Focus 580; Cancer-gate: How to Win the Losing Cancer War

In this part of focus 580 will be talking about the war on cancer back in 1971. Then President Richard Nixon declared the war against cancer. And Congress passed the National Cancer Act since that time an enormous amount of money has gone into the study of cancer its causes and its treatment however. Our guest for this part of focus 580 argues that we are losing the war on cancer and have been for some time. Our guest is Samuel Epstein. He is professor emeritus of environmental and occupational medicine at the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago and chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition. He has been writing about and talking about the importance of prevent. Son of cancer for quite a long time he says that the incidence of cancers has escalated to epidemic proportions and overall mortality rates have remained unchanged for decades. And he says the reason that we are losing the war against cancer is that we're making two very basic and important mistakes one is that we're putting almost all

of our resources into treating people who have cancer once it already has struck and related to that is the fact that we have ignored the issue of prevention he believes that there is strong evidence to show that an awful lot of cancer we have in this country is due to avoidable exposures to carcinogens in the environment and that it doesn't really have quite as much to do with lifestyle things like fat in the diet or smoking as often we hear he is perhaps best known for his book The Politics of cancer that was published back in 1978 and then revised and republished as the politics of cancer revisited. That in 1998 and he has a new book out now that brings together some of the work that he has done over the years it's titled Cancer gate how to win the losing cancer warrants published by Bay wood publishing He's joining us this morning by telephone. And as we

talk questions and comments are certainly welcome the number here in Champaign Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. We do also have a toll free line that's good to anywhere that you can hear us and that is 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5 3 3 3 WRAL toll free 800 1:58 wy alone at any point your questions are welcome the only thing we ask of callers is that people are just brief so that we can keep the program moving and get in as many different people as boss. Will but questions come in certainly are welcome. Dr. Epstein Hello good morning Mr. and thank you very much for talking with us. Can you give us some some numbers and I know that to you you say that there are a lot of numbers out there numbers about how many people get cancer and how well we are doing in the battle against cancer and I think that you feel that maybe not all of those numbers are good and it might depend on who it is that's offering them.

Well find out first of all can I congratulate you on your own. Nice summary of the situation. There's just two qualifications I'd like to make. Yes I do believe you you gave the impression that I don't believe that smoking is an important cause of cancer. I stress constantly throughout the book that smoking is the single most important cause of cancer worldwide. That's the first point the second point is use the word believed on a couple of occasions and don't think I'm being nit picking. It's not a question of belief. The data on which the book is based. First of all it has been endorsed by well over 100 leading national international scientists and it's fully documented based on publications in peer reviewed journals. So when I was a mind of qualifications which I hope you'll forgive me let me try to move on. Yes. Now the data on cancer incidence and mortality which I quote are not by when they come from the National Cancer Institute. In what's called the SERE program which is a new what's supposedly an annual review of incidence and mortality together with a great deal of ancillary information.

So the feeders on which my positions have been based for decades have not being the information that I've conjured up myself. But coming from official NCI supposedly annual reports but actually what sometimes they come out every two or three years. Now first of all let's get into the actual figures which you touched upon a nearly one in two men and more than one in three women are now getting cancer. And that is a very substantial increase in the incidence as far as the 1970s. And for certain cancers which when you look at certain cancers you will find the rates of increase are alarming. Now these rates are based on what's called an age standardized basis for instance as people grow older over the last 30 30 40 years. People are living longer and therefore you would expect more cancer for this reason. The National Cancer Institute data now standardized In other words

you're looking at people of the age of 60 to 70 now and there are people aged 60 to 70 30 40 years ago. So aging of the population has nothing at all to do with what are called Age standardised cancer incidence rate now. Hon let's look at mortality what's happened over the last few decades. You find the changes in mortality in spite of the overwhelming expenditures in will come to expenditures later on have really changed relatively little what has. And but on the other hand the incidence of a very wide range of cancers has shot up. Now the apparent The apparent anomaly is as follows. Lung cancer has always been the single most important cause of cancer. The most single most important cancer and that's been due to smoking. And as the surgeon general's report came out in 1964 since then we're seeing a steady decrease in the incidence of lung cancer in men due to the reduction in smoking. So what does happen is you're having a decrease in

incidence of lung cancer to a lesser extent in women of course women regrettably. And but making up for that major increases in the incidence of a wide range of non smoking cancers. And it's this wide range of nonsmoking cancers which for which we I and others have expressed very great concern because we do have information on there were avoidable causes and we can discuss avoidable causes later on. But to fix the mind wonderfully Let's go through some of these increases. From 1975 to the latest data which is about two years ago the incidence the overall incidence and childhood cancers have gone up by about 30 percent and for some childhood cancers have gone up nearly 70 percent per Q. leukemias nearly 70 percent from 1975 onwards non-Hodgkin's lymphoma another cancer has gone up about 74 percent in men and nearly about 80 percent of

breast cancer post-menopausal breast cancer 36 percent fire Ward cancers 88 percent melanomas 130 percent kidney 75 percent and many of these cancers bear no relation one whatsoever to smoking for another cancer which I for neglecting to mention with acute leukemia which is about 56 percent. So here we have seen a massive increase in the incidence of the non smoking cancer. At the American public have not been informed about this this major increase. They have not been informed about a wide range of avoidable causes of cancer and have not been informed about the fact that billions of dollars have been spent in the cancer war without with minimal recognition of the need to make available to the public an infant currently cound information on avoidable causes of cancer which is the National Cancer Institute has not made available and so this is the

basic issue. Now before proceeding this I should point out to your listeners that there are two institutions in this country that have fundamental responsibility in this whole area of cancer. One is the National Cancer Institute which is a Federal Institute. It used to be part of the National Institutes of Health. Of which there are some 25 dealing with problems ranging from diabetes to lung disease etc.. But when President Nixon as you pointed out declared the war on cancer. He was persuaded to make the National Cancer Institute autonomous and direct reporting directly to the president which really meant the National Cancer Institute became divorced from the general public health community so here is one element of the leadership. The National Cancer Institute. The second is the American Cancer Society which is the world's largest leading charity online for profit organization. Now both of these organizations are overwhelmingly fixated on damage control by damage control I mean screening diagnosis treatment and

treatment related research with minimal interest or indifference. And in the case of the American Cancer Society extending to actual hostility to prevention. Now I use the word advisedly. I am not using adjectives willy nilly. There is solid documentation for this which has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals and which is laid out in even more greater detail in the book Cancer gate how to win a losing cancer war and fully with full documentation and large scale endorsement now. Let's look into this in a further detail. Why is it that we're seeing this massive increase. And I given one reason already that is because the cancer establishment which is the National Cancer in American Cancer Society indifferent or hostile to prevention but let's look at some figures on this from 1970 also. And when the budget of the National Cancer Institute was about one hundred seventy million. The

budget is now 5 billion which is a 30 fold increase. Now when you plot the increase of the budget of the National Cancer Institute against cancer incidence you find that the more that the more money we spend the more cancer we get which seems a little strange. But there is almost a parallelism between the amount of money the National Cancer and to spend on cancer every year and the actual massive increase in the incidence. And the answer to this is that these overwhelming resources of the National Cancer Institute go to treatment. Of course it's terribly important as a physician I take second place to no one on the critical need to give the best treatment possible to protect cancer patients. But the point that is should be made is the more cancer is prevented the less cancer that is to treat.

And it was the American Cancer Society. Their budget is now nearly a billion dollars a year from about 100 million over less than a hundred million in the 70s. So there is this paradox in there put this apparent paradox and we need to understand these facts before we proceed further. Now let's take one element at a time. If you look at the promises of the American Cancer Society National Cancer Institute from the time the President Nixon declared the war on cancer you find of being a series of false promises claiming that mortality cancer mortality for instance in 84 National Cancer Newt's claims of cancer mortality would be hard by 2000 in 1996 More recently the National Cancer Institute claims to turn the tide against cancer. Ninety eight national 98 national cancer to an American Cancer Society claimed the world versal of almost 20 year trend of increasing increase in cancer cases and deaths.

These numbers are the proof we're on the right track. No such thing at all. And so on and so forth. But let me take you to an opposing viewpoint from leading off on colleges in the country. An Associated Press report in two years ago quoted from a leading on college essay questioning whether cancer will ever be wide liability and predictably cured. And they admitted that the new magic bullet drug. Of which we're spending the overwhelming budget of the national consciousness American Cancer Society. There are as powerless as old line chemotherapy 30 years ago and in the Nobel Laureate Leland Hartwell who is the distinguished president of the Fred Hutch and Comprehensive Cancer Center warned that nearly all the resources which are now spent on cancer research are spent on I quote promoting ineffective drugs for terminal disease. In other words if you have if you have somebody with lung cancer and this is unfortunately in nearly all instances a death sentence to treat this person with an expensive this patient with a very expensive drug which will be highly toxic

and will extend his or her life for possibly one to two to three months. This is where most of our resources are being spent. Now there is no argument about the fact there have been significant advances the same chemotherapy for instance for time oxygen and breast cancer. And another drug Herceptin a best cancer and a drug rituxan for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. But the so-called targeted therapies such as which for which we're spending most of our money in are which are targeted at specific receptor sites and cells when they added to standard chemotherapy they increase the cancer survival lung cancer survival rate by about one to two months. So what we're seeing is hype and gross exaggeration of the targeted therapies. With Don Powell Frank propaganda and exaggeration of the of minimal benefits with minimal reference to the very high toxicity minimal reference to the inflationary costs and this is what the situation is five times the drugs are concerned now you may say Well now look

what's all this about what's going on. How is it that these two major institutions which have life and death in their power. Why is it that they have abysmally failed in their task of not one can't blame them necessarily for the task of curing cancer because I think this is a very very difficult problem but what you can unequivocally blame them for is the massive escalation the incidence of cancer rates. Cause we know the overall What void what the avoidable causes of many of these cancers. Let me first of all touch on some of the underlying reasons for the positions of the National Cancer Institute an American Cancer Society and there is overwhelming conflicts of interest. And let's run through some of these briefly. For instance the policy of the National Cancer Institute is under the control of a president's cancer panel. And the very first president cancer panel the chairman of the president's cancer panel for 1970s to the

80s with a man called Benno Schmidt at the National Cancer president's cancer panel. He was the senior drug company executive and clearly his interests were in cancer drugs and not in the slightest interested at all in prevention and in fact when you look at the part of the policies and what happened in the 70s you find that the budget was spent on prevention was about some in the region of three years three to four percent if that in the 1980s. The next president of the cancer panel was Armand Hammer who was chairman of Occidental Petroleum one of the nation's leaders a largest manufacturer of carcinogenic petro chemicals. And when you look at the directors of the National Cancer Institute you find out the first director was signed and then became an IT. In 1976 a man called Frank Russia and then became director of the thermal insulation Manufacturers Association which promotes the unregulated use of carcinogenic fiberglass. You have Samuel Broder resigned in 95 to

join a very successful drug company and in a Washington Post interview he had measured the National Cancer and I quote the National Cancer Institute has become what amounts to a governmental pharmaceutical company. Richard Clough is an a former director and CIA director is now under congressional investigation for not only accepting financials from the awards electoral awards for his own comprehensive cancer centers and he was a director. He would go and visit one and collect money for it. But also he has been subject to charges under California's corporate criminal liability act for promoting a very dangerous dietary supplement when used for prostate health which is laced with that supplement was laced with a dangerous prescription drug. Dire health still best role and so on and so forth. What we have seen also is consistent violation of the charges of the National Cancer Act to disclose to disseminate cancer information to the public.

And this there has been an overwhelming neglect when it comes to the American Cancer Society. The conflicts of interest are literally overwhelming. It's difficult to know where to begin so I'll go through some of the conflicts of interest and then get on to the track record on prevention from 1998. As you know I stressed right at the beginning that smoking is the single most important cause of cancer lung cancer in particular and lung cancer rates in men are dropping the cause of giving up smoking. Now American Cancer Society has always taken the position. Likewise the national constitutes you get cancer it's your own fault you smoke too much or you drink too much or we spend too much time in the sun. Are you overweight. Let's look at. Smoking from 1998 to 2000 the public relations for the American Cancer Society was handled by Shandling International. Hold your breath. The major clients of Chandra's international RJ Reynolds Tobacco holdings. This was all secret when we discovered this. And I put out a press release on this

case which American Council promptly switched. They sacked Shand way and they promptly contracted to Edelman public relations worldwide. Now Edelman Public Relations the major clients of Brown Williamson Tobacco Company and also the Altria Group which is the parent company of Philip Morris and also the parent company of a wide range of fast food and soft drink beverage companies which we are now targeting for anti-obesity litigation. So on the one hand they talk about tobacco and and obesity as being the leading cause of cancer in tobacco they're absolutely right I've always maintained that. But behind the scenes the strong linkages between American Cancer Society and the tobacco industry and also the fast food and soft drink industry. When you look at the funding of the American Cancer Society they have a serious kinds of study collect money from the public who mistakenly believe that it's going to help the war against cancer. But let's tell you where a lot a lot of them industry funding. What a lot of the funding in the country comes

from. They get annual donations in excess of $100000 each from a wide range of quote Excalibur donors. These include petrochemical companies companies that manufacture carcinogenic chemicals ranging dewpoint Pennzoil etc.. Industrial waste company is a BFI waste systems and you know when you live near hazardous waste sites your risk of cancer and increased fast food companies biotech companies cosmetic companies cosmetics and toiletries are literally witches brews of undisclosed carcinogenic ingredients in the terminal which were fully documented. In addition to that very very large amounts of money come from what we called Big Pharma Big Pharma is the generic name for the pharmaceutical industry. They produce cancer drugs at enormous profits like AstraZeneca Bristol-Myers Squibb Glasto Glaxo etc.. Now the interesting thing is that majority of this money goes for.

Aargh for treatment of terminal disease for which there is very millions of of of patients of are treated with ease and as I say extension of life is generally pretty minimal when it comes to drugs for treatment of childhood cancer. A lot of it virtually not a penny is being spent largely because the market for child care than a relatively small numbers of children get cancers but not a penny not a penny is spent on this. But let's go on to the American Cancer Society track record in prevention and you find the American Cancer Society open about these conflicts of interest have been in bed with a wide range of industries and I have a long track record of testifying before congressional hearings and also drafting legislation. So this is an area which I'm thoroughly familiar with. An American Cancer Society For instance 71 refused to testify at congressional hearings. The use for on banning very dangerous estrogenic drugs like devils to die it'll still rest all to fatten

cattle in feedlots. They created in 1984 they created October Breast Cancer Awareness Month and to assure women that early mammography results in cures nearly 100 percent in time. But they had already in a book prior to that stated that if a 95 percent of cases women discover that their tumors themselves but when they were questioned about this statement that it mammography results in cure nearly a hundred percent of time they answered as follows and I quote the language. But Margaret for you today is a lucrative and highly competitive business. Mammography today is a lucrative and highly competitive business and also in the awareness month there's no mention made of avoidable causes of breast cancer. In 1992 the American Cancer Society. Behind the scenes joined joined hands with the cloying Institute and supported them in defending the continued use of chlorinated pesticides of the Aldrin dieldrin Claude and

Hector cloth which are unequivocally carcinogenic which contaminate our air our water our food in the workplace and our environmentally persistent. I did this behind the scenes in 1993 the Chronicle of Philanthropy looking at that data which some of which I've cited already concluded. The American Cancer Society is more interested in accumulating wealth than in saving lives. If you'll forgive me Dr. Epstein for jumping in here we've already used almost half. Hard time and I think I probably should at least introduce you again and also we have a couple of callers I think I'm going to get in. Let me say that our guest for the program is Dr. Samuel Epstein. He is professor emeritus of environmental and occupational medicine at the School of Public Health at University of Illinois Chicago and was also chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition. And as you can tell the issue of prevention is something that he is quite passionate about and in fact has been writing about this and talking about it for a long time making the argument that the reason that we have not been more successful in dealing with cancer in this country is that we have put almost

none of our resources into prevention but almost all into trying to treat cancer once people have already been diagnosed with cancer risk of interrupting you. Yes that's a fair additional point. Yes. And furthermore quite apart from the searching these areas that have failed what is even more important they have failed to inform the public of a substantial body of published scientific information unavoidable quote of this kind so therefore in other words they have denied the public that democratic rights and know of ways and means in which these cancers could be prevented and avoided. And we we have talked about some of the things that get the attention and I was certainly at the beginning was happy to have your correction because I certainly would not. Want to give anyone the impression that smoking was not a problem or that you thought smoking was not a problem but that indeed when we are told about things that we as individuals can do to lessen our cancer risk it seems that most of the attention does go to don't smoke if if if. Or stop if

you're a smoker. And also there has been some emphasis on fat in the diet particularly when it comes to colorectal cancer and perhaps also some people think that it may have something to do with breast cancer. But as you say that your you you say that there is data to show that there are other causes and that they are things that are indeed avoidable if people knew about them. And is it basically here we're talking. About industrial chemicals essentially things that are in either in products that we use or as a result of the manufacturing process end up getting into the environment all of the above. And it's not a question excuse me you think I don't think I'm being argumentative. It's not what I'm actually saying. It's what I'm publishing in peer reviewed journals the leading peer review journals which are very tough to get into and these positions have been endorsed by well over 100 leading national and international experts on cancer prevention and at risk of appearing self directed I should point out that I have just returned from Europe where I received the

Albert Schweitzer annual gold medal for international contributions to cancer prevention. So I think we're really talking about solid facts and I'd be very happy to offer you some examples of these and I can do this for childhood cancers of a breast cancer that would I would you would like me to do office an example from childhood cancer. Sure. Want to do that. Fine. Your question is what. What information is being denied to the public on avoidable cause of cancer. And in my book the cancer Great how to win a losing war on cancer. This is documented in overwhelming detail. But let us just look at a chart of cancers of which as I mentioned earlier on the incidence rates have shot up dramatically in the last few decades now you can see the skins due to smoking. You can say this is due to obesity. You can't say it's due to any of these classic explanations of lifestyle.

But let's look at first of all environmental the three major categories of avoidable cause one were environmental to a domestic and three are medical the environmental ones. We have strong evidence that if people children and families that live near petrochemical industries or large scale combustion processes. Oh municipal incinerators and nuclear power plants etc. that there are elevated levels of childhood cancers and we have data on this not only in the United States. We have data on this in other countries. Solid data in Europe solid data in North France etc.. The next account with their environmental exposure to carcinogenic pesticides from agricultural and spraying and hold your breath uses in schools including wood playground sets treated with a highly potent carcinogen called Chrome aged copper. US an 8. A third in the so called environmental occupational is if a mother or father work in a plant where he or she is exposed to carcinogens during pregnancy

or even before or after pregnancy. There are major elevations in charge of cancer rates. Let's turn to the medical ways and means in which the medical profession can help give increased risks of childhood cancer. That sounds an inflammatory statement to make. But let me justify it. First of all but Turnell radiation during late pregnancy used to be standard practice in both England and in the United States. Just to make sure that the head of the fetus was firmly fixed in the pelvis and gradually developed information by the 50s also that these children the infant when they were born and they grew up into childhood that there was major excesses of childhood cancer particularly leukemia from the radiation. Then those are the series of prescription drugs during pregnancy notably diet hold still best of all in Thailand and these when mother was given those very significant increases in childhood cancer pediatric

prescription drugs lindane shampoos alife Ritalin potential deficit disorder. Ionizing radiation for treatment of sculpturing worms or even enlarged tonsils which enlarged tonsils is no longer being done. Then the next is high dose diagnostic radiation particularly CAT scans. Print if a child falls down and hits his head very often his subjected to ACC to a high dose of radiography American scan and the radiation dose and that is about 15 times higher than is necessary to get good imaging and with the result we're seeing increase in childhood leukemias from this. Now what is what about the home what can happen in the home that will increase risks of childhood cancer one of a wide range drinking and cooking water contaminated with carcinogenic pesticides and other industrial pollutants contamination of meat with sex hormones. American meat. When kind of American cattlemen cattle go into the feedlots 400 days before slaughter they're injected with high levels of sex hormones to increase cattle wait for the carcass weight

and the sex hormones remain in the meat. And when you when children eat the moment any people eat them they're having whole meat laden with sex hormones. And this is clear. These are which are carcinogenic. Then you have nitrite preservatives in hot dogs the nitrites will react with a means to form carcinogenic nitrogen means in the chemistry data when this is clear cut exposure to constant pesticides in the home and garden and pet Carlo's exposure to carcinogenic ingredients in baby products and children's toiletries believe it or not we put out a press release three months ago listing the products which are used in baby for babies and for children's toiletries and these contain numerous carcinogens in them without any regulation. The National Council has failed to warn against any of these American Cancer Society is in bed with the cosmetic industry. And so those are some examples voidable causes of childhood cancer for which there is

solid scientific documented information. If time permits if you like me to continue I could move on to breast cancer or entirely as you please. Well I'd say you want to have a couple callers here like to involve women. Conversation too so what do we do then if you talk with someone in Champaign in this is line number one. Hello. Yes hi first I just wanted to say thank you for having the show I have been waiting for somebody to come on and say this but I just wanted to take it a step further and see what you had to say about this. I had to read a book called living downstream and one of the things he taught saga star engraver. Yes and he had talked about how you know one of the things that they say for preventing cancer is losing weight and I thought it was interesting that she also pointed out that a lot of these carcinogenic pesticides tend to accumulate in fat. So you know I just it is interesting that you know the real culprit it would suggest to me is not the fat its the pesticides that accumulate in fat so I just thought that was really interesting.

Very good point very good point there is no question. Theres a big family of consummate Jones which are fat soluble and accumulate in body fat. And just to give you an example for this. If you take breast milk for a woman to just start lactating and you cook and you analyze the concentration of a wide range of carcinogenic. Contaminants you find very very high. I mediately when lactation begins but when you take compare the over the course of the next two months or so you find by the end of two months the levels of contaminants o drop down to almost zero because the breast has been cleared of all these costs and authentic pesticides and I could go into this more detail but time doesn't permit me except to point out that the evidence relating obesity and cancer is to say the least thin or tenuous or nonexistent with one exception.

That is with breast cancer but there is a clear relationship. I should tell you that American Cancer Society has recently came out with statements listing obesity is responsible for about over 30 35 percent of cancers and they cited as the evidence for this. References in the scientific literature when you look at these references in the scientific literature which show use of the basis of these claims. You see there none of them say anything about that. They just the suggestive they suggest that that diet on obesity may have a relationship particularly obesity but there is no solid scientific evidence for the exception of the person opposing breast cancer. So this is the whole emphasis of the National Cancer in American Cancer Society is what we call blame the victim. If you get cancer it's your own fault you've chosen the wrong parents in other words it's genetics. Well that's a load of nonsense because genetics of human populations can also change in the course of a few decades it takes tens of thousands of years. Well after genetics the smoking. Well there was no question the smoking is the single most important cause of

cancer. There's also no question that lung cancer rates are moving sharply down and but at the same time the incidence of a wide range of nonsmoking cancers is moving up and then obesity which is the other factor too for which the evidence is virtually nonexistent but you're absolutely right that in the totality of the environment now air water food the workplace. Medics and toiletries there are a very wide range of what we call fat soluble Casa JONES That is a petro chemicals which dissolve in fact and remain in fact. And if you do a fat biopsy of the average American you can find up to a hundred different Kosten agents there. Now the point about this is who is paid who receives funds who is responsible for providing this information to Congress providing this information to the public telling the public what to do to reduce the interest of kind of cancer telling Congress what it's necessary to do to reduce exposures to these avoidable concent agents. And I charge

the National Cancer Institute an American cancer society to live with. This is the reason why my book is called cancer gate. The analogy to to eradicate. I charge them with the responsibility for millions of cancers over the last two decades and I don't make these charges lightly and at risk of being repetitive. If you look at the book Cancer Cancer gay how to win a losing cancer war you will find solid. Documentation for all of these statements and in addition and I think I've repeated this once or possibly twice before these major themes have been endorsed unequivocally by well over 100 leading national and international experts on cancer prevention and public health. Quite apart from citizen activists groups and at risk of using this program to pay for advertisement purposes which is maybe improper. May I merely mention that the those of you who are interested in getting such documentation in the cancer gate book you can obtain it from Beirut publishing company and the 800 number is 6 3

8 7 8 1 9 6 3 8 7 8 1 9. OK well we have some other callers and we have about 15 minutes left and let me again introduce our guest is Samuel Epstein he is a physician. He's professor emeritus. Of environmental and occupational medicine at the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago and again if you're interested in reading on the subject the book is titled Cancer gate how to win the losing cancer war and it's published by Bay wood publishing. We do have a couple of callers here and we'll go next to Bloomington Indiana line for Hello. Hi I'm going to talk about cancer risk and breast cancer and certainly you've talked about the failure to inform the public of the risks. Allow me to talk about the abortion breast cancer link. A large number of studies have been done in the Knesset on the connection between abortion and breast cancer and the vast majority of these studies have found a substantially higher risk of breast cancer in women who had

abortions. I think I think the best known certainly the best publicized study of this increased risk was done in 1994 by the Hutchison Cancer Research Center in Seattle. Now this. The reason this study was publicized the Hutchison center is very prestigious and and the lead researcher of the study was Dr. Janet they galing who was a very pro-choice doctor and Dr. Daley was interviewed on nationwide TV after she published her results. Her results found. A 50 percent increase in breast cancer among women under 45 who had undergone any a deuced any induced abortion and a doctor if seen will confirm my guess. Normally women have about a 10 percent chance of suffering from breast cancer. Well women who have had abortions have not a 10 percent risk but a 15 percent risk. And when Dr. baling was pressured to minimize her findings she did say which is well women should consult with their doctors. But she

said her study was very fair. She said she had it was a fair analysis she said it was to distinctly sounded. And she said she said I'm very pro choice but she said science is science. Well let's get. Dr Epstein's comment I think your speaker question was quite right to point out the body of information associating abortion and breast cancer. I wish I could completely agree with him and I think the evidence is interesting but that there are as many negative studies on this is that are positive and I might mention but there is one nation which is the has the highest abortion rate in the world where in fact abortion is practiced as a standard method of birth control which is Japan and the Japanese breast cancer rates have been exceptionally low. But on the other hand I'm not willing to dismiss the possible the possibility I don't believe one can make definitive relationships between these

because a whole for every single study which has incriminated abortion and breast cancer. There have been studies with the opposite findings. So I have an open mind on the matter but I simply would point to the evidence and Japan isn't exactly supportive of it but I think you know Paula is a right to draw attention to us and thank you. Let's go to line number one for someone else this is a Bana. Hello. Good morning. You have mentioned of the carcinogens that are found in breast milk and that's something that's come up a lot in breastfeeding unities lately but I'm concerned that there might be some mothers who would choose to feed their baby formula rather than breast milk. But wouldn't you say that formula would have the risk of having similar carcinogens since the ones that are in the mother's breast milk come from the same type of environment that the coward I remember then.

Well I mean it's a very good question the reason for the concerns about the mother's milk. That over the course of say of let's say you're dealing with a woman 35 during that 35 years she has accumulated a massive concept of Khans concentrations of some hundred Also carcinogens in her breast fat for the very first time she breastfeeds those cost images will come out with the milk over the next two to three months and so her breast will gradually be clear to all of these cough and germs and by three months time the levels of cotton gins in the breast milk have reduced stuff formula milk will not come. It would not represent the first lactation. However I have an open mind on the matter because I do those two reasons why breast feeding. It is quite apart from the tense of it is very important. First of all and very importantly it establishes a critical bond

between mother and infant. Secondly breast milk is high in a growth factor and very high particularly colostrum and would end in a month or two after it is very high and the natural growth factor known as insulin like growth factor 1 which is terribly important for growth and development. So if you a child is deprived of the IGF 1 by the colostomy then the chances of that child growing it into its full potential really reduced. The answer is really a woman isn't it faced with an impossible Di lemma. That my own personal viewpoint would be to breastfeed for a short period of time a minimally to establish the bond. But far more importantly for mothers all over this country to cry in protest and to scream about the industry and the American Cancer Society of the National Cancer Institute for not having warned them for over the last decades

sat back and allowed the chemical industry to pollute the totality of our environment our air our water our food in the workplace. That's where women's anger should go. And if you look at a press release of dynamic on the cancer prevention website called prevent cancer dot com you'll find something which is unbelievable perhaps to you that is not an examination of toiletries and shampoos and lotions which are put on babies and there are many constant agents in them and the infants are exquisitely sensitive to carcinogens. So what we really need is anger of the citizenry of this country who are the cause of the avoidable causes of disease of cancer and death. By institutions federal institutions the National Cancer Institute and the so-called nonprofit the American Cancer Society and I strongly recommend boycotting the American Cancer Society that have abysmally failed in their abundant and bounden

duty to inform the public avoidable cause of cancer. And I'm not talking about hypothetical I'm talking about publications in peer reviewed literature I don't know if you know to get an article published in a prestigious journal. That article goes through several stages of a review by one two or three reviewers who don't know each other and on the basis of that the editor will decide whether to publish it. Well my information which I've attempted to summarize you know which you'll find in the cancer great book has got the majority of that has been published in the International Journal of Health Services the world's leading public health journal in the field. So we're not talking about fancy we're talking about solid scientific backed facts. And the real issue that's needed is one to boycott the American Cancer Society and give your funding to alternative citizen groups or to scientific groups that are trying to do something to prove to reduce the incidence of cancer and to alert the public to this and to put pressure on Congress to to to. Yes the national the

National Cancer Institute to increase its budget for prevention which is about three to four percent to increase it to the same level as for diagnosis and treatment. And I strongly recommend that pressure should be put on to ensure that this current 3 percent level should go up to 50 percent better should be as least as much resources spent on prevention as on screening treatment and diagnosis because the more cancer you prevent the less cancer there is to treat this simple fact seems to have escaped the attention and understanding of the cancer establishment the National Cancer American Cancer Society and it's up to you. You have far more power in this than I do. I'm simply giving you the information you have to you John the Citizen Jane Jane and John have the power in your hands to say we refuse to give money to the American Cancer Society and we demand through our congressional representatives that the American National Cancer to be brought into account on charges of conflict of interest. Failure

to follow the instructions of the National Cancer Act to provide information on avoidable causes of cancer to establish a register of occupation of environmental cost millions in occupational confirmations. A register of the cost of Jinns in the totality of our environment so that you and others can take steps to. To force these changes in policy which will reduce these explosions. Thank you. You mentioned the possibility of giving money to alternative group. Are there groups listed on Prevent Cancer dot org. No I don't do that because I think it would be invidious I think you have to make up your own mind on this. A citizen any activist citizen group or groups that are concerned about issues like pollution and proximity to hazardous waste sites there's a multiplicity of these. But I think the other point you should or should should follow clearly is there's no

chance of getting any changes through Congress. Congress is gridlocked and it's split hopelessly between Democrats and Republicans. So you will not be able to however strenuous your objections I have a well organized you won't get any change through Congress because of the gridlock however. The way to focus your critical skills are to state governors and the governors of every state are acutely sensitive to the interests and needs of citizens in their state for instance. Those of you who may live near a hazardous waste site also a petro chemical plant that's pumping out cost engines into the air. Organize in your local town or village or town or community. Write letters to your newspaper form alliances sometimes with citizen groups and then reach the governor get your facts and you'll find most of the facts you want in the book. You'll find them elsewhere too. And the governor of the state is the critical focal point to go to because

whether they're Democrats or Republicans their concern is the health welfare and well-being of citizens in their state. That is where the key point of action should be. Of course also for those of you who. And this is a horrible thing to have to say because this is implies different standards for people who are well-off and people who are not well-off. But the fact remains that organic foods first a little more expend more expensive by varying degrees. But they are much safer than non organic foods which are laced with the cost of the genny pesticides. Now here we have a terrible dilemma in which the middle class and upper middle class can afford this luxury but lower socio economic groups apart from all the other problems have delayed access to health care minimal health care minimal education et cetera. They cannot afford organic fave organic foods so I feel very of a ambivalent when I make these statements because I realize that what we are really saying that there's one law for the for the well off and another law or another set of

practices for those that are not well off. But let's leave that alone for the moment let us say organize locally get your information use the information on the website you'll find masses of information on the kinds of invention cognition websites on yourself with the information and once you've August up decide how to proceed. Take for instance cosmetics and toiletries. Or take radiated food in schools could get fed with the radiated meat. They get also soft snacks and tossed foods. Say this instead of vegetables there's a wide range of areas in which you can be active but organizing the village on the community and all the town and and write to your local newspaper and contact the government directly or indirectly and tell him that the life and the death of all of the citizens in his state depends on what he's going to do for you. And if he doesn't do it get rid of him. We're going to have to stop because we've used our time for people who would like to read more in the summer. You can certainly look for the book that we've talked about it's titled Cancer gate how to win the losing

cancer War published by Bay would also if you're interested then you have internet access you can go to the website of the Cancer Prevention Coalition which is w w w dot prevent cancer dot com and there isn't a lot of information there as our guest says. Dr. Epstein Dr. Samuel Epstein is professor emeritus of environmental and occupational medicine at the School of Public Health University of Illinois at Chicago and Dr. Epstein thanks very much. Been my pleasure.