Pesticides:

Breast cancer is associated with heredity (although this is disputed) and reproductive history (early menarche, no children, late menopause). The attempted association between breast cancer and a high-fat diet is now totally discredited by the Willits study at Harvard. However, there probably is a relationship with the contaminates concentrated in fats.

Organic chlorine pesticides are associated with breast cancers. These pesticides are specific for the location of the cancer on the breast, and they concentrate in breast fat. They also have an estrogenic effect, which is carcinogenic when in excess. DDT and PCB are present in increased levels in the blood of women with breast cancer. These data are not new; they have simply not been made available to the general public.

Meat Hormones:

Now, to meat hormones. The great majority of cattle are raised in feed lots where they receive high doses of estrogens before slaughter, so that the meat will be tender for market. The levels of estrogenic hormones present in meat are terrifyingly high. There is no effective regulation of feed additives, including antibiotics and hormones in meat. Women who eat meat are exposed from birth to death to high levels of estrogenic hormones because of feed additives. This goes on with the tacit approval of The FDA and the silence of the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute.

Industrial Carcinogens:

Polyvinyl chloride is manufactured from vinyl chloride. Women who work in factories where this is done have a greatly increased incidence of breast cancer. These studies have been “replicated.” (That means they have been repeated and are considered reliable). Despite the fact that over three million women are working in the petrochemical industry, there has been no serious attempt to look further into this matter. Electrical industry work also is an important risk factor in cancer.

Location:

Where you live also affects the incidence of breast cancer. People living near hazardous waste dumps are at high risk for cancer. Living in proximity to a nuclear plant results in major excesses of breast cancer.

Mammography:

There also are iatrogenic (doctor caused) breast cancers. In 1971, the National Academy of Science published a report revealing that for every rad of x-ray exposure, the risk of breast cancer increased by one percent. Nine months later the ACS and NCI promoted a mammography project in which 300,000 women were enrolled and were told that the dose of radiation would be perfectly safe, and that the procedure might pick up breast cancer and save their lives. The minimum dose women received in this procedure was two rads per mammogram. Some centers administered five rads and some ten rads. Think of that, an increase in cancer risk of two percent, five percent, or ten percent by a single test for cancer, without being informed of the risks!

The premenopausal breast is much more sensitive to radiation than the postmenopausal breast. If a premenopausal women gets an annual mammogram each year for five years, involving two rads each time, she will have an increased risk of breast cancer of ten percent! The NCI and ACS knew this. They chose to do it anyway for publicity and research money reasons. These women have never been followed up. Probably, part of the story in the increased incidence of breast cancer has been these studies back in the 1970s.

Even though in the 1980s the level of radiation given in mammography was lowered to the range of 200 millirads, there has never been a single published study showing the effectiveness of mammography in the premenopausal woman. There have been seven randomized, controlled trials showing no efficacy whatsoever. In contrast, these studies demonstrate increased mortality in premenopausal women for the three to five years after a mammogram. These data were presented to the ACS and NCI years ago, but they were dismissed and trivialized. Last year, however, the NCI reversed itself and stands against premenopausal mammography, but the ACS still persists, and radiologists who fear losing their “premenopausal market” support them. That is the language, the “premenopausal market!”

Breast Implants:

There are two types of breast implants, a straight silicon gel and a silicone gel implant surrounded by an industrial polyurethane. The object of polyurethane was to reduce contractures and prevent scarring and hardening of the breasts. About two million women have been implanted. From 1960 to 1964, Wilhelm Huper at the NCI — the greatest cancer authority of the age — published a series of research papers revealing that injection of polyurethane into animals resulted in a wide range of sarcomas and carcinomas. He warned that polyurethane would degrade in the body and that its degradation would be accompanied by the appearance of these cancers. There was no question in his mind these cancers were caused by polyurethane, and under no circumstances should polyurethane ever be implanted in the human body.

The chemicals from which polyurethane is made were proven to cause cancer, and these chemicals appear in the breast milk and urine of women with breast implants. Their appearance in breast milk obviously puts the nursing baby at risk as well. The chemical industry was well aware of this. The plastic surgery industry was well aware of this. Nevertheless, 400,000 women were implanted with polyurethane — despite the fact that evidence of its carcinogenicity goes back to the 60s.

The evidence of carcinogenicity was just as clear for the silicone gel. The scientists who were aware of this pushed for a medical alert. The FDA responded by firing those scientists and burying the documentation for years. This information was available to plastic surgeons. Records of a conference of plastic surgeons in 1985 show that  serious concern was expressed as to what might happen if the data became available to the general public. And yet they went on doing it!

The breast implant situation is even more shocking, because two million women are involved. The best FDA scientists recommended a medical alert to go out to these women in 1987. The recent 4.52 billion dollar settlement relates to autoimmune disease without a word regarding breast cancer.