flour contains a small fraction of the nutrients of the original grain, with the heat of the steel rollers having destroyed what little nutrients remain. But then it is hit with another chemical insult--a chlorine gas bath (chlorine oxide). This serves as a whitener, as well as an “aging” agent. 

Flour used to be aged with time, improving the gluten and thus improving the baking quality. Now, it is treated  with chlorine  to instantly produce similar qualities in the flour (with a disturbing lack of concern about adding another dose of chemicals to your food). 

According to Jim Bair, Vice President of the North American Millers Association: 
“Today, the US milling industry produces about 140 million pounds of flour each day, so there is no way to store the flour to allow it to age naturally. Plus, there is a shelf life issue.” It has not been determined how many mills are bleaching flour with chorine oxide, but we do know the use of chlorides for bleaching flour is considered an industry standard. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines chlorine gas as a flour-bleaching, aging and oxidizing agent that is a powerful irritant, dangerous to inhale, and lethal. Other agents also used include oxides of nitrogen, nitrosyl, and benzoyl peroxide mixed with various chemical salts. 

The chlorine gas undergoes an oxidizing chemical reaction with some of the proteins in the flour, producing alloxan as an unintended byproduct. Bair and other milling industry leaders claim that bleaching and oxidizing agents don’t leave behind harmful residues in flour, although they can cite no studies or published data to confirm this. 

Why Bleaching Makes White Flour Even Worse
It has been shown that alloxan is a byproduct of the flour bleaching process, the process they use to make flour look so “clean” and -- well, white. No, they are technically not adding alloxan to the flour -- although you will read this bit of misinformation on the Internet. But, they are doing chemical treatments to the grain that result in the formation of alloxan in the flour.  With so little food value already in a piece of white bread, now there is potentially a chemical poison lurking in there as well.  So what is so bad about alloxan?

Alloxan, or C4 H2O4N2, is a product of the decomposition of uric acid. It is a poison that is used to produce diabetes in healthy experimental animals (primarily rats and mice), so that researchers can then study diabetes “treatments” in the lab. Alloxan causes diabetes because it spins up enormous amounts of free radicals in pancreatic beta cells, thus destroying them. Beta cells are the primary cell type in areas of your pancreas called islets of Langerhans, and they produce insulin; so if those are destroyed, you get diabetes.  There is no other commercial application for alloxan -- it is used exclusively in the medical research industry because it is so highly toxic.   Given the raging epidemic of diabetes and other chronic diseases in this country, can you afford to be complacent about a toxin such as this in your bread, even if it is present in small amounts?

Just How Much is Too Much?
Similar to disinfection byproducts (DBPs) in water, alloxan is formed when the chlorine reacts with certain proteins remaining in the white flour after the bran and germ have been removed. Protein makes up between 5 percent and 15 percent of white flour, depending on whether it’s cake flour, or high-gluten flour, such as what’s used for pizza crust or bagels.  So, this would suggest that perhaps 5 to 15 grams of protein per 100 grams of flour could be contaminated.
However, according to Professor Joe Schwarcz, Director of the McGill University Office of Science and Society, alloxan is the byproduct of xantophyll oxidation only. Xantophylls are yellow compounds in wheat that react with oxygen, causing flour to turn white. 

According to Mr. Schwarcz:
“One of the possible minor side products of xantophyll oxidation is alloxan. It may therefore be found in small amounts in flour. There is no available research that shows trace amounts are a problem or that alloxan builds up in the body. The amounts, if present at all, must be small because xantophylls themselves only occur to the extent of 1 microgram per gram of flour.”
Alloxan has not been studied in terms of human exposure, particularly long-term. There is just so much we don’t know, and you know what assumptions will get you. 

Alloxan in Rats vs Alloxan in Humans
Scientists have long known that alloxan produces selective destruction of the beta cells of the pancreas, causing hyperglycemia and ketoacidosis in laboratory animals. Alloxan is structurally similar to glucose, which might explain why the pancreatic beta cells selectively take it up.  According to Dr. Hari Sharma’s Freedom from Disease, alloxan causes free radical damage to DNA in the beta cells of the pancreas, causing them to malfunction and die. When they fail to function normally, they no longer produce enough insulin. 

Even though the toxic effect of alloxan is common scientific knowledge in the research community, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still allows companies to use chemical processes in which the end result is toxic food. Until they unequivocally prove something is toxic by way of human deaths, severe side effects, or when the public screams loudly enough, the FDA is not likely to protect you.  Until then, it is you who must protect yourself.

If you have diabetes, or cancer, have a compromised immune system, or if you are in some other high-risk category as tens of millions of North Americans are, you need to know what foods contain hazardous ingredients so you can avoid them. But in the case of alloxan, there is no way to know, either by reading the ingredient list or by any other means, that it might be in your food! 

History of Bleaching Flour -- Pillsbury and the FDA
An interesting sideline to this whole flour story lies in the origins of the FDA. 
Bleaching and oxidizing agents weren’t developed to produce quick aging of wheat flour (within 48 hours) until the early 1900s. Prior to that, it required several months for oxygen to condition flour naturally.  When bleaching was introduced, it was vehemently opposed. 

The first major consumer advocate was Harvey W. Wiley, MD, who eventually became known as the “Father of the Pure Food and Drugs Act” of 1906.  Mr. Wiley was head of the Bureau of Chemistry, which was the precursor to the FDA. Wiley crusaded against benzoic acid, sulfites, saccharin, and bleached flour, among other food additives and adulterants.
Dr. Wiley felt so strongly about preventing the bleaching of flour that he took it all the way to the Supreme Court. They ruled that flour could not be bleached or “adulterated” in any way. However, it was never enforced.
 
Wiley believed that foods posed a greater risk to the public than adulterated or misbranded drugs. He constantly butted heads with Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson and President Roosevelt over food regulation.  Soon, Wiley’s personal administrative authority was undercut when Wilson created the Board of Food and Drug Inspection in 1907 and the Referee Board of Consulting Scientific Experts in 1908, one of which was reportedly headed by someone who had been working at Pillsbury, although I have not been able to verify this addendum.

Finally, in 1912, Dr. Wiley quit as director out of frustration, although he continued as a vocal consumer advocate for many years.  The government replaced Dr. Wiley with Dr. Elmer Nelson. Dr. Nelson was the polar opposite to Wiley , and was quoted as saying:
”It is wholly unscientific to state that a well-fed body is more able to resist disease than a poorly fed body. My overall opinion is that there hasn’t been enough experimentation to prove that dietary deficiencies make one susceptible to disease.”
Therein lies the foundation of the FDA. Since Dr. Wiley resigned, the FDA has continued to shift its focus on drugs, since Wiley was never able to convince the government of the dangers from chemicals in our foods. He was truly a pioneer and a century ahead of his time!
​
Food For Thought
The important point to take away is, beware of any processed food because chemicals are always used. And we simply don’t know what the long-term effects will be of ingesting chemicals, on top of chemicals, on top of more chemicals.
Strive to stick to whole unprocessed foods that are as close to their natural state as possible. If you’re going to eat grains, make sure they are at the least unbleached, whole, and organic, and eat them in the proportion that is best for your nutritional type.

It is my opinion that good decisions about illness, especially cancer, are not made from a gurney or in a gown.  The immediacy that is made of the diagnosis is unnecessary.  Cancer takes years to grow, but the moment after diagnosis a "team" is put in place to cut, poison and radiate you.  You seemingly have no time to process the events or make decisions.  It feels like being on a car lot and being pressured to buy.  You are in shock and making decisions out of fear.  In reality, there is most often plenty of time for calm decision making which should include strengthening the body, improving the diet and evaluating options.

The article below by Jeff Bell was reprinted in full.  It is a very accurate account of what most people experience.

Diagnosis Shock! You Need To Know This To Overcome Cancer By Jeff Bell | Published: October 4, 2016

Something happens when someone receives a cancer diagnosis – something on the emotional level.  Although we are mostly not aware of this, it triggers a cascade of powerful events.  One of most crucial steps in beginning to reverse a cancer and start the journey back to health is to understand this cascade and to quickly bring it to a halt.

Let’s use a real-life example to explain this:  
Some years ago, I went with one of my local clients to an oncology appointment.  My client, Jane, had not been feeling well for some time.  The appointment was to hear the results of some recently completed diagnostic work.   I always take really good notes at appointments such as this one, so the following is nearly word-for-word:

Doctor:  “I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but you have cancer.  You have stomach cancer and unfortunately it is serious.”

Jane:  “What does that mean?   Am I going to die?”

Doctor:  “Well, it is serious.  We have to start treatment right away.  There is no time to lose.  We can do the blood work and check your heart to see if you can survive the treatment.  We can do this today.  If the tests come back OK we can start treatment tomorrow.”

Jane:  “Oh my God!  How can this be?   I know I have not been feeling well for a while, but I had no idea it was anything this serious.”

Doctor:  “I’m sorry, but sometimes the symptoms of these cancers do not give us any idea of just how serious they are.  Are we ready to go get started on those tests?  There really is no time to lose.”

Jane:  “What are my chances?  You still did not answer my question.  Am I going to die from this cancer?”

Doctor:  “Honestly, I don’t know.  We will do everything we can to save you and get you well.”

Jane, clearly panicked now:  “How long have I got?  How much time?”

Doctor:  “I don’t really know.  This is a very serious cancer.  You might have anywhere from 6 months to a year or more.  No one can say for sure.”

As she heard the doctor’s words I could literally see much of Jane’s vibrancy leave her body.   It was like watching the life leaking from many tiny holes all throughout her body.  I stopped the conversation for a moment and had her just take a couple of deep, slow breaths with me.  (Emotional first aid.)

There is no need to recount more details from that appointment.  Clearly, Jane had walked into the doctor’s office, not feeling great, and with understandable apprehension.  She knew it was possible that she had cancer.  Who would not be frightened?

Before the appointment, despite not looking particularly well, she did not look like a person who was dying.  After the appointment she did.  Jane looked like someone who had just received a death sentence.  Her breathing had gotten shallow.  I could see beads of sweat on her forehead and she complained of feeling cold.  She even stumbled several times as we left the hospital building.  I had to grab her arm several times to keep her from falling.

The story has a happy ending.  I promise I will get to it.  But, first, let’s take a closer look at what happened.  When Jane heard the doctor say she had cancer and was probably going to die it is understandable that she felt devastated.  Of course, she felt an onslaught of fear.
But there are some important physiological changes that happened, as well.  Research confirms that there is a strong connection between the vibrancy of the immune system and the emotional state.

A number of doctors and researchers refer to a famous case:  (Both the well-known Dr. Larry Dossey, M.D. and Dr. Mario Martinez, Ph.D. have written extensively about this amazing case.)  Two patients in the cardiac unit of a large and busy hospital had been hospitalized the same day.  They were both male and roughly the same age, but their cases were physiologically very different.

One patient had relatively minor and intermittent chest pains.  His tests revealed some moderate coronary artery blockages, but nothing that was immediately life-threatening.  He was expected to be discharged from the hospital and to make a full recovery.  His cardiologist determined that he did not need surgery.  A couple of days in the hospital for rest and monitoring, some medications and diet change were all that seemed to be needed.
​
The other patient had advanced heart disease and was not expected to recover.  The damage to his heart was already too advanced for recovery to be probable.

Here’s where it gets interesting:  As I said, this was a very busy hospital.   The two patient’s charts were accidentally swapped.  So now the patient who was supposed to recover had a chart that said he was terminal.  The patient who had been diagnosed as terminal had a chart that indicated he was expected to recover.

Over the next several days, the patient who should have recovered, gradually shut down and died instead.  The patient who had originally been expected to die, much to the amazement of his doctors, recovered.

How could this be?   These two amazing cases came to the attention of researchers, including Dr. Larry Dossey and Dr. Mario Martinez.  They quickly came to the conclusion that unraveling the mystery required connecting the two cases.

Essentially, we had a person who should have recovered, but had been told he was going to die, or “sentenced to death”, and who did die for no real “medical reason”.  At the same time, we had a person who, from a medical point of view, should have died, who was told he was going to recover, and who did recover.

Let’s look at what happened in the case of the man who died.  Here is what the researchers concluded:  He heard that he was supposed to die.  His unconscious mind believed this, (even though it was medically not true), and set about preparing his body for death.  His organs began shutting down.  His immune system became far less active.  After all, a dying body does not need to be protected against pathogens, so there is no longer a need for an active immune system.
​
A brilliant Traditional Chinese Doctor, Dr. Mei, coined the term, “Diagnosis Shock” for what happens when our unconscious minds believe we are dying and that it is time to “throw in the towel.”   The unconscious mind believes that the situation is hopeless, that there is no point in resisting what is imminent, and that the time has come to accept what is to come – death.  It literally changes the biochemistry of the body and the neurological signaling of the body to prepare for death.

This is similar to what happens when the body “goes into shock” as a result of severe trauma.  In fact, the researchers discovered that the same blood chemistry changes noted in cases of shock brought on by trauma, occur in those suffering from diagnosis shock.   This can literally be measured in reduced T-cell counts, as well as other blood markers showing metabolic decreases and an immune system that is shutting down.

The diagnosis shock is generally in proportion to the degree of fear, conscious and unconscious, that is associated with the disease or condition.  Here’s how this relates specifically to cancer:  By far, the most important requirement for overcoming any cancer is a strong immune system.  As long as person is in a state of diagnosis shock, their immune system will be anything but strong.

So the first thing to do immediately after receiving any serious diagnosis, especially a cancer diagnosis, is to reverse the diagnosis shock.   It is safe to assume that diagnosis shock is always present following such a diagnosis.

So here is what happened with Jane:  She mumbled to the doctor that she had to think about it and that she would let him know the next day what she wanted to do.  Clearly, the doctor was not pleased.  He wanted to begin the strongest possible treatment right away.  But Jane had reservations.  After all, the doctor told her that her situation was quite hopeless.  So why should she subject herself to the tortures of chemotherapy and radiation?

Instead, she asked me to get her out of there and back home.  As soon as we left the hospital, I began working with her to discharge and reverse the diagnosis shock.  I did some of this using rational thinking.  I asked Jane to describe how her body felt before the appointment.  I asked her to describe how her body felt after the appointment.  Clearly, there was an enormous contrast.

Next, I asked Jane if she thought it was even remotely possible that the cancer had advanced sufficiently to explain for how much worse she felt in just the few or so that we spent in the doctor’s office.  Obviously, that was not possible.  We talked about cancers and how they grow.  I shared with Jane that in most cases, tumor forming cancers grow slowly at first and that almost certainly this cancer had been growing and developing for at least the past few years before it produced and symptoms and became anything that could even be diagnosed.

We used yogic breathing measures, EFT and some special techniques for shifting unconscious beliefs to help her discharge and recover from the diagnosis shock.  This was the first major step in her recovery.

Jane decided to decline all conventional treatment and instead take advantage of the leading edge alternative treatment available.  Over the next 18 months, I guided her through a program to eradicate the cancer, rebuild her immune system and correct the other factors that had allowed the cancer to grow and thrive in her body.  Although her program was specific to her and her needs, it followed the same core principles I have used for many years to help hundreds of my clients recover from cancer.

To make a long story short, instead of getting sicker and dying at 6 months, which was the short estimate the doctor had given her, Jane was confirmed cancer-free at 6 months.  (Although she declined conventional treatment, I insisted that we utilize conventional diagnostics so that we could track her progress.)

By 18 months, not only had Jane fully recovered her health, but she remained cancer-free, feeling healthier than she had in years.  Further, all measurable cancer risk factors were dramatically decreased.  Jane recently passed the 4 year mark since being declared cancer-free.  She remains cancer-free and is optimistic about enjoying many years of healthy life to come.

Conclusion:
To me, having encountered and observed diagnosis shock over and over again throughout the many years I have been doing this work, the phenomena of diagnosis shock is obvious.  Further, the effects of it are obvious.  Ignored, it can be deadly and has the potential to turn an otherwise recoverable case into a terminal case.  This is especially true in cancers, where a vibrant and strong immune system is so crucial to recovery.

Yet, conventional medicine still all but ignores diagnosis shock.  In fact, if you google diagnosis shock you will find tons of articles and posts on how to detect and deal with physical shock, as in trauma care, but nothing on diagnosis shock.  This is despite the fact that real research confirms that both are potentially deadly.

In my next post I will share practical techniques and resources for dealing with diagnosis shock and reversing it.  I believe this is one of the most crucial steps to overcoming cancer.  My years of experience confirm that these measures to discharge diagnosis shock should be among the first employed following any cancer diagnosis.
​
I’m sure this important factor that is so often ignored will generate some interesting comments and questions.  I look forward to a stimulating conversation.
To your great health – until next time!
Jeff Bell

The debate over cinnamon, which is usually Ceylon vs. Saigon, can be confusing.  The benefits
are the same and your body loves both. 

Use it for inflammation, fighting cancer, balancing blood sugar and controlling candida.



​The two most popular varieties of cinnamon are Ceylon cinnamon and Saigon cinnamon.  The cost of Ceylon cinnamon is about twice what you will pay for Saigon cinnamon.   They are  both healing.  They are both antimicrobials  antioxidants that are  inflammation fighters, cancer deterrents and will balance blood sugar while assist the body in a number of ways.  It is agreed that "true" cinnamon is that which comes from the bark of the cinnamomum zeylanicum tree.  It has a more mild flavor, a lighter color and is sold as Ceylon cinnamon.  This is not the most common variety.

Saigon cinnamon is actually from the cinnamomum cassia plant and is also called cassia or Chinese cinnamon.  It is a darker color with more intense flavor.  This is the cinnamon that is most familiar and most popular due to price.

The debate takes shape over coumarin, which is a natural blood thinner that is present in Saigon cinnamon.  If one was taking pharmaceutical blood thinners they might be instructed to eliminate cinnamon from their diet.  In reality, they might need to eliminate Saigon cinnamon and could most likely use Ceylon cinnamon which does not have the blood thinning property.

The following article is taken from the Breast Cancer Action website. 
​If you want to understand what Pink Ribbon Campaigns are actually doing, read on and refuse to be part of the fearful who follow because Big Pharma says you should.

4 Questions Before You Buy PinkPinkwashingBreast Cancer Action coined the term pinkwashing as part of our Think Before You Pink® campaign. Pinkwasher: (pink’-wah-sher) noun. A company or organization that claims to care about breast cancer by promoting a pink ribbon product, but at the same time produces, manufactures and/or sells products that are linked to the disease.Critical Questions to Ask Before You Buy Pink

1. Does any money from this purchase go to support breast cancer programs? How much? Any company can put a pink ribbon on its products. The widely recognized pink ribbon symbol is not regulated by any agency and does not necessarily mean it effectively combats the breast cancer epidemic. Some products sport pink ribbons to try to communicate that they are “healthy” and don’t contribute to breast cancer, such as a number of natural health and beauty products. Other products have a pink ribbon in order to indicate that the company supports breast cancer programs even if the company’s contributions are not tied to the purchases of the specific product bearing the ribbon. Still other companies give a portion of an item’s cost to a breast cancer organization but may require further action on the part of the consumer for the donation to be realized. Can you tell how much money from your purchases will go to support breast cancer programs? If not, consider giving directly to the charity of your choice instead.
EXAMPLE: In 2010, Dansko shoe company sold pink ribbon clogs. Consumers likely thought that a portion of their purchase of pink ribbon clogs went to a breast cancer program. However, purchase of the pink ribbon clogs was not connected to Dansko’s donation—none of the portion of the sales went toward their already set donation of $25,000 to Susan G. Komen for the Cure. No matter whether or not you bought the clogs, their donation was the same.

2. What organization will get the money? What will they do with the funds, and how do these programs turn the tide of the breast cancer epidemic?Many companies that sell pink ribbon products and donate a percentage of each sale to breast cancer programs fail to indicate which of the many different breast cancer organizations will get the money. Furthermore, the consumer is left to trust that these organizations are engaged in work that is meaningful and makes the greatest difference. If money goes to “services,” are they reaching the people who need them most? How do screening programs ensure that women can get treatment? And how do breast cancer awareness programs address the fact that we already know that breast cancer is a problem and that action is needed in order to end the epidemic? Does the money go to truly addressing the root causes of the epidemic, like social inequities that lead to women of color and poor women dying more often of breast cancer, or environmental toxins that are contributing to high rates of breast cancer? Before donating, check the recipient organization’s website to make sure that its mission and activities are in line with your personal values. If you can’t tell, or you don’t know what the organization does, reconsider your purchase.
EXAMPLE: The KISSES for a Cure music box is advertised by its maker, The Bradford Exchange, online with the following: “A portion of the proceeds from this music box will be donated to help fight breast cancer.” It is not clear what breast cancer organizations would benefit, how much money they would receive, and what programs or work would be funded by the donation.
3. Is there a “cap” on the amount the company will donate? Has this maximum donation already been met? Can you tell?Some companies that indicate that a portion of the proceeds from the sale of a particular pink ribbon product will go to support breast cancer programs put an arbitrary “cap” on their maximum donation. Once the maximum amount has been met, the company may continue to sell the product with the pink ribbon without alerting customers that no additional funds will be donated to breast cancer organizations. This means you may be buying a product for which none of your purchase price will go to a breast cancer cause but only to the bottom line of the company.
EXAMPLE: In 2010, Reebok marketed a line of pink ribbon emblazoned footwear and apparel at prices ranging from$50 to $100. Though it heavily promoted the fact that some of their pink ribbon product sales would be donated tothe Avon Breast Cancer Crusade, they set a limit of $750,000, regardless of how many items were sold, and therewas no mechanism in place to alert consumers once the maximum donation had been met.

4. Does this purchase put you or someone you love at risk for exposure to toxins linked to breast cancer? What is the company doing to ensure that its products are not contributing to the breastcancer epidemic?Many companies have sold pink ribbon products that are linked to increased risk of breast cancer. We believe that companies that are profiting from building a reputation based on their concern about breast cancer have a responsibilityto protect the public from possible harms when scientifi c research indicates that there is a risk or plausible reason forconcern. Some of the earliest cause-marketing companies were well-known cosmetics companies that continue to sell cosmetics containing chemicals that have been linked to breast cancer. Even car companies have gotten in on the action and sell cars that emit toxic air pollutants in the name of breast cancer. In considering a pink ribbon purchase, does the product contain toxins or otherwise increase our risk of breast cancer?
EXAMPLE: In 2011, Susan G. Komen for the Cure commissioned a perfume called Promise Me that contains unlisted chemicals that are regulated as toxic and hazardous, have not been adequately evaluated for human safety, and have demonstrated negative health effects. Although Komen said they would reformulate future versions of the perfume, without official adoption of the precautionary principle, there is no guarantee that future versions would be better.

Hemp Oil can be legally shipped to all 50 states.  
I use this product and recommend it without  financial benefit.

If you have not tried hemp to relieve symptoms of discomfort, you might find it can replace other medications.  A quality hemp oil can be expected to relieve pain, slow bacteria growth, reduce blood sugar levels,  vomiting, nausea. seizures, anxiety, artery blockage, inhibit cell growth in tumors or skin cancers, treat psoriasis, calm the body, suppress muscle spasms, promote bone growth, calm small intestines and protect the nervous system.   

Although the hemp plant is in the marijuana family. it does not have the psychoactive qualities of marijuana and will not produce a high.  Drops of the oil are placed under the tongue for absorption.

Although there are many sources, this product is available at www.kbpureessentials.com.  Currently they are able to ship nationwide.

Sweeteners can be confusing, but without much
research you will find most are carcinogens.  There
are a hundred reasons to stay away from the
pink, yellow and blue packets. 

​ What hope there is
for safe sweetness can be found in the green packets
​and what is in those varies.

Those who are using sweeteners likely know the dangers of taking in too many sugars.  Those colored packets seem like a great way to take a step toward health, but like everything else, there is good, better and best.  

All things sweet alert your system to produce insulin.  This puts your adrenals and cortisol into gear so that the coming sweetness can be properly managed.  When there really is no food behind that sweetness you send a false alert.  Too many of these false alerts can set you up for trouble.  The bottom line is you can overdo any sweetener.  They all can be addictive and confusing to the body.

When it comes to the packets on your restaurant table, we are clear that the yellow, pink and blue are carcinogens.   The green packets of sweetener are derivatives of the stevia plant which can be 100% natural if you buy right. 

Your best choice in stevia is organic, pure stevia without other ingredients.  It is simply the leaf of the stevia plant that is processed and sold in a powder form.  This herb is about 200 times sweeter than sugar and so only takes a tiny pinch to sweeten a drink.  If you were to chew the raw stevia leaf you would taste its sweetness immediately.

When stevia is sold in bulk and packets there can be additional ingredients that contaminate this pure resource.  These additives, used as extenders, can be lactose and a number of other products that bring purity into question.   Some of these less than pure forms are reported to be only about 1% stevia. 

Truvia advertises to be “Nature’s Calorie-Free Sweetener.”  Unlike pure stevia, it contains primarily erythritol which has some roots in nature, but is processed and uses a derivative form of stevia called rebiana, plus natural flavorings.  Erythritol is known to cause gastrointestinal issues with stomach rumblings and loose stools in some, but to date, there are no warnings about serious side effects.  Using the pure product means less tampering with nature.

Stevia is known to lower blood pressure and blood sugar.  It has no compelling science that supports it being harmful, although there are those with ragweed  allergies that claim to be troubled by it.  It is not a know carcinogen.

How would you feel if you thought your cancer specialist was  profiting, not only as your oncologist, but as the provider of the drugs used in your chemotherapy?  Would it seem reasonable that your doctor who is making your life and death decisions and qualifying the need for chemotherapy was taking a great, big portion of the profits and making close to the same money as the pharmaceutical company who delivered them?


That is exactly what is happening, but your average cancer patient, stricken with panic and grief has no idea.  The system allows for the oncologist to purchase drugs wholesale from a pharmaceutical provider.  The drug prices are then inflated and billed to insurance or Medicare.  The excess, not covered by insurance, is then billed to the patient, the sick and dying patient.  The cost is at the discretion of  the salesman, your doctor.


We are not talking about a few bucks, we’re talking about a multi-million dollar industry.  How much is the mark up?  I’ve read a number of astonishing reports, but the amount of mark up is the decision of the doctor.  In one example given, the cost of the product was $4,000 from the provider.  The doctor marked it up to $12,000 and the insurance company paid $8,000, leaving the patient a $4,000 bill for each day of treatment, over the course of weeks and months.


If all of this feels less than reasonable, it should.  How unbiased can a doctor be who stands to make hundreds of thousands of dollars for suggesting treatment?  How willing is that doctor going to be when I suggest we try natural cures and put off the harshness of chemotherapy in favor herbs or marijuana?  From personal experience with two oncologists, I can tell you the willingness in both cases was not to be found.


Doctors who profit from what is being called “chemotherapy concessions” claim there is a justified reason for the up-charge   The rational is that the cost of doing chemotherapy in a non-hospital setting is done at a high cost to the oncology office.  They claim they are just trying to break even.  To that I say, Boo Hoo.  


People are dying from chemotherapy daily and the elusive “search for the cure” is disregarded in favor of profit.  The practice is so out of hand, that the US congress and insurance companies are finally fighting back and in favor of the public.  They are looking for change, as should patients, but it will likely be gradual and a compromise that will be less than adequate.  


Chemotherapy, like all suggested medical treatments, is a choice.  There are options that should not be overlooked.  The unfortunate circumstance of the chemotherapy concessions system, is that only a rare few can hope to get an impartial opinion about the absolute need for treatment without prejudice from a doctor who has this kind of abundant wealth at stake.