How Do I Get My Wife Off Drugs?

Posts Tagged ‘Cancer’

away from the area she lives in to another part of the country? Usually my in-laws leave for Arizona in Septermber but this year they stayed in the area because my wife’s diagosis of breast cancer. They left in November.

Her aunt and uncle left too for Texas, and only her brother remained in the area but he works full time. It was easier for me when my in-laws were around because my wife would talk with her mom and dad. They would come by and keep her company and they would go out to breakfast together.

I felt ok to go to work and then they would leave when I got off work or stick around and we would talk together. I know they are retired and earned their right to travel. But I felt deserted when they left, I felt a huge burden upon my shoulders. Nobody would be there for my wife to take her to the hospital if she needed to go. She never did but the thought of her being alone scared me.

They left after my wife had her mastectomy and her mom helped empty her drain. When the left she started 12 weeks of Taxol and I did not know how those treatments would go for her, I was scared and feared the worse.

My wife now is on her last week of radiaiton. It is hell for her. She is taking two Percocet for pain (when she had her mastectomy she only took one and she hates to take pain pills). Yesterday she told me she wishes her mom was here. I told her they will be here in about a month. They don’t call to see how she is doing. I feel like they don’t care. If it were my child I would not leave the area until the doctors said she was through it. Am I wrong to feel like she has been abandoned?

It hurt me a lot to hear her say she wishes her mom was here because she is not and there is nothing I could do to make her be here. I have felt like calling them and asking them to hurry home their daughter needs them, but I am afraid to.

What would you do?

Chances are someone close to you such as your friend, mother, wife, sister or even yourself has been touched by breast cancer in one way or another. That’s why it is so important that we never give up fighting for a cure.

Finding a cure is not impossible, but it is definitely a long, hard battle. Raising funds for the technology for early diagnosis, treatments options, and breast cancer research is vital. Education and support to breast cancer patients is also crucial for survival. That’s why the Royal Canadian Mint has produced its second color circulation coin to help support the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation.

This special 25-cent piece coin entitled “Creating a Future Without Breast Cancer,” displays a colored pink ribbon in its center, with three additional silver ribbons around the border. As the Royal Canadian Mint says, this coin was created as “A tribute to courage [and] a symbol of Hope.” Thirty-million coins began their circulation in Canada on April 1, 2006.

The coins are being circulated across Canada, and Canadian shoppers could receive one as a pleasant surprise in their change at their local Shoppers Drug Mart. They can also be purchased directly from the Royal Canadian Mint’s website.

However, The Breast Site, an information portal on the topic of breast health and breast cancer decided to offer 1000 coins, one to every individual U.S. reader, who didn’t have access to the coins. On June 8, 2006 The Breast Site launched its Pink Ribbon Coin Promotion, offering the breast cancer coin to its U.S. readers for a limited time as a symbol of hope.

Well, I’m happy to announce that The Breast Site has officially sent out its 1000th pink ribbon coin! We’d like to thank every reader who filled out the online form to receive their very own free breast cancer coin. Only 1000 coins were available, so hopefully you were one of the lucky recipients who submitted your form before the 1000th coin was sent today.

Amie Cunningham, a writer for thebreastsite.com who also worked on the team that mailed out the Pink Ribbon coins says, “It was so great to see so many men and women of all ages taking advantage of this special opportunity! It’s too bad that there were only 1000 coins available, because there were many applicants who submitted after the last coin was sent.”

Editors at The Breast Site urge readers to continue to check back for other great promotions that the site plans to introduce in the future. Cunningham notes, “The very first Breast Site newsletter will be launched in the very near future.”

KILL  THE  CANCER  RIGHT  AWAY

Dear Friend

Cancer, for instance, strikes anyone of any age,
and of any race or social background.  Cancer will
find you whether you lead a healthy or unhealthy
lifestyle; whether you’re physically fit or out of
shape; whether you exercise regularly or are a
couch potato; whether you’re rich or poor, male or
female; whether you’re a vegetarian, pescetarian
or meat lover; and whether you’re an adult,
adolescent or child.

DID YOU KNOW… that 1 out of every 3 adults in
America already has cancer?  But most of them
don’t know it yet because the cancer is
undiagnosed and undetected.  According to the
American Cancer Society, there’s a 41% probability
that an individual, male or female, will develop
cancer in his or her lifetime (or die from it).
Additionally, every human being has cancer cells
existing in the body which are just seeking a
low-oxygen environment where they can multiply
into the full-blown disease.

What if you could reduce your chance of getting cancer
from 41% to zero?  What if you completely removed
all probability that you’ll ever get ANY disease,
for that matter?  And what if you had a way of
curing any disease that you might already have?

“Is that really possible?” you ask.

The answer is a resounding “Yes!”

But you can’t do it simply by eating a healthy diet, or
even by becoming a vegetarian.  Linda McCartney,
the late wife of Paul McCartney was a life-long
vegetarian, who not only campaigned for vegetarianism,
but also wrote a book on vegetarian cooking and
produced a line of frozen vegetarian meals.  Yet,
despite her healthy eating, she died of breast cancer
at the age of 56.  That’s 20 years ahead of the average
life expectancy of American women.

And you can’t become immune from disease simply
by exercising or becoming physically fit.  Some of
the greatest athletes of our time, including 7-time
Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong, Olympic
ice skating champions Scott Hamilton and Peggy
Fleming, and basketball star Magic Johnson, have all
been victims of cancer or HIV.

And no, neither can you prevent or cure disease by
popping a variety of nutrients, super “nutraceuticals,”
vitamins and minerals either.

The absolute best way to eradicate disease from your
life is by supplying the cells and tissues of your body
with its most essential element – and that’s oxygen.

Why?

Because even though your body may need an array of
different elements and nutrients such as CoQ10,
magnesium, Omega-3 fatty acids and the like, only
oxygen is in such critical demand that an insufficient
supply makes the body develop diseases — and it absence
causes the body to die within minutes.

Oxygen creates an environment in the body that enables
the body to CURE ITSELF of virtually all diseases
characterized by viruses, harmful bacteria, toxins,
disease microorganisms and pathogens, including but
not limited to cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s
Disease, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple
sclerosis, heart disease, ulcers, asthma and many other
types of diseases, including the flu.

But the important key to remember is that
sufficient amounts of oxygen need to be supplied
at the CELLULAR level.  Unless oxygen is delivered
to the cells and tissues of the body, it cannot do
a good job at creating an environment in the body
that is uninhabitable by disease.

Only the simple therapy described in “The One-Minute
Cure” effectively moves oxygen atoms from the
bloodstream to the cells to a dramatically greater
degree than is usually reached by all other means.
That’s why this one-minute cure has been administered
by over 15,000 European doctors, naturopaths and health
practitioners to millions of patients to cure practically
every disease known to man.

They have yet to find a disease that does NOT respond
well to this one-minute cure.  When you self-administer
the easy, painless therapy at home in less than 1 minute,
it instantly floods your cells and tissues with oxygen.  All
disease microorganisms, viruses, microbes and pathogens
die in high-oxygen environments because they are
ANAEROBIC (i.e., they seek out and thrive in
low-oxygen environments).

Your healthy cells, on the other hand, are AEROBIC, which
means that they not only thrive but become
rejuvenated and revitalized in the presence of oxygen,
thereby promoting vibrant health.

All told, the one-minute cure is your best bet for
reducing your chances of getting cancer (or any other
disease) down to ZERO – and preventing disease from
invading your body, to begin with.

In this world where disease is so prevalent, and
practically no one escapes disease, you owe it to
yourself to discover the one-minute solution to
all your health fears and worries.  Disease doesn’t have
to scare you anymore, nor does it have to make you
feel helpless, or worse, dependent on expensive
drugs, procedures and therapies offered by
organized medicine.

Take control of your health today by giving yourself
the gift of “The One-Minute Cure: The Secret to Healing
Virtually All Diseases.” Go to:

http://scrnch.me/82ya4

 and get your copy before enterprises,
cartels and agencies whose trillion-dollar
empire is threatened by this information force this book
out of circulation.

Here’s a sneak peek at what you’ll find in “The One-Minute
Cure”:

* Why cancerous tumors shrink in the presence of
  this natural substance — and inhibits the growth
  of other tumors and disease tissues as well.
  Featured case study: A scientific experiment
  which showed how tumors disappeared within 15 to
  60 days after this substance was administered in
  drinking water. — see page 61

* How this therapy has become the choice therapy
  for treating drastic cases of emphysema — many
  patients have reported that the therapy has
  improved their breathing so much that they no
  longer need oxygen tanks and wheelchairs — see
  page 79

* Did you know … that expensive interferon drugs
  owe their efficacy to raising the body’s oxygen level?
  Find out how this natural substance employs the same
  mechanism of action as interferon — without producing
  side effects — and why it is now being used as an
  inexpensive alternative to interferon for the treatment
  of Multiple Sclerosis — see page 66

* How this simple therapy causes your body to cure itself
  of cancer — even in cases when the disease wasn’t caught
  early, and even if it’s a late-stage cancer — see page 44

* Keep your pets healthy, too – Administering this natural
  oxygenating substance in the drinking water of your dog,
  cat, horse or other pets cures everything from heartworms
  to parasites to feline leukemia — without the use of pet
  medications.  It has even been given to race horses
  to improve endurance and shorten recovery times after
  races. — see page 93

Go to:     http://scrnch.me/82ya4    to discover all of this and more.

Wishing you the best of health and freedom from disease,

I thank you for taking the time to read this short report
JanuszJanulis
© 2003-2010 World Marketing Media, Inc.

Scientists have determined that prostate cancer is an epidemic so vast that nearly one autopsy in two of older men reveals the presence of this cancer. Colon Cancer Staging Tnm Fortunately, this cancer is usually so slow growing that most men die of other causes, even as the cancer grows slowly within the prostate gland. Yet deaths by prostate cancer and the debilitating effects of prostate surgery still affect thousands of families today. In addition, nonmalignant enlargement of the prostate afflicts millions of American men with such symptoms as painful and frequent urination. As a therapist who specializes in discovering the underlying causes of disease, I have discovered, once again, the reasons for this pandemic can be found in the cultural habits of our society.

First, let’s ask the obvious question: what is the prostate’s job in a healthy individual? Although prostate conditions including cancer usually show up as problems with urination, the prostate gland is mainly about sex. The prostate’s job is to mix sperm with its own liquid secretions to produce semen, then through contractions associated with male orgasm, it propels this semen into the penis. When I have worked with men who have any prostrate condition I nearly always find that these men feel subconsciously frustrated and often guilty about their sexual behavior. Each case has unique elements. Therefore I will not claim that it is always one particular feeling or trauma. But my experience is that it always is about sex.

One client feels guilty about years of being unfaithful to his wives. Another feels remorse over years of visiting prostitutes, and having meaningless sex. Still another feels badly that he had sex with a wife he didn’t really love. So far I have not met any man whose prostate is complaining because it didn’t get enough sex. While I can’t rule out this possibility, it seems that wasting of one’s procreative life force is the issue which is locked into the prostates of most of my clients. (Incidentally, I always use open ended questions, and never use direct suggestion or leading questions in my work with cancer patients in order to minimize the influence of my own beliefs on the subconscious minds of my clients. In addition, when I began this research, I had no clue as to what might be found in the prostates of my clients)

Lung Cancer Secrets Revealed Click here

This discovery of loose sexual behavior among the vast majority of my prostate clients is consistent with the “sexual revolution” of the 1970s, in which sex went from being a form of recreation reserved exclusively for married couples, at least theoretically, to becoming a free for all. The Playboy philosophy, birth control, and the hippie and women’s lib movements combined to create unprecedented opportunities for men and women alike to spread their seeds to the four winds. While I too had the chance to celebrate and enjoy this new freedom, it is our prostate glands, concerned with such “obsolete” concepts as romantic love, families, and children that I have discovered are in rebellion among so many men today.

As a hypnotherapist it is my job to listen to this prostate gland in a way that the client has never done. Indeed most clients are shocked to discover this throwback to conservative values living inside their bodies. Sometimes tears of remorse, dedication to a new lifestyle, even acts of atonement performed for women can help heal this condition. At other times, committing oneself to seeking a loving partner, even to reaching out to ones lost or grown children has proved valuable. I really don’t know what my client’s prostate needs to heal itself … but fortunately that prostate always does.

Another kind of cancer epidemic is colon cancer. Well, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the why of this epidemic either. We know that the colon is the place where waste is produced, and the water we need is pulled out. I have occasionally found unprocessed waste emotions in the colon, including anger, of which the client is often in denial. One client of mine who suffered severe ulcerative colitis screamed at me in a purple faced rage “Damn it! I am NOT angry!!” when I attempted to point out, very politely, what I was feeling from him. Even residual traumas from toilet training can be found in there sometimes.

But the culturally common causes of colon cancer I have found is connected to the diet and lifestyle choices pursued by most Americans. All of these eating habits have been scientifically proven to have debilitating effects on the colon: large amounts of animal fat in the diet, too much melted cheese and white flour products, all of which stick like glue to the colon walls, where they rot and produce inflammation, too little vegetable fiber, including the raw roughage like lettuce and carrots that clean the colon like a bottle brush, and too little water. (okay, how many of you really drink the 8 glasses a day minimum recommended by doctors?) Also critically dangerous to the colon is our lifestyle choice of sitting for most of every day on our sedentary butts. Remember that as a species homo sapiens evolved to spend many hours every day in physical movement.

So any proposed solution to this epidemic requires a radical revision of our diet and lifestyle. Fortunately the services of a clinical nutritionist and hypnotherapist can be combined to make the transition to a healthy diet and lifestyle much easier. Hypnosis can help build motivation for exercise and can help strengthen our new dietary choices. It can also help uncover and heal the emotions that are stored in the colon. Combined with the latest in medical treatments, such methods offer far more promise for recovery than we could have hoped for 20 years ago.

If you or someone you know wants help in addressing the underlying cause of their cancer, visit [http://fountainofyouthhypnosis.com] and sign up to get a free MP3 download (worth $10) of a Self-Hypnosis Guided Visualization Journey to meet your “Inner Healer” and a coupon good for $100 hypnotherapy phone consultation or office visit. Get all of this plus a free series of instructive articles on improving physical health, healing injuries, resolving anxiety, phobias, depression and help with breaking addictions to cigarettes, food, alcohol or drugs.

lung cancer treatment breakthroughs Click here

To address my post-prostatectomy impotence, I used the vacuum system to gain an erection. My engorged penis turned blue and cold. According to the equipment instructions, it can be used for up to thirty minutes. I could, however, answer the question of my urologist, Dr. Ram Rao: “Did you have penetration?” Yes. Not great, but a step forward.

Next came Caverject. There we were in Dr. Rao’s pristine office with wall charts and drawings depicting all things urological in living color. Dr. Rao, a trim, handsome man of about 55, a native of India, stood on my left, orchestrating this show. My wife, Lorraine was on my right, her face asking the question “What am I doing here?” On center stage I stood with my limp penis, extended by my left hand, as I awaited the first act.

Dr. Rao described the Caverject system, a clever product from Sweden, consisting of a relative of Cialis, a diluent, and a thin injection needle. He armed the system by mixing the fluid with the drug, dialed in the dose, and handed it to me.

“You want me to inject this where?” I asked. He pointed to the target areas on both sides of my penis, noting that I should avoid the midline where key structures such as veins, an artery, the urethra, and nerves reside.

“Lorraine, you do it,” I beg her in quiet desperation.

“No, Bernie it’s your job, after all, you are a doctor, and it’s your penis.”

I did it. Peer pressure at the age of 66. It worked. I had an erection. Not a complete one, but certainly adequate for penetration. And it was pink and warm. Unfortunately, Lorraine had an appointment for a flu shot and we had not made arrangements for a nearby room to put my reawakened tool to the test.

Over the next month we increased the dose slowly until one sunny morning in Islamorada in the Florida Keys, I “shot up” and we enjoyed great sex as I cried, tears streaming off my face and on to Lorraine. Elated, I telephoned my mentor, confidant, fellow physician, and a twelve-year survivor of prostate cancer.

“John, I just used Caverject and we enjoyed fifty-five minutes of penetration.”

Lorraine shouted from the background, “Not so, John, there was fifty minutes of penetration and five minutes of Bernie walking around the room admiring his erection.”

I met and married Lorraine, my second wife, twenty-eight years ago. We were both going through divorce. We often drove to Bar Harbor on Mt. Desert Island, slowly savoring the crisp taste of chilled Chardonnay and awaiting its effect. We would talk, cry, share stories, and cry again. Then we laughed, stopped the car to hug and disrobe as much as we dared. Soon we ran off into a favorite woodland glen, ideal for a hobbit house, where we enjoyed passionate love on a flannel blanket over a bed of soft and aromatic spruce and pine needles. During that year there were a number of startled tourists who will probably never forget that trip to Bah Habba.

Lorraine stayed with me over the decades, long enough to teach me how to take the risks involved in truly loving another. She led me by the hand through the trackless land of love. We became proficient with Tantric sex, maximizing the senses, finding new erogenous zones. I enjoyed multiple orgasms without ejaculation, savoring the climactic experience with its primal scream. Fortunately we lived in a rural area

I became addicted to sex. Sex became my demon.

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle noted that the ultimate goal of humankind was for happiness, in Greek,”eudimonia”, which means “good demons”. Was my demon good or bad or both?

For twelve years I had been on a research study, wherein my lack of “free” PSA (prostatic specific antigen) suggested that I would eventually get prostate cancer. In the interim I changed my diet and added a wide range of vitamins, minerals, and other “nutraceuticals” to stave off or minimize cancer, while I chased my demon.

About two years ago my second prostate biopsy showed definite cancer. As a pathologist I had seen the worst cases, the failures, so I opted for aggressive therapy– androgen depravation therapy, prostatectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. The treatment plan is almost over and I have no detectable PSA. A possible cure? Only time will tell.

Our new sexuality may lack spontaneity, for it requires me to arm and inject Caverject, but our sessions together last for well over an hour. Close friends ask us what do we do with so much time for loving? We get out our tattered copy of Kama Sutra from college days and try all the positions.

“Whom can you trust when your culture is the biggest enemy of your health? Can you trust your culture’s leading authorities? Can you trust your culture’s government? Can you trust your culture’s private industry?”

We asked those questions in 1995, at the end of our book, Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. Before writing our book, we sent details of our research to the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, President’s Cancer Panel, American Women’s Medical Association, National Organization for Women, National Women’s Health Network, and National Women’s Health Resource Center. There was no response. Not one. Given the lack of interest, we decided to publish our findings in a book, getting the information directly to the women who needed to hear it.

But are women getting the message?

It has been 13 years since our book was first published. Over that time, more than 500,000 women in the US alone have died from breast cancer, with another 2,000,000 having been diagnosed with this terrible disease — a disease that is in most cases preventable by simply loosening up or eliminating the bra. And yet, this lifesaving information has been actively suppressed and censored by the medical and lingerie industries.

Examples of Suppress and Censorship

A large public relations firm in New York City was willing and eager to help us release this information to the public. “My wife just had breast cancer, and I’m sure you are right,” the head of the firm confessed. A big media announcement and celebration were planned. Days later, however, the firm withdrew its offer to help, stating that one of their clients, a large medical center, objected to their working with us.

A Sydney, Australia public relations firm agreed to help publicize our work when we were doing outreach efforts in their country. But it, too, reversed itself. We had asked if they had any conflicts of interest, such as lingerie industry clients. They said they had none. But as it turned out, they did represent a pharmaceutical company that makes a breast cancer treatment drug, and the prevention of breast cancer and its treatment are in conflict, they explained.

The Intimate Apparel Council (which is the US trade association for the multi-billion dollar bra industry) threatened our publisher, Avery Publishing Group, with a lawsuit if Dressed To Kill was released. The publisher said the publicity would help spread the word. The lawsuit never materialized.

After the book was released, the NBC television news show, Dateline, was interested in doing a story on our work. We were extensively interviewed by a skeptical reporter who became a supporter. The story was then abruptly terminated. The producer confidentially explained that the policy of General Electric, which owns NBC, is to avoid airing news stories that can adversely impact on other GE interests. As it happens, GE is a manufacturer of mammography machines.

Women’s magazines, such as Glamour, Self, and others, ran critical stories condemning our work, and finding “experts” to encourage women to continue wearing bras. Elle magazine planned a positive story about the bra/cancer link, but was coerced into pulling the story by bra advertisers. In various newspapers around the world, such as the Guardian in the UK, stories were pulled prior to publication because of fear that they may “panic the public”, including their lingerie advertisers.

The British Fashion Council (which is the UK’s equivalent of the Intimate Apparel Council) published the Breast Health Handbook in 1996 to oppose our efforts. They announced the formation of the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Foundation, which was to receive donations from bra sales to fund genetic research into breast cancer. The book criticized our work, claiming, “The idea that wearing a bra encourages cancer by trapping toxins was recently put forward by researchers at the Institute for Culturogenic Studies (sic) in Hawaii. Researchers from more august establishments promptly dismissed it as claptrap.” Without any medical evidence or research, the book informs women that wearing bras is a health necessity, and should be worn as early in life as possible to prevent breast damage.

Our original publisher, Avery, was purchased by giant Penguin Putnam in 1998. The new publisher did not list the book for three years and refused to revert publication rights to the copywrite holders, Singer and Grismaijer. The book was virtually unavailable, and it was thought to have gone out of print. Finally, after repeated requests, the publishing rights were released to us in October, 2001. (ISCD Press has been keeping it in print since then.)

A television documentary was produced in the year 2000 by Channel 4 in the UK, called, Bras- The Bare Facts. In the documentary, 100 women with fibrocystic breast disease went bra-free for 3 months to document the effect on breast cysts and pain. Two prominent British breast surgeons conducted the study. The results were astounding, and clearly demonstrated that the bra is a serious health hazard. We were interviewed for the program to discuss the bra/cancer connection, which was considered highly plausible and important by the doctors interviewed. Some theorized that, in addition to lymphatic impairment, the bra could also cause cancer by overheating the breasts. The documentary made newspaper headlines in British Commonwealth countries throughout the world, but no mention of it was made at all in the US. The following day, headlines in the U.K. tried to suppress fears of the bra/cancer link, and the doctors in the study quickly distanced themselves from the cancer issue, telling women to continue wearing bras. Their research for the documentary was supposed to be published in a medical journal, but never was. And no further research ever materialized to follow-up on their work, which they said they would do. Extensive news coverage of the program was available on the Internet soon after it aired, but most articles were removed shortly thereafter.

No follow-up studies have been done to refute or confirm our research. None. While a Harvard study, published in the European Journal of Cancer in 1991, discovered that bra-free women have a lower rate of breast cancer, the results were not central to the research they were conducting and were considered unimportant and not followed-up. In fact, apart from our initial 1991-93 Bra and Breast Cancer Study, discussed in detail in Dressed To Kill, and our follow-up research in Fiji, discussed in our book, Get It Off!, there are still no other studies on the bra/cancer link. Not even a letter or discussion of the issue can be found in any medical journal. After decades of breast cancer research, the bra is still completely ignored as even being a potential factor for consideration. It’s like studying foot disease and ignoring shoes.

Keeping the Public Mystified

This lack of research, and the consequent ignorance, are then used by cancer organizations to justify further suppression of the issue. As the American Cancer Society states on its website, (ignoring the Harvard study), “There are no scientifically valid studies that show a correlation between wearing bras of any type and the occurrence of breast cancer. Two anthropologists made this association in a book called Dressed To Kill. Their study was not conducted according to standard principles of epidemiological research and did not take into consideration other variables, including known risk factors for breast cancer. There is no other, credible research to validate this claim in any way.” And they don’t seem interested in funding any such studies in the near future, either. There are other organizations that are similarly critical of the bra/cancer link for lack of research evidence, while at the same time discouraging any research on the subject.

Of particular interest is when breast cancer organizations antagonistic to the issue declare the bra/cancer link to be “misinformation” or a “myth”, without any scientific study supporting their claims. They say bras are important for women to wear for support, without any evidence showing bras are safe or necessary. They then encourage regular mammograms, cancer prevention drug therapy (not realizing that “prevention therapy” is an oxymoron), and even preventative mastectomies (which means that those who are high risk for breast cancer but who don’t want to get it can have their breast removed as a prevention strategy). Of course, it is better to remove the bra instead of the breasts, but bra removal is not a billable procedure.

Keep in mind that bras have been associated with other health problems, such as headaches, numbness in the hands, backache and other postural problems, cysts, pain, skin depigmentation, and more. And lymphatic blockage, which is the result of bra constriction, has already been associated with various cancers. Clearly, the bra/cancer link needs further research, while women take the precaution of loosening up.

Why the resistance?

What harm could there be in following our simple advice, or in even researching this issue? Why the defensive reaction?

There are three reasons:

1. The bra industry fears class action lawsuits. Many insiders have admitted to us that for years the industry suspected underwires were causing cancer. They know that tight bras cause cysts and pain. It is only a matter of time until a lawsuit is made against a bra manufacturer. As a defense, the industry is shifting the blame to the customer, claiming that most women are wearing their bras too tightly, and should get professional fittings. (How do you get a properly fitted push-up bra?) Breaking ranks with their industry peers, and trying to capitalize on the bad news, are several bra manufacturers that now offer newly patented bras claiming to mitigate the damage, including cancer, caused by conventional bras.

2. The medical industry is making billions each year on the detection and treatment of breast cancer. As mentioned above, there is a conflict between the prevention and the treatment of disease, especially if the prevention does not include drugs or surgery. The fact is that our treatment-focused, profit-oriented medical system is making a killing treating this disease, and has billions to lose if breast cancer goes out of fashion along with bras.

In addition, the bra issue will revolutionize the breast cancer field, embarrassing many researchers. Breast cancer research to date that has ignored the bra issue is seriously flawed as a result, which is why the “experts” are still unable to explain the cause of over 70% of all breast cancer cases. Career cancer researchers who have ignored the bra issue will have to admit this fatal flaw in their work, which they are not inclined to admit in their lifetimes.

3. Finally, there is the dogmatic, fearful resistance from some women who find their personal identity so connected to their bras that they would rather risk cancer than be bra-free (which some women have actually told us.) Women are cultural entities, and so long as our culture scorns a natural bustline, many women will submit to the pain, red marks and indentations, cysts, and even the threat of cancer rather than face potential public ridicule (which never really happens.)

There are also women who believe the myth that bras will prevent droopy breasts. The bra industry admits this is a myth, while it still promotes it to improve sales. In fact, bras cause breasts to droop, as the breasts become dependent on the bra for support and the natural supportive mechanisms atrophy from non use.

Despite the resistance, however, some women have gotten the message. And many health care professionals, who have also suspected bras for years, are now spreading that message. As women hear the news and discover that eliminating the bra also eliminates cysts and pain, the news further spreads by word of mouth.

There are now thousands of websites on this subject, many from health care professionals including medical doctors, naturopathic doctors, osteopathic doctors, chiropractors, massage therapists, lymphatic specialists, nutritionists, and others who care about women and helping end this epidemic. Grassroots efforts to keep this information alive and spreading have supplanted the traditional medical research approach, which has disqualified itself for lack of interest and conflict of interest.

When a disease is caused by the culture and its habits, attitudes, fashions and industries, there is bound to be resistance to change. Industries that contribute to disease will be defensive, and industries that profit from disease will be conflicted. However, the truth has a way of getting out, despite the resistance and suppression. Thank Goodness the truth does have a way of getting out.

Can you trust your culture’s leading authorities? Inflammatory Breast Cancer Rash Can you trust your culture’s government? Can you trust your culture’s private industry?”

We asked those questions in 1995, at the end of our book, Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. Before writing our book, we sent details of our research to the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, President’s Cancer Panel, American Women’s Medical Association, National Organization for Women, National Women’s Health Network, and National Women’s Health Resource Center. There was no response. Not one. Given the lack of interest, we decided to publish our findings in a book, getting the information directly to the women who needed to hear it.

But are women getting the message?

It has been 12 years since our book was first published. Over that time, more than 500,000 women in the US alone have died from breast cancer, with another 2,000,000 having been diagnosed with this terrible disease — a disease that is in most cases preventable by simply loosening up or eliminating the bra. And yet, this lifesaving information has been actively suppressed and censored by the medical and lingerie industries.

Examples of Suppress and Censorship

A large public relations firm in New York City was willing and eager to help us release this information to the public. “My wife just had breast cancer, and I’m sure you are right,” the head of the firm confessed. A big media announcement and celebration were planned. Days later, however, the firm withdrew its offer to help, stating that one of their clients, a large medical center, objected to their working with us.

A Sydney, Australia public relations firm agreed to help publicize our work when we were doing outreach efforts in their country. But it, too, reversed itself. We had asked if they had any conflicts of interest, such as lingerie industry clients. They said they had none. But as it turned out, they did represent a pharmaceutical company that makes a breast cancer treatment drug, and the prevention of breast cancer and its treatment are in conflict, they explained.

The Intimate Apparel Council (which is the US trade association for the multi-billion dollar bra industry) threatened our publisher, Avery Publishing Group, with a lawsuit if Dressed To Kill was released. The publisher said the publicity would help spread the word. The lawsuit never materialized.

After the book was released, the NBC television news show, Dateline, was interested in doing a story on our work. We were extensively interviewed by a skeptical reporter who became a supporter. The story was then abruptly terminated. The producer confidentially explained that the policy of General Electric, which owns NBC, is to avoid airing news stories that can adversely impact on other GE interests. As it happens, GE is a manufacturer of mammography machines.

Women’s magazines, such as Glamour, Self, and others, ran critical stories condemning our work, and finding “experts” to encourage women to continue wearing bras. Elle magazine planned a positive story about the bra/cancer link, but was coerced into pulling the story by bra advertisers. In various newspapers around the world, such as the Guardian in the UK, stories were pulled prior to publication because of fear that they may “panic the public”, including their lingerie advertisers.

The British Fashion Council (which is the UK’s equivalent of the Intimate Apparel Council) published the Breast Health Handbook in 1996 to oppose our efforts. They announced the formation of the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Foundation, which was to receive donations from bra sales to fund genetic research into breast cancer. The book criticized our work, claiming, “The idea that wearing a bra encourages cancer by trapping toxins was recently put forward by researchers at the Institute for Culturogenic Studies (sic) in Hawaii. Researchers from more august establishments promptly dismissed it as claptrap.” Without any medical evidence or research, the book informs women that wearing bras is a health necessity, and should be worn as early in life as possible to prevent breast damage.

Our original publisher, Avery, was purchased by giant Penguin Putnam in 1998. The new publisher did not list the book for three years and refused to revert publication rights to the copywrite holders, Singer and Grismaijer. The book was virtually unavailable, and it was thought to have gone out of print. Finally, after repeated requests, the publishing rights were released to us in October, 2001. (ISCD Press has been keeping it in print since then.)

A television documentary was produced in the year 2000 by Channel 4 in the UK, called, Bras- The Bare Facts. In the documentary, 100 women with fibrocystic breast disease went bra-free for 3 months to document the effect on breast cysts and pain. Two prominent British breast surgeons conducted the study. The results were astounding, and clearly demonstrated that the bra is a serious health hazard. We were interviewed for the program to discuss the bra/cancer connection, which was considered highly plausible and important by the doctors interviewed. Some theorized that, in addition to lymphatic impairment, the bra could also cause cancer by overheating the breasts. The documentary made newspaper headlines in British Commonwealth countries throughout the world, but no mention of it was made at all in the US. The following day, headlines in the U.K. tried to suppress fears of the bra/cancer link, and the doctors in the study quickly distanced themselves from the cancer issue, telling women to continue wearing bras. Their research for the documentary was supposed to be published in a medical journal, but never was. And no further research ever materialized to follow-up on their work, which they said they would do. Extensive news coverage of the program was available on the Internet soon after it aired, but most articles were removed shortly thereafter.

No follow-up studies have been done to refute or confirm our research. None. While a Harvard study, published in the European Journal of Cancer in 1991, discovered that bra-free women have a lower rate of breast cancer, the results were not central to the research they were conducting and were considered unimportant and not followed-up. In fact, apart from our initial 1991-93 Bra and Breast Cancer Study, discussed in detail in Dressed To Kill, and our follow-up research in Fiji, discussed in our book, Get It Off!, there are still no other studies on the bra/cancer link. Not even a letter or discussion of the issue can be found in any medical journal. After decades of breast cancer research, the bra is still completely ignored as even being a potential factor for consideration. It’s like studying foot disease and ignoring shoes.

Keeping the Public Mystified

Lung Cancer Secrets Revealed Click here

This lack of research, and the consequent ignorance, are then used by cancer organizations to justify further suppression of the issue. As the American Cancer Society states on its website, (ignoring the Harvard study), “There are no scientifically valid studies that show a correlation between wearing bras of any type and the occurrence of breast cancer. Two anthropologists made this association in a book called Dressed To Kill. Their study was not conducted according to standard principles of epidemiological research and did not take into consideration other variables, including known risk factors for breast cancer. There is no other, credible research to validate this claim in any way.” And they don’t seem interested in funding any such studies in the near future, either. There are other organizations that are similarly critical of the bra/cancer link for lack of research evidence, while at the same time discouraging any research on the subject.

Of particular interest is when breast cancer organizations antagonistic to the issue declare the bra/cancer link to be “misinformation” or a “myth”, without any scientific study supporting their claims. They say bras are important for women to wear for support, without any evidence showing bras are safe or necessary. They then encourage regular mammograms, cancer prevention drug therapy (not realizing that “prevention therapy” is an oxymoron), and even preventative mastectomies (which means that those who are high risk for breast cancer but who don’t want to get it can have their breast removed as a prevention strategy). Of course, it is better to remove the bra instead of the breasts, but bra removal is not a billable procedure.

Keep in mind that bras have been associated with other health problems, such as headaches, numbness in the hands, backache and other postural problems, cysts, pain, skin depigmentation, and more. And lymphatic blockage, which is the result of bra constriction, has already been associated with various cancers. Clearly, the bra/cancer link needs further research, while women take the precaution of loosening up.

Why the resistance?

What harm could there be in following our simple advice, or in even researching this issue? Why the defensive reaction?

There are three reasons:

1. The bra industry fears class action lawsuits. Many insiders have admitted to us that for years the industry suspected underwires were causing cancer. They know that tight bras cause cysts and pain. It is only a matter of time until a lawsuit is made against a bra manufacturer. As a defense, the industry is shifting the blame to the customer, claiming that most women are wearing their bras too tightly, and should get professional fittings. (How do you get a properly fitted push-up bra?) Breaking ranks with their industry peers, and trying to capitalize on the bad news, are several bra manufacturers that now offer newly patented bras claiming to mitigate the damage, including cancer, caused by conventional bras.

2. The medical industry is making billions each year on the detection and treatment of breast cancer. As mentioned above, there is a conflict between the prevention and the treatment of disease, especially if the prevention does not include drugs or surgery. The fact is that our treatment-focused, profit-oriented medical system is making a killing treating this disease, and has billions to lose if breast cancer goes out of fashion along with bras.

In addition, the bra issue will revolutionize the breast cancer field, embarrassing many researchers. Breast cancer research to date that has ignored the bra issue is seriously flawed as a result, which is why the “experts” are still unable to explain the cause of over 70% of all breast cancer cases. Career cancer researchers who have ignored the bra issue will have to admit this fatal flaw in their work, which they are not inclined to admit in their lifetimes.

3. Finally, there is the dogmatic, fearful resistance from some women who find their personal identity so connected to their bras that they would rather risk cancer than be bra-free (which some women have actually told us.) Women are cultural entities, and so long as our culture scorns a natural bustline, many women will submit to the pain, red marks and indentations, cysts, and even the threat of cancer rather than face potential public ridicule (which never really happens.)

There are also women who believe the myth that bras will prevent droopy breasts. The bra industry admits this is a myth, while it still promotes it to improve sales. In fact, bras cause breasts to droop, as the breasts become dependent on the bra for support and the natural supportive mechanisms atrophy from non use.

Despite the resistance, however, some women have gotten the message. And many health care professionals, who have also suspected bras for years, are now spreading that message. As women hear the news and discover that eliminating the bra also eliminates cysts and pain, the news further spreads by word of mouth.

There are now thousands of websites on this subject, many from health care professionals including medical doctors, naturopathic doctors, osteopathic doctors, chiropractors, massage therapists, lymphatic specialists, nutritionists, and others who care about women and helping end this epidemic. Grassroots efforts to keep this information alive and spreading have supplanted the traditional medical research approach, which has disqualified itself for lack of interest and conflict of interest.

When a disease is caused by the culture and its habits, attitudes, fashions and industries, there is bound to be resistance to change. Industries that contribute to disease will be defensive, and industries that profit from disease will be conflicted. However, the truth has a way of getting out, despite the resistance and suppression. Thank Goodness the truth does have a way of getting out.

Sydney Ross Singer is a medical anthropologist and director of the Institute for the Study of Culturogenic Disease, located in Hawaii. His unique form of applied medical anthropology searches for the cultural/lifestyle causes of disease. His working assumption is that our bodies were made to be healthy, but our culture and the attitudes and behaviors it instills in us can get in the way of health. By eliminating these causes, the body is allowed to heal. Since most diseases of our time are caused by our culture/lifestyle, this approach has resulted in many original discoveries into the cause, and cure, of many common diseases. It also makes prevention possible by eliminating adverse lifestyle practices. Sydney works with his co-researcher and wife, Soma Grismaijer, and is the author of several groundbreaking health books.

lung cancer treatment breakthroughs Click here