"Breast Cancer Awareness Month" is a scam.

[stanmrak]

Exerpt from an article from Mike Adams at naturalnews.com:

First of all, notice that it's called Breast Cancer Awareness Month, not Breast Cancer Prevention Month.

The whole point of this awareness month is not actually to increase awareness of breast cancer -- virtually everyone is already aware of the existence of the disease -- but rather to increase fear so that more women will go get screened for cancer. They should really call it the "Be Afraid of Breast Cancer Month."

The big push for more cancer screening only results in more recruitment of women into high-profit cancer therapies such as chemotherapy and surgery. This is where the real profits are to be found, and Breast Cancer Awareness Month is really all about corralling women into these high-profit treatments.

The science, by the way, says that radiation, chemotherapy and surgery harm far more women than they help, and that cancer over-diagnosis and over-treatment is such a huge problem today that all these breast cancer awareness campaigns are actually hurting women's health across the board.

Yeah, I know. Everyone knows someone who was "cured" of cancer because of early screening. What you don't hear about are all the people who get cancer because of exposure to radiation from cancer screenings. The cancer industry keeps that under the rug; it's bad for business.

To illustrate this point, ask yourself why the cancer industry doesn't promote the use of vitamin D supplements. Studies have shown that if everyone had optimal levels of vitamin D in their blood, cancer rates would drop as much as 77 percent, almost immediately! Instead, they encourage you to stay out of the sun and use sunblock every time you do go out.

Read the full essay here: Why isn't it called Breast Cancer Prevention Month?

[Daffy Duck]

It's hard to take this guy's opinion seriously when he says stuff like, "To illustrate this point, ask yourself why the cancer industry doesn't promote the use of vitamin D supplements."

The whole medical industry, in general, promotes healthy practices. Many breast awareness campaigns talk about vitamin D. Somehow, some people ignore this fact and claim that doctors want them to suffer.

This article is a good example of a famous quote: "I will look at any additional evidence to confirm the opinion to which I have already come." - Lord Molson, British politician

[stanmrak]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

The whole medical industry, in general, promotes healthy practices. Many breast awareness campaigns talk about vitamin D. Somehow, some people ignore this fact and claim that doctors want them to suffer.

I don't blame the doctors; they're mostly well-meaning people who have been indoctrinated into a flawed system of medicine.

There may be groups who advocate the use of vitamin D, but it's not the ones who are profiting from cancer screenings. Where are the ACS and the CDC promotions of vitamin D? And, again, why is it called "Awareness" month and not "Prevention" month? That says it all.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

And, again, why is it called "Awareness" month and not "Prevention" month?

It's because the word "Awareness" is better suited. The word Prevention is much more limited than Awareness. Prevention is included in the term "Awareness". This month is not only dedicated to educating people about preventing the cancer, it's also dedicated to those who have it already.

It's no surprise to me that the first five questions on the National Breast Cancer Awareness FAQ are dedicated to giving information about prevention.

The facts are out there, but no amount of facts will persuade the author from his view that the cancer industry is evil. Sounds like he's the one who promotes fear, in my opinion.

I think that's all I have to say.

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

Exerpt from an article from Mike Adams at naturalnews.com:

The cancer industry keeps that under the rug; it's bad for business.

To illustrate this point, ask yourself why the cancer industry doesn't promote the use of vitamin D supplements.
Read the full essay here: Why isn't it called Breast Cancer Prevention Month?

Mike Adams is the health ranger. He talks about industry and business. The purpose in industry and business is to make money. That is the only purpose. A capitalistic society is about making money. A socialist country cares about health and wellness and not money. The purpose of a job like being a doctor is to make money. The 2 best paying jobs are being a doctor or lawyer.

You can not make much money with vitamin D since it is free if you get it from the sun and many sell it for very little. But anyone who wants to can decide to spread the news about cancer, breast cancer and vitamin D like the that d'action group. Here is my webpage that is dedicated to virtually ending breast cancer in North America and greatly reducing the other cancers. It is not a money making endeaver but a hobby like coin collecting.

Here are some excerpts from it (the webpage has the links to where they came from):

Breast cancer is a disease so directly related to vitamin D deficiency that a woman's risk of contracting the disease can be 'virtually eradicated' by elevating her vitamin D status to what vitamin D scientists consider to be natural blood levels.

That's the message vitamin D pioneer Dr. Cedric Garland....

[Dr Mercola says:] We now know that if you can get your vitamin D levels up to about 60-80 ng/ml, it will virtually eliminate your risk of breast cancer.

[Harvard Medical School says:] However, in one of the few randomized trials testing the effect of vitamin D supplements on cancer outcomes, postmenopausal women who took 1,100 international units (IU) of vitamin D plus 1,400 to 1,500 milligrams of calcium per day reduced their risk of developing non-skin cancers by 77% after four years, compared with a placebo and the same dose of calcium.

[Joel Fuhrman MD says:] This illustrated that if Vitamin D supplements were a drug, and if a drug was ever shown to produce such an outcome, it would be worth zillions of dollars as the most impressive drug ever invented in medical history.

Christiane Northrup M.D., a board-certified ob-gyn, is a visionary pioneer, beloved authority in women's health and wellness and the author of the great New York Times best-sellers Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom and The Wisdom of Menopause.

Dr. Christiane Northrup (in article Prevent Breast Cancer with Vitamin D) says:

There's a paradigm shift going on in medicine as new research reveals a far greater role for vitamin D.

In addition to protecting the bones and boosting the immune system, studies show that Vitamin D helps prevent certain cancers, including breast, ovarian, prostate and colorectal. [footnote 2, 3, 4, 5] Exciting new research shows that, in the United States alone, thousands of new cases of breast cancer could be prevented every year if more women had optimal levels of vitamin D. [footnote 6]

[JamesKnochel]

I like the health ranger's stuff and all, but I think this article misses something important. Breast cancer is seemingly triggered by the use of underwires in brassiers.

This book says so: Amazon.com: Dressed To Kill: The Link between Breast Cancer and Bras (9781930858053): Sydney Ross Singer, Soma Grismaijer: Books

Donna Eden recommends removing underwires from brassiers to mitigate the harmful effects.

hth, hand.

-James

[Brutha]

The science, by the way, says that radiation, chemotherapy and surgery harm far more women than they help, and that cancer over-diagnosis and over-treatment is such a huge problem today that all these breast cancer awareness campaigns are actually hurting women's health across the board.

If you want to make such a claim, link to the studies you are talking about.

[stanmrak]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If you want to make such a claim, link to the studies you are talking about.

I suggest you check out naturalnews.com or mercola.com and do some searches... you'll find way more data than I could present here.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

And, again, why is it called "Awareness" month and not "Prevention" month? That says it all.

Because awareness is something you can guarantee to raise. You can't guarantee prevention. You can only raise the chances of early detection, which can improve your odds of survival.

The science, by the way, says that radiation, chemotherapy and surgery harm far more women than they help, and that cancer over-diagnosis and over-treatment is such a huge problem today that all these breast cancer awareness campaigns are actually hurting women's health across the board.

We already know how to prevent it right now! It's easy with vitamin D, exercise, fitness, superfoods and anti-cancer nutritional supplements such as medicinal mushrooms.

Actually, nothing in the page you linked to, nor any of the links it links to proves or even really suggests anything of the kind.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Because awareness is something you can guarantee to raise. You can't guarantee prevention. You can only raise the chances of early detection, which can improve your odds of survival.





Actually, nothing in the page you linked to, nor any of the links it links to proves or even really suggests anything of the kind.

I get the whole early detection thing. Hell, both my mother and her mother died from best cancer. But why are we forcing women to get the test done every single year, year after year? If it's for early detection, then why aren't we also telling them to get tested for the dozens of other life threatening conditions that they might get?

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

I get the whole early detection thing. Hell, both my mother and her mother died from best cancer. But why are we forcing women to get the test done every single year, year after year? If it's for early detection, then why aren't we also telling them to get tested for the dozens of other life threatening conditions that they might get?

Because the incidence of breast cancer is so phenomenally high compared to other diseases... like, one in nine?

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

I get the whole early detection thing. Hell, both my mother and her mother died from best cancer. But why are we forcing women to get the test done every single year, year after year? If it's for early detection, then why aren't we also telling them to get tested for the dozens of other life threatening conditions that they might get?

I don't know how it is in the US but in the Netherlands they tell you to self test every week at least (to get to know your body on the different times of your cycle) and only get a test done if you feel something "wrong" UNLESS breast cancer runs in the family or you have experienced other types of cancer.

Only after 50 you get an invitation for 2x a year screening with x-rays, but they are currently looking into changing it into digital screening.

[votoshka]

Unfortunately mammograms tend to actually either cause or spread breast cancer... so if someone who doesn't have it is screened that way, they actually increase their chance of getting it!!

Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew) (there's a link for those who like to know).

I think the whole thing should be "awareness about how breast cancer can be prevented" (or at least minimised). If you follow guidelines with respect to healthy eating, vitamin D etc. etc. you can at the very least make your chances of getting breast cancer lower.

[aelle]

I don't know about mammograms increasing cancer risks, but I have read studies stating that early mammograms detect growths that look dangerous but would have NOT evolved into cancer. The bodies of young women are much stronger and able to fight these big, slow growth lumps tham that of older women. So we submit all these younger women to surgeries and radiations and say, isn't it great, we removed X more lumps this year! Whem really it doesn't make a difference in terms of mortality. And in the meantime, the breast cancers that DO kill younger women are very aggressive and grow very fast, so that you have almost no chance of catching it with a bi yearly screening (the previous time it wasn't there, and you'll already be dead by next time).

[Brutha]

The US had a long time higher rates of mammograms than Europe. A lot of people think that it's one of the features of the fact that the US health system is privatized.
Then the US system also has higher treatment rates of breast cancer. The US however still has lower average lifespan than Europe.

A year ago the US government task force that is supposed to give recommendation of screening practices then decided that woman between 40 and 50 without extra individual risk factors who previously were recommended to get screened yearly shouldn't get screening anymore.

That produced quite a stir about the best policies. It's the conflict of government wanting to reduce health spending while your Cancer associations want to increase it.

I suggest you check out naturalnews.com or mercola.com and do some searches... you'll find way more data than I could present here.

Mercola invents fact left and right and isn't in the habit of providing sources. The naturalnews articles also avoid to mention sources.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The US had a long time higher rates of mammograms than Europe. A lot of people think that it's one of the features of the fact that the US health system is privatized.
Then the US system also has higher treatment rates of breast cancer. The US however still has lower average lifespan than Europe.

A year ago the US government task force that is supposed to give recommendation of screening practices then decided that woman between 40 and 50 without extra individual risk factors who previously were recommended to get screened yearly shouldn't get screening anymore.

That produced quite a stir about the best policies. It's the conflict of government wanting to reduce health spending while your Cancer associations want to increase it.
Mercola invents fact left and right and isn't in the habit of providing sources. The naturalnews articles also avoid to mention sources.

yeah, average life span is lower, because we have a higher infant mortality rate then all those European countries. THAT'S IT. Most other countries do not try to keep babies a live the way Americans do. We have more premature births, and if a baby is born then dies, or is still born, that counts as 0 days alive. All averaged into the total. No one ever considers that tho, when they are talking about average ages

[stanmrak]

The healthcare industry seldom mentions the drawbacks of cancer screenings, so here you are:

1. The Overwhelming Majority of Patients Who Are Screened Receive No Benefit.
Statistics show that undergoing regular breast cancer screening starting at age 40 only decreases a woman's risk of dying from cancer by 0.05 percent — that's 1 in 2000. It increases to 0.2 percent for women in their 50's — that's 1 in 500. This might be considered worthwhile, if there were no downsides — but there are plenty.

2. The Most Deadly Cancers Often Are Missed.
The most common reason that cancers are missed in regular screenings is due to the nature of cancer itself. The deadliest cancers grow very rapidly. Screening can detect slow-growing cancers in their early stages, but an aggressive cancer could develop just months after screening and be too far advanced by the time you get another screening.

3. False Positives Lead to Unnecessary Treatments.
The most common drawback to cancer screenings are false positives — when you're told that your test is inconclusive and can't be verified. False positives lead to further procedures such as ultrasounds, CT scans, colonoscopies and even biopsies, which are far more invasive and could possibly even promote the spread of cancer.
Unfortunately, false positive rates are high. If you repeat this screening test every year for 10 years, your cumulative risk of having at least one false positive goes up to 50 percent.
In addition, false positives are more common in lower-risk, younger women (this is true for all screening tests and diseases, not just breast cancer and mammography). So the potential risks at age 40 are higher, with no real added benefit.

4. Overdiagnosis Also Leads to Unnecessary Treatments.
It's true that some lives are saved due to early detection and treatment. But not all cancers are the same — some are deadly, some aren't.
The most serious harm is overdiagnosis — finding cancers that are better off not being found, because it means that women are being treated with measures like chemotherapy, radiation and surgery for tumors that do not need treating.

5. Cancer Screening (and Other Medical Procedures) May Actually CAUSE Cancer.
A recent study found that as many as two-thirds of adults underwent a medical test in the last few years that exposed them to radiation and in some cases, a potentially higher risk of cancer.
Some doctors are concerned that advanced tests that expose the patient to ionizing radiation, such as CT scans, are being over-prescribed. Some 80 million CT scans are performed annually.
Americans' exposure to radiation has increased more than 600% over the last 30 years according to a new report released by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement. Most of that increase has come from medical imaging such as CT scans and mammograms.
Most women undergoing mammograms have no idea that the radiation emitted by these machines can actually cause cancer by exposing heart and breast tissue to ionizing radiation that causes DNA damage. Annual screenings only multiply your risk factor.
In another report, published in the December 2009 issue of The Archives of Internal Medicine, it was estimated that radiation from CT scans done in 2007 will cause 29,000 cancers and kill nearly 15,000 Americans. CT scans involve much higher radiation dose than conventional X-rays; a chest CT scan exposes the patient to more than 100 times the radiation dose of a chest X-ray.

Most of this information is in a book written by H. Gilbert Welch, MD, a professor at Dartmouth Medical School, Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Here's Why. Dr. Welch raises many issues regarding cancer screening that you should know about, and explains them in easy-to-understand language.

[votoshka]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

yeah, average life span is lower, because we have a higher infant mortality rate then all those European countries. THAT'S IT. Most other countries do not try to keep babies a live the way Americans do. We have more premature births, and if a baby is born then dies, or is still born, that counts as 0 days alive. All averaged into the total. No one ever considers that tho, when they are talking about average ages

How does that work?? It makes no sense... if US livespan is lower due to more infant mortaility, doesn't that mean that they're not doing as good a job of keeping babies alive? If they're trying harder, they should have more success

Unless you are saying stillborn babies in Europe aren't considered a death at all??

If Europeans were LESS likely to try hard to keep babies alive, then surely their infant mortality would be higher?

This is spoken as someone not from Europe or the US...I know that in Australia we do our best to keep premature babies alive...and we have the fifth highest life expectancy in the world, which is higher than many European nations, and yes, it seems as if our infant mortality rate is lower than the US too, which agreed is probably one of the major factors why our life expectancy is lower. If we did LESS to keep babies alive, then I'm sure that would have a negative impact on our life expectancy.

I would be more concerned that in the US they're not doing ENOUGH to keep critically ill babies alive?? That certainly surprises me, to be honest...

EDIT: Just read this... "Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality" from Wikipedia. So yeah...different definition = different result.

[James81]

Did anybody see that article about putting the little awareness ribbons on the footballs for the NFL games?

Isn't that some sacrilege right there? I mean football is a MAN sport (*grunts*). If they want to raise awareness through football, the put a picture of pink breasts on the ball! Not a litte girly ribbon. Puh-lease.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by James81

Did anybody see that article about putting the little awareness ribbons on the footballs for the NFL games?

Isn't that some sacrilege right there? I mean football is a MAN sport (*grunts*). If they want to raise awareness through football, the put a picture of pink breasts on the ball! Not a litte girly ribbon. Puh-lease.

They also had pink towels hanging out of their butts. I thought it was a touching gesture...

[stanmrak]

Yeah - the pink ribbon thing has gone way too far, like KFC and others selling cancer-promoting foods in the name of raising money for cancer research!

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by votoshka

How does that work?? It makes no sense... if US livespan is lower due to more infant mortaility, doesn't that mean that they're not doing as good a job of keeping babies alive? If they're trying harder, they should have more success

Unless you are saying stillborn babies in Europe aren't considered a death at all??

If Europeans were LESS likely to try hard to keep babies alive, then surely their infant mortality would be higher?

This is spoken as someone not from Europe or the US...I know that in Australia we do our best to keep premature babies alive...and we have the fifth highest life expectancy in the world, which is higher than many European nations, and yes, it seems as if our infant mortality rate is lower than the US too, which agreed is probably one of the major factors why our life expectancy is lower. If we did LESS to keep babies alive, then I'm sure that would have a negative impact on our life expectancy.

I would be more concerned that in the US they're not doing ENOUGH to keep critically ill babies alive?? That certainly surprises me, to be honest...

EDIT: Just read this... "Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality" from Wikipedia. So yeah...different definition = different result.

So are we agreed? I believe Australia is also like Europe and Japan, only counting live births as those when they take a breath. In America, we try VERY hard to bring back every single premature baby, almost no matter how premature. So we bring back a baby, who Europe would have considered dead already, and if that baby dies, then that's a new death added to the average. Remember, keeping a premee alive is expensive, and it seems that America, even with our crappy healthy care system that cares less about our people then all these other countries puts more value on a new born baby . And let me tell you, it is EXPENSIVE.
Medical costs for one premature baby could cover a dozen healthy births

And people wonder why health insurance is so expensive? DUH! Seems like every baby you hear about is premature. And those costs are just premature, and not counting what happens if a baby is still born, and then they resuscitate it and keep it on ventilators for weeks and months.
'

So in-conclusion, having millions of extra 0 day old deaths, REALLY skews the average up a bit. And with all that, we are still pretty high in the life expectancy category.

[Andrew Gubb]

It's hard to take this guy's opinion seriously when he says stuff like, "To illustrate this point, ask yourself why the cancer industry doesn't promote the use of vitamin D supplements."

The whole medical industry, in general, promotes healthy practices. Many breast awareness campaigns talk about vitamin D. Somehow, some people ignore this fact and claim that doctors want them to suffer.

I take him seriously. I've seen to much to deny that... okay, doctors don't want you to suffer; but the system is built to make the most money.

So it's not as simple as saying there's this big conspiracy. For the most part, there is apathy, fear and self-centredness. Doctors don't want to look for better ways, because they are scared of whatever judgement they might receive from their peers. And they don't want to because they are too comfortable with their salaries. They don't want to hurt people but they don't want to wake up either, so they end up hurting people - they have a nice blanket of peer approval which lets them feel comfortable in their slumber.

I have personally cured an "incurable" long term illness with dietary changes. What doctors did in my 10 agonising years of illness made it worse and almost killed me. I've seen a few caring and misguided doctors and a lot of assh*les who would give me an unnecessary life threatening surgery just to get paid more. They once wanted to replace my stomach with a plastic bag. You tell me that they should have gone ahead with that. Especially now that I'm cured. Without their help.

Effective natural breast cancer cures and prevention exist. A low fat raw food diet, for example, will make your chances of getting cancer almost nil. If you already have cancer, you can almost always cure yourself with a sufficiently long fast or a grape diet - and you won't get it again if you go onto a low fat raw food diet afterwards.

[stanmrak]

Isn't "life expectancy" a bit overrated anyway? To me, it's not as important to live longer as it is to be in good health as long as you're alive. I wouldn't care to live an extra ten years if I'm on meds and feel lousy all the time. In addition, I've heard that the afterlife is actually an improvement on what we get here.

[russianrocket]

My step mother who is a radiology tech at our local hospital, was telling me that people are getting so scared about breast cancer, that if they have a history of it in their family, they will actually get a double mastectomy JUST IN CASE.

[stanmrak]

Leave it to the USA, with the world's most advanced healthcare system (sarcasm intended) to come up with the most effective breast cancer-preventive measure ever.

Unfortunately, this practice is getting more and more common. It says as much about the American public as it does the medical profession.

I'm curious to see what would happen if science finds a gene that's linked to brain cancer. Are people going to have their brains removed as well?

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

I'm curious to see what would happen if science finds a gene that's linked to brain cancer. Are people going to have their brains removed as well?

Actually, gene therapy has come a long way. My professor for my genetics class was talking about his PhD research where they actually inserted the corrected gene into the retinas of congenitally blind chickens and they were able to see again!

Anyways I think brain removal is a pretty standard procedure nowadays...

[stanmrak]

In my research on antioxidants, I learned that diet can actually work to regulate gene behavior, to your benefit. This information comes from the work of a Dr. Lester Packer, a world-renowned cell biologist, and is relevant to this discussion.


According to Dr. Packer:

The antioxidant network is your body's built-in intelligence. It constantly monitors the health of each of the trillions of cells in your body. Whenever a problem is detected, antioxidants will turn on the appropriate gene, which, in turn, activates the cells that it needs to solve the problem.

For example, antioxidants direct your genes to alert your immune system when there are invading viruses present. The immune system then creates more white blood cells to kill the viruses. But the process begins with your antioxidant network.

How Do Antioxidants Work to Help You Overcome "Bad" Genes?

Do certain diseases run in your family? You may think that if you inherited a gene that predisposes you to developing cancer, heart disease or any number of other diseases, it means that you will probably get that disease. This is not necessarily the case. Lifestyle and diet have an equally important role role in determining whether or not you will develop any particular disease.

All of us carry some defective or potentially harmful genes, but they have to be activated before they can do damage. One way that bad genes could get activated is if your DNA becomes damaged by free radicals.

Because antioxidants can help regulate dangerous genes, it opens up the possibility to treat diseases at their root cause, by suppressing bad genes before they can do harm, using antioxidants — the ultimate preventive medicine.

You may have heard about unfortunate cases where women actually have their healthy breasts removed because they discovered the presence of one of these bad genes that are known to indicate a high risk of breast cancer. Conventional medicine doesn't have any way of offering protection against this, but a diet high in antioxidants shown to prevent cancer would certainly seem like a better alternative!

[36burrows]

The OP is correct, breast cancer awareness has nothing to do with preventing or curing breast cancer. It's another fear program just like everything else media puts out i.e. swine flu, bird flu, 2012, 9/11, terrorists. Just naming a few of the thousands.

[mojoworking]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Because the incidence of breast cancer is so phenomenally high compared to other diseases... like, one in nine?

This is a hugely misunderstood statistic. Most people repeat it because they have seen it published or heard it broadcast somewhere. Parroting these things without verifying their veracity/accuracy/meaning is bad enough (if inevitable) but those who know better and knowingly promote this "shorthand" statistic without any qualifying information are far worse.

"One in nine women will get breast cancer" seems a pretty clear statisitic, and, definitely a scary one. However, although it is not an outright lie, it is hardly an accurate representation of the facts. Remember too that it has rapidly become accepted as a global truth, which is also a blatant twisting of the studies that have been done and from whence this figure comes.

When used by certain groups it isn't meant to be accurate or representative though, it is designed to scare women and I can't help but feel it is like so many other questionable and appalling tactics used to plant an idea in the mass consciousness in order to further either financial or political agendas. To fully understand the "one in nine" statistic I've posted a few links at the foot of this reply.

Now, based on the fact that this one liner has been used constantly by people with an agenda - charities, medical profession, drugs companies, mammography manufacturers etc. I can't help but see it as fear mongering and sensationalism at its worst. However, for those with an agenda, the actual statistical information is rather long winded and doesn't do much for contributions (charities) or profits (medical profession, big pharma, mammography machine sales).

Fear is a great control/manipulation tool and sadly I can't help but agree with a lot of what the OP says about the cynicism demonstrated by so many in their pursuit of profit at the expense of women everywhere.

Refiguring the odds: what's a woman's real chance of suffering breast cancer?
Breast Cancer Statistics The "Real" Numbers
What Does The 1 in 8/9 Breast Cancer Statistic Mean?

This is "awareness" that seems to get little attention, but surely should if those who constantly preach their desire to educate would not rely on shock tactics to further their own (sometimes dubious at best) aims.

If you are interested in the subject of agendas there is a great little post about them below. This is on another topic entirely (that of ETS/SHS) but is a good example of how and why junk science/lies/statistics are used to manipulate and control people and some of the types of people who further the nonsense that they do. The site is worth exploring for its explanation of the business of statistics too and its commentary on the "truth" versus the "facts".

The second link, on the same topic, explores the effects of such social engineering and the categories and motives of some of its (often unwitting) proponents.

The Facts about second hand smoke - Agendas

http://joedawson.org/Interests/Smoke...ml#persecution