Additional Titles






Cancer Groups, Planned Parenthood Team Up Against Abortion-Breast Cancer Link


Big Brother Comes To Wal-Mart

Welcome to the Gulag

Seat Belts, Cigaretts and Stout

S.A.R.S. Simply Another Ridiculous Scam

Why N.C. National Guardsman Daniel Moody Didn't Get His mail

Big-Time Spooky

So Much Sewage

Starrett Articles:






By Mary Starrett

July 30, 2003

Each year when I see the women lining up to get their pink ribbons and tee shirts for "The Race For The Cure" I want to head down to where they're all gathering and point out that they're wasting their time and their money. But they wouldn't listen, so I refrain. Instead, I shake my head and wonder how all those women could be so misguided. They pay their money, walk or run, then hurry home to watch themselves on the evening news' predictable and endless coverage of the yearly event.

It's not that the organizers of the event are deliberately duping the gals, it's just that no one's bothered to crunch the numbers here. So we continue, by and large, to think if we just raise more money and make sure more women get yearly mammograms, well, by golly we'll see this disease eradicated in our life time. But I'm here to tell you that both the endless raising of cancer research money and the pushing of yearly mammograms will only guarantee the disease will stay around forever.

Figures Don't Lie:

In 1900 there were roughly 25,000 cases of cancer (all kinds, some reported, some not).

In 1962 there were 520,000 cases (including 63,000 cases of breast cancer).

In 1971, the year Nixon "declared war" on cancer, there were 635,000 cases (with 69,600 of those being breast cancer). A "mere" $250 million was spent that year on cancer research. Fast forward a quarter century. After tens of billions of dollars spent on this "war" the year 1995 ended with over 1,252,000 people dead from the disease.[1]

Numbers having been sufficiently crunched, something isn't quite right. Cancer specialist Charles B. Simone, M.D. points out in his book "Cancer& Nutrition" that over $75 billion is spent on cancer treatment each year and "despite this enormous effort to combat cancer, the number of new cases of nearly every form of cancer has increased annually�.from 1930 to present" and "despite the introduction of radiation �chemotherapy�CT scans, MRI scans and all the other new medical technology- life spans for almost every form of cancer�have remained constant."

Whoa. Sounds like cancer's big business and there IS no cure because that'd be like slitting the throat of the goose that laid the golden egg.

If the ladies in the high profile breast cancer awareness klatches were honestly concerned with "the cure" they race for each year they'd mention the abortion/ breast cancer link, at least SOMEWHERE in their pink pamphlets, don't you think? If the NOW gals similarly cared about women and helping them keep their breasts disease-free wouldn't you think they'd be all over publicizing the myriad studies that show the correlation between a woman's right to "choose" and what happens to that woman's breasts after an elective abortion? Try it yourself. Just type in "abortion-breast cancer" in any search engine. Then read all about it and wonder why it's not being reported. So much for the concern. I maintain it's all about money. Big money. Funding for breast cancer research for the National Institutes Of Health went from $91 million in l991 to more than $600 million in 1999.

The cancer profit centers (detection, treatment, even advocacy) have grown fat and used to the ever-increasing influx of bucks. Therefore, there is no impetus to cure anything.

Though there is no evidence that mammography for women in their 40's saves lives. In fact, the radiation used in the test could CONTRIBUTE to a woman's GETTING cancer. Yet the American Cancer Society and the National

Cancer Institute recommend annual mammograms .

Samuel Epstein, M.D., Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School Of Public Health said given the danger and known carcinogenic effect of X rays "this exposure can add up quickly for women having yearly mammograms", further, he notes there are about a million women in the US alone who " carry a gene that increases their breast cancer risk from radiation fourfold".

(There are safer ways to detect breast tumors, including infrared light scanning and something called the Antimalignane Antibody In Serum (AMAS) test.) Consider that, for the most part, mammograms "may fail to detect advanced tumors measuring less than two centimeters in diameter".[2] Note that a tumor can be felt when it's only ONE centimeter; and with proper training women can detect even smaller tumors!�so wouldn't manual self- exam be a better way to go for women under 50?

But despite all this evidence, politicians fall all over themselves to push for more funding for breast cancer research, even though other cancers are killing women faster. It's all for the political cachet of pandering to the female voter.

Senator Arlen Specter made recommendations for the Congressional Record that women have annual screenings in their 40's. This, despite the science that shows there's no demonstrable benefit for that age group! Here we see how political motive trumps science.

The three major methods of treating cancer today are through chemotherapy, (poisoning) surgery, (cutting) and radiation therapy (burning). According to Harvard doc Alan Levin, M.D., women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemotherapy than without it .And get a load of this statistic: Of the half million people who die each year from cancer, only 2 to 3% of them get any benefit from chemotherapy at all! If you doubt that figure take it up with John Cairns, M.D. of Harvard University's School Of Public Health.

Here's another doozy-it involves breast cancer drug, Nolvadex (tamoxofen).The pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca which makes the drug sent doctors a letter saying "while it has been known that (tamoxofen) is associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer, there is also an increased risk of developing a� more aggressive form of uterine(cancer)�(in addition to) a risk of stroke and pulmonary embolism". The warning encourages doctors to "discuss" the "risks" with their patients.

Just a sampling of the lunacy that's regularly served up as "health care".

Instead of telling women about the breast cancer risks associated with mercury amalgam fillings, or the birth control pill [3], they push death rays and poison, instead. Tied with a pink ribbon, of course.

Next�.The Alternative Cancer Treatments That Work And Why They're Being Covered Up.


1,  US Bureau of Vital Statistics
2,  Dardick,G. "Breast Self-Examine: A New Program Makes Early Detection Easier" East-West (Jul/Aug, '91)
3,  Weinstein,A.L. et al. "Breast Cancer Risk And Oral Contraceptive Use" Epidemiology 2 no.5(Sept,'91)

� 2003 Mary Starrett - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Mary Starrett was on television for 21 years as a news anchor, morning talk show host and medical reporter. For the last 5 years she hosted a radio program. Mary is a frequent guest on radio talk shows. E-Mail






"So we continue, by and large, to think if we just raise more money and make sure more women get yearly mammograms, well, by golly we'll see this disease eradicated in our life time. But I'm here to tell you that both the endless raising of cancer research money and the pushing of yearly mammograms will only guarantee the disease will stay around forever."