The cure for wasted cancer fund donations

Sunday, September 25, 2011 by: S. D. Wells
Tags: cancer cure, donations, health news

(NaturalNews) Cancer donations should be used to find natural remedies and promote regulations that keep chemicals out of food, drinks and body lotions. Instead, billions are spent on the "search for a cure" to a problem the United States breeds and feeds. Put simply, if there is a problem with weeds growing in the back yard, should one just walk around with clippers, chopping off the tops of them, believing they'll go away?

The Medical Community has it all wrong. Cancer is not a disease, but a mutation of cells that multiply uncontrollably and attack the body, while the fuel for these mutations comes primarily from the consumption of chemicals and food agents that are carcinogenic.

Yet most kind-hearted people donate money to cancer funds that continually search for a cure on the "back end" of the problem. To make things even worse, the majority of your donation pays for administrative expenses, like luxurious travel, huge salaries, bonuses, and unsuccessful marketing.

The two "cancer fighting" giants, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society (ACS), have repeatedly failed to inform the public and regulatory agencies about scientific research on cancer causing agents and contaminants in food, cosmetics, and personal care products.

A former NCI Director referred to NCI as, "A governmental pharmaceutical company." Legislation against known carcinogens is almost nonexistent in the United States. Is that because there is no national healthcare?

Then there are mammograms, a highly controversial topic. The American Cancer Society insists on spending nearly every dollar it receives in donations on damage control, while the rest covers pensions, executive benefits, and political contributions that support the politicians who back cancer drugs.

In the early 1990's, both NCI and ACS supported the pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca and their chemo-prevention drug Tamoxifen, which was supposed to reduce breast cancer risks by 30%, but "side effects" of the toxic medication lead to blood clots and uterine cancer. What good is preventing one kind of cancer if another is induced?

Arimidex, basically the new Tamoxifen, has side effects that include developing osteoporosis, deep vein thrombosis and womb cancer.
Still want to donate money to the organizations that sell these drugs in order to "help women fight breast cancer?"

There are millions of honest people who have suffered from cancer and survived, and afterwards made a conscious effort to help others, but their efforts to walk for the cure or donate money during these difficult economic times may never reach the end goal.

Other cancer prevention organizations actually spend their resources trying to shut down the "competition" instead of embracing supporters of the same cause. The fundraising giant, Susan G. Komen Foundation, "found a cure" for their competition by putting them out of business for using their coined phrase, for the cure. In fact, the foundation has filed suit against more than one hundred Mom and Pop charity organizations.

Word to the wise -- it's not about who is winning, it's about who is helping others become whole again. Instead of donating money to "administrations," spend time and energy educating yourself and others about natural remedies. A good start might be checking out websites like cancertutor.com and drday.com, or even documentaries such as Food Inc., Food Matters, King Corn, and the latest, Forks over Knives.

Sources:

http://247wallst.com/2010/11/19/the-most-mis...

http://blog.amigram.com/just-special/dont-gi...

http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/weal...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/kom...

http://www.spamlaws.com/cancer-fraud.html

http://www.ehow.co.uk/about_5370565_arimidex...