Unholy Alliance: Part I

[Guest guest]

http://www.cancercoverup.com/newsletter/07-2004/

 

Unholy Alliance: Part I

BY KATHLEEN B. DEOUL

 

There's a breast cancer epidemic in the United States.

Between 180,000 and 200,000 women will fall victim to

the disease this year. For about 20% of them, 40,000,

the disease will prove fatal. If doubt that the

situation is out of control and has reached crisis

proportions, consider the following:

 

* Three decades ago, the odds of a woman getting

breast cancer were 1 in 20.

 

* Ten years ago, the odds of a woman getting breast

cancer were 1 in 13.

 

* Today, the odds of a woman getting breast cancer are

1 in 7!

 

In other words, today you are three times as likely to

get breast cancer as you were in the 1970s.

 

But that's not all.

 

According to the National Cancer Institute's SEER

data, the rate of occurrence for breast cancer among

women under the age of 40 increased by 55% between

1951 and 1995, and continues to rise at around 2% per

year!

 

Why is this happening?

 

Initially, researchers dismissed the rise in the

breast cancer rate claiming it was nothing more than

the result of more intensive screening. Because more

women were getting mammograms, they argued, it was

natural that cases that had previously gone undetected

would be found, giving the appearance of an increased

rate.

 

The trouble is, were this the case, after an initial

rise in new cases, the breast cancer rate would be

expected to level off, reflecting the new, more

aggressive screening. That isn't what happened.

Instead, the rate continued to rise. Moreover, while

previously undetected cases might account for a slight

rise in the breast cancer rate, there is no way they

could be responsible for the rate tripling!

 

But if it's not more screening, what is the cause, and

why haven't we heard more about it?

 

The answer is that an unholy alliance of special

interests doesn't want you to know the truth! There is

simply too much money, power and influence at stake!

 

Above all else, this alliance doesn't want you to

learn one central fact: the very people we have put

our faith in to cure breast cancer may be its

principal cause!

 

To understand how this could be it is necessary first

to examine the evidence showing the link between the

breast cancer epidemic and its cause.

A SIMPLE CALCULUS

 

Researchers will argue that determining the cause of a

disease as complex as breast cancer is an illusive

goal. Yet, a simple calculus points a clear finger of

blame:

 

* Fully 70% of the women who contract breast cancer

have NONE of the known risk factors.

 

* Non-industrialized countries have far lower rates of

breast cancer than industrialized countries.

 

* North America and Northern Europe have the highest

breast cancer rates.

 

* Asia and Africa have the lowest breast cancer rates.

 

* Women who live in non-industrialized countries and

then move to industrialized countries develop breast

cancer at the same rate as women who have always lived

in industrialized countries.

 

In short, something is happening in the industrialized

world that is causing the breast cancer epidemic!

 

But what is it?

 

If you listen to the " experts, " they'll tell you that

the reason is that women are too fat, or are taking

hormone replacement therapy or that they have a

genetic disposition to the disease or that they didn't

breast feed or that they did breast feed or that they

had children too late or that they didn't have enough

children.

 

According to the " experts " any way you slice it, it's

the fault of the women who get breast cancer that they

have contracted a life-threatening disease!

 

In other words, blame the victim!

 

It's an easy out. It's also a way to divert attention

from the real cause: the ever-increasing presence of

toxic chemicals in our environment.

 

There are over 85,000 synthetic chemicals in

commercial use today, and more than 90% of them have

never been tested for their effects on human health.

Of those that have been tested, many are known to be

carcinogenic.

 

But how do we know that we are being exposed to these

chemicals? We know because no less an authority than

the United States Geological Survey says that we are.

A CHEMICAL FEAST

 

Two studies by The U.S. Geological Survey show just

how bad the problem has become. One examined water

from 406 urban wells and 2,543 rural wells. It found

that one or more volatile organic compounds

(industrial solvents and related chemicals) were

present in 47% of the urban wells and 14% of the rural

wells. They affected the drinking water of as many as

50 million Americans. Included among the noxious

chemicals the USGS discovered were benzene and xylene,

both powerful carcinogens. The four chemicals detected

most frequently trichloroethene and tetrachloroethen

which are industrial solvents, methyl tert-butyl ether

(MTBE) a gasoline additive and thrichloromethane

(chloroform) which is a solvent and a byproduct of the

disinfection of drinking water.

 

A second study by the USGS examined the presence of

pharmaceutical products, hormones and other organic

products in U.S. streams. These results were equally

disturbing.

 

Substances found included steroids, human and

veterinary drugs natural and synthetic hormones,

detergents, plasticizers insecticides and fire

retardants. In many instances, wastewater chemicals

were mixed in the streams sampled. In half the

samples, seven or more chemicals were detected and in

one 38 separate chemicals were found.

 

What is most troubling is that there are no safety

standards of health advisories for many of the

chemicals the researchers found. Nor is there any

understanding of what health effects may result from

exposures to combinations of the substances detected.

 

Moreover, the level of contamination is likely to

increase as the volume of chemicals used in

agricultural and other applications continues to grow.

For example, in California alone, the use of

carcinogenic pesticides increased by 127% between 1991

and 1998. In other regions of the country, similar

increases have occurred.

 

But is there really a threat?

 

The evidence suggests there is.

THE LINK TO BREAST CANCER

 

Although chemical manufacturers deny any health threat

from their products, studies of exposures in the

workplace and the home suggest otherwise.

 

For example, in New Jersey, a study of 24,000 blue

collar workers found a significant association between

breast cancer in African-American women and employment

in one of several chemical-intensive industries.

Ironically, one of the industries where this

phenomenon was present was pharmaceuticals, where

breast cancer mortality among workers was 1.64 times

higher than the national average. In the electrical

equipment industry, where industrial solvents are

widely used, the rate was 1.51 times higher. A study

of New York women in the electrical and printing

industries had similar findings.

 

The scope of the problem becomes evident when you

consider that 4 million women are employed in the

chemical industry and that at least one million of

them are exposed to chemicals that are known to cause

breast cancer!

 

Nor is this news recent.

 

A study published in the Journal of Occupational

Medicine in 1977 reported that women exposed to vinyl

chloride in the workplace experienced a higher than

expected rate of deaths from breast cancer.

 

But you don't have to work around toxic chemicals to

develop an increased breast cancer risk.

 

On Long Island, the New York Department of Health

found that women who had lived near large chemical

plants located there experienced a sharply increased

risk of breast cancer. Another study, published in the

International Journal of Epidemiology found that

breast cancer mortality among white women increased in

direct proportion to how close they lived to one of

that state's 111 Superfund toxic waste sites. The

closer they were, the greater the risk.

 

Further, it's not just epidemiological studies that

suggest the link between chemical pollution and breast

cancer.

MORE EVIDENCE

 

In a recent study, researchers at the Sart Tilman

Hospital in Liege Belgium have concluded that women

with breast cancer have higher residues of the

chemicals DDT and HCB in their tissue. The study

included 159 women with breast cancer and 250 healthy

women.

 

According to Dr. Charles Charlier, a lead researcher,

" These results add to the growing evidence that

certain persistent pollutants may occur in higher

concentrations in blood samples from breast cancer

patients than controls. "

 

What was particularly striking was that 25% of the

healthy women had no detectable levels of either DDT

or HCB in their blood samples whereas only 2.5% of the

women with breast cancer did.

 

Since it is known that DDT and HCB act like estrogen

in the human body, stimulating the growth of

precancerous and cancerous cells, the finding provides

an important indication of the role these pollutants

may have in the rapid increase in breast cancer rates.

 

First used in the 1940s, DDT use peaked in 1962, when

80 million kilograms were applied to crops forests and

other land areas. With the publication of " The Silent

Spring, " however, concern over the effects of

widespread use of the chemical arose. As a result, it

was banned by the EPA in 1972. As of 1995, its use was

banned in 49 countries.

 

While DDT has been banned, it remains a problem due to

its persistence in the environment. The USGS has found

DDT residues in water and soil samples a much as 20

years after it was first applied!

 

Of course, it's not just DDT that is a problem.

 

A New York University study on women's health reported

that women with the highest concentrations of

chlorine-based pesticides and other organochlorines in

their blood and fat had cancer risks from 4 to 10

times higher than the general population.

 

For New Yorkers this is a particularly significant

finding because there are an estimated million pounds

of PCBs (a family of organochlorines chemicals) buried

at the bottom of a 40-mile stretch of the Hudson

River. The chemical contamination was the consequence

of decades of dumping by a General Electric Plant and

led to contamination of fish and wildlife throughout

the region. Ultimately the State of New York had to

sue GE to force the company to pay for dredging of a

waterway that runs parallel to the Hudson near Albany,

NY.

 

And what did GE industry say to this?

 

The company claimed the river was " cleaning itself! "

 

As far as they were concerned there wasn't a problem!

 

But that's not all. Wherever possible the chemical

companies are sure no one else thinks there's a

problem - or at least they're not able to say that one

exists!

MUZZLING THE OPPOSITION

 

When a number of earlier studies came out suggesting

that there was a higher presence of residues of DDT

and other chemicals in breast tumor tissues, they were

quickly debunked by an article in the New England

Journal of Medicine. What was not revealed in the

article, however, was the fact that it had been funded

by the Chemical Manufacturers Association.

 

Nor was this the only instance where critics of

environmental contamination were attacked.

 

When author Sandra Steingraber published " Living

Downstream, " a book concerning the link between

environmental pollution and cancer in 1998, the New

England Journal of Medicine was quick to publish a

scathing book review accusing the author of being

obsessed with environmental pollution as the cause of

cancer. Again, the Journal was less than candid. It

only identified the book review's author as Jerry H.

Berke. What it neglected to disclose was the Mr. Berke

was a senior official at W.R. Grace and Company, among

the largest chemical manufacturers. It also failed to

note the Grace had been forced into a $69 million

clean-up of contaminated wells in Woburn,

Massachusetts by the Environmental Protection Agency!

 

When a prestigious scientific organization, the

International Joint Committee (IJC) recommended a

global phase-out of many chlorinated chemicals,

affecting roughly 15,000 compounds, the industry was

quick to react in opposition to the move.

 

The IJC had not made its recommendation in a vacuum.

There had been mounting evidence about the danger of

these chemicals and something even more dramatic.

 

By 1978, Israel had one of the highest breast cancer

rates in the world - 25%. Moreover, the breast cancer

rate had been increasing annually in Israel for a

quarter century. It also, however, had one of the

highest rates of environmental pollution from chlorine

chemical pesticides such as benzene hexachloride, and

DDT. Responding to public pressure, the government

there banned the use of these substances. Remarkably,

following the move, the breast cancer rate began to

drop. By 1986 it had fallen by 8% for all groups and

by more than a third for women between the ages of 25

and 34.

 

In the face of such overwhelming evidence the IJC

recommendation was clearly justified - at least that's

what one would think. Apparently, however, the logic

of the decision was not as clear to the chemical

industry, or, more important, it's new ally: The

American Cancer Society!

 

And therein lies the other half of the story.

 

For decades, America's land, water and air have been

filled with noxious substances that are largely

responsible for the cancer epidemic the nation is

facing. Yet, many of the very institutions we rely on

to fight the scourge of cancer have made a devil's

bargain with the very companies responsible for that

pollution.

 

Next month the second part of The Unholy Alliance will

detail the way in which companies benefit from both

causing and treating cancer, and use their financial

clout to effectively buy off the institutions that are

claiming to seek a cure for the disease. We will

discuss how this pernicious relationship colors the

nature of research and directs it away from prevention

and from alternatives that might hold hope for

millions. Don't miss part two of " The Unholy Alliance "

next month.