Campaign for Truth in Europe
a Call to Action
by Phillip Day

In previous EClubs, we've been examining the European Union's new draconian supplements directives and their potential implications. Yet we have also seen that this proposed wide-sweeping legislation is symptomatic of a much wider threat which is stalking, not just Britain, but the free world today. Incredibly, just in the space of the last 15 years, we have seen a somewhat obscure and bureaucratic comglomeration of European Common Market nation states rapidly and forcefully merge their sovereignty into what is increasingly being viewed as the new superpower on the block to challenge America.

Ironically, as we will examine in future bulletins, it was the US who played a leading role in encouraging the European Union from the outset, as it was perceived by the Central Intelligence Agency at the time that a strong Europe after World War 2 would prevent the expansion of Soviet interests into western Europe. This Soviet threat subsequently evaporated with the break-up of the USSR in 1991.

As a political and economic observer of many years' experience, I cannot but view what is occurring in Europe and my own nation today with extreme nervousness and a stark foreboding. For what is emerging from Brussels is not some benign and bumbling morass of committees, but a fledgling superpower with state apparati which has consistently shown itself to be diametrically opposed to the benchmark principles of democracy, accountability, legality under British Common Law. Many ordinary citizens, as well as those in high places in Britain, have become nervous also.

It is probably for this reason that British politicians, such as Edward Heath, Harold Wilson, Roy Jenkins and Tony Blair, who have spearheaded Britain's reluctant involvement in the EU, chose not to come clean with the British people about what was ultimately being put on the table. Today, we can see for ourselves the end result in sight: UK law now fully subordinated to European Law, ultimately leading to a loss of all sovereignty and the take-over of the British state. The intent all along has been the creation of a new superstate absorbing all the old nation states of Europe into a continent-wide power block dominated by the Franco-German axis which emerged following World War 2.

This EClub article seeks to examine in overview some of the major concerns facing the British people about these developments, and indeed the kind of Europe that is emerging from the fog of political duplicity and intrigue.

Most see the European Union of today as an inefficient conglomeration of states run by self-serving career politicians anxious to guarantee their survival by safely nesting in the EU's cocoon of endless bureaucracies. Many don't really see a threat at the moment. They believe that an integrated Europe makes sense; that it would prevent any chance of a third European war; that it is the modern, forward-thinking way to go.

NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON
On 1st January 1973, Conservative British Prime Minister Edward Heath took Britain into the European Common Market after he had added his name to the Treaty of Rome the year before. Heath reassured Parliament and the British people at the time that sovereignty would not be affected and that we were just joining a trading partnership. His 1971 Government White Paper stated the following:

"There is no question of Britain losing essential national sovereignty."

Subsequent papers came to light which unequivocally showed that Edward Heath had recognised at the time the full implications of what he was doing. Years later, in a BBC interview in 1998, Heath was asked if he had known all along that Britain was signing up to a federal Europe. His exact reply was, "Of course I bloody did!"

The recent release of government papers has confirmed that Edward Heath lied to the British people.

Through further amendments to the Treaty of Rome, the original Common Market has gradually been changed by stealth into the European Union of today. The British people have never given their consent, nor have properly understood the implications of the European Union. The reason successive British governments have deliberately lied and misled the public over Europe is because they knew the British people would be horrified and would not tolerate the destruction and loss of control of their own country.

A GERMAN 'EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY'?
(Europaische Wirtschaftgemeinschaft)
In 1942, during World War 2, a group of German economists met at a well attended conference in Berlin to discuss a new concept of European political integration controlled by the Nazis. The conference was entitled 'The European Economic Community'. Later in 1944, once Germany recognised that defeat was inevitable, amazingly the Nazi push for European political integration continued. The chief question being asked in Berlin was: "How can Germany dominate the peace when she loses the war?"

The Treaty of Rome which birthed the EU was signed in 1957. Several of the original architects were ex-Nazis. The rest were ordinary socialist politicians who had the understandable motive of wishing to avoid any future repeat of the two world wars they had experienced. Nevertheless, the Treaty and its subsequent amendments bear a striking resemblance to the earlier German plans for the federalisation of Europe, economic and monetary union of the continent, the destruction of Britain, and the domination by Germany of the new monolithic European superstate. Article 189 is the engine of the Treaty, which states that all regulations, law and directives produced by the European Court are binding in totality on the nation states.

Today, it seems, these goals have almost been accomplished.

WHY THE EU MUST DISMANTLE BRITAIN
Most citizens of Britain, who are angry at the meddling of Brussels, nevertheless fail to examine the situation from the European viewpoint. Britain, it would seem, is part of Europe only through an accident of geography and finds itself consistently divergent from the economic and political fortunes of its continental neighbours. Consider the following:

* Germany and France geopolitically find it hard to secure their borders. Their alternative is to seek buffer zones around their nations, or, more effectively, control the continent of Europe altogether. Britain, on the other hand, is an island and easily defended.

* Britain was the first truly global, maritime power. Today, as before, the majority of her trade is GLOBAL, chiefly with her erstwhile colonial and Commonwealth partners, NOT WITH EUROPE, whose economies are PROVINCIAL and currently stagnant and contracting. Increasingly, Britain has been compelled by treaty to cease trading with her former global partners and obtain and market products into the Eurozone first and foremost. This enforced protectionism has increased food costs and other raw materials significantly for the British people.

* Europe has historically resented what it sees as Britain's 'destabilising influence' on continental economies because of her massive strength. It galls some European nations that Britain has traditionally been powerful enough to call the shots. Wars in the past, such as the Napoleonic, WW1 and WW2, have been started by European powers in order to secure their future economic and political stability. These measures ultimately failed. Today, the tactics have changed and economic conquest is the order of the day.

* Europe recognises that if Britain were subdued and broken up, a greater proportion of the UK's coveted world trade, including her prodigious art market, massive financial/pensions sector, hi-tech industries, and her oil and fish resources could be controlled for the first time by the dominant continental powers, France and Germany.

* France and Germany were partners in the embryonic EU, known previously as the European Coal and Steel Community, formed after World War 2. Without France and Germany today, there would be no European Union.

* Europe resents Britain's special relationship with the United States, with whom Britain has always enjoyed huge trade, security and strategic interests.

* Peace has been kept in Europe for the past fifty years, not through ambitions to create a unified Europe, but through the willingness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to act as a European military watchdog.

* NATO is a military alliance of nations dominated by the two leading powers formerly comprising 'the Allies' during World War 2 - namely the United States of America and Great Britain.

* The EU understands that if she can dismantle Britain and absorb her, USA influence in Europe will dwindle and France and Germany will once again be able to reprise their original roles as the strongmen of Europe and secure their borders accordingly. Every action performed by the EU is carried out with this ultimate goal in mind.

DOES ANY OF THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?
FACT: The European Union is planning a new European army which will be capable of 'autonomous action'. This new army will threaten the balance and stability NATO has given to the Continent and hand over military jurisdiction in Europe once again to the two nations, France and Germany, who have historically abused it and gone to war for their own economic interests.

FACT: Europe's new autonomous police force, Europol, has taken on frightening new powers to investigate and compile a huge number of records on European citizens. Unlike the UK's police force, Europol cannot be held responsible by European law for its actions. Ironically, or perhaps not so, her main base of operations, housing 350 officers, is quartered in the old fortified Gestapo headquarters building in The Hague. Eventually there will be 5,000 of them.

FACT: France has twice had to suffer the embarrassment of Britain and her allies baling her out of trouble in two previous world wars, which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of British, Commonwealth and American troops. After both wars, the Allies graciously withdrew and allowed France and Germany to regain their sovereignty. Yet today, many French politicians scorn Britain and America, and seem willing to jeopardise the balance and stability of Europe by sanctioning the pan-European re-arming of the Continent with its own powerful army, with a newly unified Germany as the most dominant power…

For the third time in a century.

THE EU - AND THE POTENTIAL FOR ANOTHER EUROPEAN WAR
Supporters of today's European Union claim that an integrated Europe will prevent future war. Yet true democracies do not provoke war, whereas forced or premature conglomerations of disparate nations have a proven history of causing turmoil and bloodshed (for example, the Roman Empire, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and much of Africa). Every once in a while, one gets a tantalising glimpse into the EU's true agenda, sometimes voiced in an unguarded moment of political zeal:

"The European parliament and the commission are allies against the member states. Together we have to prevent the member states from taking back power." President of the European parliament, speaking on BBC Radio 4, July 1999

"When we build the house of Europe, the future will belong to Germany." Helmut Kohl, speaking in Germany, unaware that reporters were present.

"Germany, as the biggest and most powerful economic member state will be the leader [of Europe] whether you like it or not." Theo Waigel, former German finance minister, 1997

"The top priority is to turn the EU into a single political state." Joshka Fischer, German foreign minister, quoted in The Times, November 1998

"Why does Europe need fifteen foreign ministers when one is enough? Why do member states still need national armies? One European army is enough." Hans Eichel, German finance minister, November 1999

"Never again must there be a destabilising vacuum of power in central Europe. If European integration were not to progress, Germany might be called upon, or tempted by its own security constraints, to try to effect the stabilisation on its own and in the traditional way." German CDU parliamentary committee on European affairs, September 1994

THE SHOCKING TRUTH ABOUT BRITAIN AND THE EU
When politicians tell you that European integration is inevitable, they are lying. The reality is, the EU ultimately needs Britain's continued membership herself to survive. Britain has been behaving like a junkie towards Europe, told by her politicians that continued membership is her only real hope for future prosperity. Again, nothing could be further from the truth.

Consider the points below, and then ask yourself, who needs who?

* Membership of the EU costs the UK £1.25 million EVERY HOUR OF EVERY DAY - enough to pay for all the hospitals, doctors, nurses, schools, teachers and police we could ever need, and leave money over for tax cuts.

* The EU has imposed 30,000 new regulations and directives on the UK since we joined and adds another 3,000 every year. France routinely ignores regulations which don't suit her, whereas Britain, with her long tradition of playing by the rules, is ridiculed by Europe when she tries to obey every one.

* No politician of any party has ever given a straight and specific answer to the simple question - what are the benefits of EU membership? That's because there aren't any.

* The politicians of Europe, and indeed their peoples, are completely clear that the EU represents the formation of a federal superstate. No leading British politician dare tells the British people that the EU's ultimate aim is the destruction of Britain as an independent sovereign nation.

* Britain's fishing industry has been destroyed by the EU, and farming is going the same way. Dozens of other industries and tens of thousands of individuals have had their lives or livelihoods damaged or destroyed by the EU, and there is no end in sight.

* The EU is endemically corrupt and cannot be reformed from within, according to many of the senior staff who have left or been dismissed over the years. Billions of euros disappear down the drain of fraud every year and the Court of Auditors has failed to stop it - despite having never once signed off the EU's annual accounts as audited and correct! The EU does not even use double-entry bookkeeping for the accounts it does try to produce. Any UK company running its books of account in the same way would have seen the directors thrown in jail long ago.

* The EU is systematically destroying British legal safeguards. Habeus corpus, the presumption of innocence, double jeopardy (preventing the state being able to appeal against a not-guilty verdict and go on doing so until it gets a conviction), and trial by jury are all actively under threat already. The independence of the judiciary - which is intended to ensure that the law is upheld - is being increasingly undermined by the appointment of full-time state-employed judges, as per EU instructions.

* The EU has already become an unelected, unaccountable government with tyrannical powers. The European Parliament, on the other hand, is no more than a talking shop. It has no legislative powers, cannot create, amend or vote down any EU laws. It is merely a public fig-leaf of supposed democracy.

* If MEPs are absent from a vote, they are taken to have voted with the Commission. If the parliament votes against the Commission, it is assumed to have made a mistake, and the result is reversed.

* Why do most British politicians love the idea of the EU? Traditionally politicians in Britain have had a reasonably short 'shelf life' before having to return to private life… and for good reason. Today however, Brussels can guarantee a loyal politician a job for life with vast remuneration even if that person is a political failure in their own country. Neil Kinnock and his family, for instance, receive a staggering £500,000 each year in EU salaries and expenses, paid for by the beleaguered taxpayer.

* Joining the euro would cost a minimum of a massive £36 BILLION (£631 for every man, woman and child in Britain) and cause immediate price hikes, just as it has done on the Continent. Some estimates put the cost of joining as high as £100 BILLION.

* Joining the euro would entail handing over to Brussels all the UK's gold and dollar reserves, all its oil reserves, the power to set interest rates and - ultimately - the power to raise taxes. And the British parliament could do absolutely nothing to stop unelected Euro Commissioners making decisions which would threaten to destroy our economy.

* Joining the euro, and thus the EU, as a full member would be irreversible. That means, if Britain didn't like the results of political and financial integration, as others don't today, the only way we could free ourselves would be to go to war for our independence.

It boils down to this - if the British government no longer controls taxpayers' money, the country cannot defend itself against any external threat, whether physical or economic.

Is this truly what we want for our own future and that of our children?

PICTURE A PROSPEROUS AND INDEPENDENT BRITAIN
LEARN HOW WE CAN WIN IT
Most ordinary citizens of Britain and her Commonwealth don't see themselves as any sort of 'activists'. The time for silent anger and dissent however is at an end. Britain herself is dying at the hands of the European stranglehold. Evidence of this can be seen daily in the newspapers.

The heartening news is that polls indicate that over 60% of the British people would unequivocally support Britain leaving the EU IMMEDIATELY if they knew this would not harm us and we could continue to trade with Europe. This figure of 60% is estimated to rise to over 80% if British people were properly educated on the dangers we now collectively face as a nation from the threat of the EU. Norway withdrew her application for EU membership, when she realised she would have to cede her territorial fishing waters to the EU. Norway is a prosperous and thriving nation today. Switzerland too, with all her banks, has remained free of EU protectionist interference.

Worried about Britain being able to survive outside the EU? Don't be. Consider whether the following nation would be able to make it on her own.

* Britain is a nation of 58 million people.

* She is the fourth largest economy in the world by Gross Domestic Product.

* She owns the largest financial trading centre in the world, centred in London. There are more US banks in London than in New York, more German banks than in Frankfurt and handles more euro transactions than the whole of the European Union COMBINED.

* Britain earns £100 billion a year from her £1,931 billion of global asset investments, second only to America.

* Britain has the lowest inflation and unemployment rate in the EU by far.

* Unemployment across the EU is a staggering 18 million. No increase in jobs has been achieved in the past 20 years. Britain has created 2.3 million jobs during that period.

* Britain invented the computer, the jet engine, the hovercraft, the steam engine and railways, the telephone and television. We invented mail services and discovered nuclear physics.

* Over the past 250 years, British scientists and engineers have been responsible for almost four out of every five major inventions, discoveries and new technologies.

* Recent Japanese research shows that more than half of the world's useful inventions since 1945 were made by Britons, whether they lived in Britain at the time or not. America's contribution was under 20%.

* Adjusted for population, this means that the British are TEN TIMES more inventive. Both Britain and America can claim 75% of all the world's useful inventions.

* Britain invented a free press, a Briton was the first to sail around the world and we invented football, cricket and rugby. World-class British statesmen, artists and musicians can be reeled off without number.

* Britain is one of only two currently independent nuclear powers in Europe. The other is France.

* We have the only oil industry in the EU. We have a world-class financial services sector with huge pensions assets, while Europe has a combined pensions liability totalling $1.2 trillion for which it has no underpinning assets.

* Britain has a massive tourism market based on its unique blend of individualism, tradition, monarchy, history and craftsmanship.

* Britons have been at the forefront of developing and taking advantage of the massive boom in Internet sector technologies to boost our global trade. British is the language of the Internet.

* The British are the true global traders of Europe. Most countries on the continent just trade with each other.

* Britain has strong links with America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, much of Asia and South America. Almost all European nations do not.

* English is the most widely used language across the world and is used in business globally. English is virtually a compulsory second language for everyone on the face of the Earth.

* Britain is the EU's best customer, creating 5 million European jobs. If Britain were to pull out of the EU and negotiate a proper trading agreement, the EU simply couldn't afford to upset or close the door on its best customer, given the Union's current shaky financial state of affairs.

* Won't the Germans still want to sell us their cars, the French their fine champagne and wines, the Dutch their bacon, and the Mediterranean countries their tourist destinations? Besides, continued trade, even if Britain left the EU, is guaranteed by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), to which almost every nation on the planet subscribes.

* * * * *

It is utter nonsense to maintain for a moment that Britain could not continue as a strong, vibrant, INDEPENDENT nation if she left the European Union. Yet every day, jealousy, special interests and covert agendas are gutting our country. Our farmers, fishermen and many other trades people will willingly give you all the details.

And so the decision is ours. Will we press to stay in the EU, and watch as Britain becomes a small and insignificant part of a harsh and unforgiving new Continental empire? Or will we move and stir ourselves to freedom to forge a new and passionate destiny for our country's independent future? I believe that now is the last, unrepeatable moment at which we can halt our extinction as a culture and a nation.

AND TODAY'S THE DAY!
I am proud to launch the new Campaign for Truth in Europe, whose aim it is to unite a huge number of Britons and her Commonwealth cousins to compel truth and legality onto our politicians and unelected bureaucrats. This campaign has nothing to do with party politics. It's about the simple, shocking truth of what is happening to our nation as each day passes.

If you live in Britain or any Commonwealth country and receive EClub as a matter of routine, I have taken the liberty of automatically enrolling you in CTE, so you are able to track further information about the EU supplements directive in a special section of future EClubs. If you are reading this article and are not currently a member of the Campaign for Truth in Medicine, you can join for free today by clicking here.

For those of us who love what Britain has traditionally stood for, we must be grateful that our country has given us many wonderful freedoms and opportunities, housed and fed us and kept us safe. Meanwhile, many other nations still dwell in the hopeless darkness of their despair. Britain now enters one of her darkest, historic hours. Find out what you can do to help. Visit our CTE website at http://www.campaignfortruth.com/CTE/.

Vigilance
A Defence of British Liberty
by Ashley Mote

One day, this book may be banned. Our right to freedom of speech will have been abolished.

Some people think the United Kingdom has effectively been abolished already. It will certainly cease to exist as a free and sovereign nation unless we reverse the erosion of our ancient rights, freedoms and customs by endless interference in British affairs by the European Union.

In 1975, as new members of the EEC, we thought we were voting for a free trade area. What we have today is an undemocratic, unaccountable police state that makes laws behind closed doors and seeks by stealth to destroy the UK as an independent nation. The European Union is being increasingly rammed down British throats in pursuit of a dream we never voted for. That dream has become a living nightmare. Silent discontent is no longer an option.

If you are concerned about the activities of the EU and its impact on the British way of life, then this book is for you.

Vigilance is not a book about politics in the usual sense. Nor is it academic. It is a simple, clear and horrifying account of what is being done to our country by the EU, why it matters, and why it must be stopped.

Vigilance also paints a vivid picture of a thriving, wealthy, confident and outward-looking Britain that will quickly emerge from the ruins of the EU disaster.

The EU issue is of monumental proportions. Ultimately, it is about British liberty.

PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: Credence is providing two major books on the dangers of the European Union over the next few months. The first is Ashley Mote's Vigilance, an excellent and superbly written book, and in my view, absolutely required reading, not only for EVERY BRITISH CITIZEN, but also for freedom-loving people everywhere.

In January 2003, my new book, Ten Minutes to Midnight, will be released. This is a summary book about the EU and its dangers and an immediate call to action to join the millions in Britain who wish to preserve our country's freedom.

VIGILANCE - WHAT THE PUBLIC SAYS:
"This is a tremendous book. I hope it will reach a wide audience - and not just among the British."

"A great book."

"What an indictment on the European Union - a real horror story."

"An immensely readable book - a must or everyone who cares about this country."

"It is written so clearly and sends chills down my spine at the audacious betrayal by our leaders. Vigilance should be read by every adult in Britain. I wish it enormous success. I'm full of admiration for the dedicated research and tenacity employed on behalf of the
nation."

"This is a superb tour de force. Truly a "great" as the blurb tells us, and should be a powerful weapon in our armoury. It is also rightly described as "simple, clear and horrifying" in its exposure of the EU tragedy in which we are involved. I see its great virtue lying in its scrupulously objective and dispassionate style, very readable and therefore ideal to pass on to others. This is an absolute must for reading and reference and should be compulsory reading for all euro-realists."

"Vigilance stirred me to the depths, as it will many others, I'm sure. I cannot recommend this too highly - a superb 'tour de force' of the political and constitutional implications of our membership of the EU. Its great strength is that its style is very readable, non technical,
and dispassionate."

"Written in the spirit of many great defenders of individual freedom of the past - men like Locke, Hume, Paine, and others in our great libertarian tradition. Freedom of speech and association, natural rights, freedom of trade and of the press, and above all, our common law rights are all elucidated and applied to our contemporary situation. Ashley Mote's wide knowledge of our constitution, and particularly the place of Magna Carta and its implications for today are invaluable and highly relevant to our current situation. The issues covered are monumental in this immensely readable and challenging book deserving the widest possible readership."

Vigilance by Ashley Mote
Copyright © Tanner Publishing 2001
278 pages - £15.00 plus post and packing

I would like to buy this book

(Please note that this title is initially available only to addresses within the EU via www.credence.org. If any reader living outside this area wishes to purchase a copy, please call Credence HQ at +44 1622 832386 during normal business hours to secure your copy.)

Antidepressants May Trigger Violent Behavior
By Kelly Patricia O'Meara

The kid spoke unsteadily: "I was sitting on a hill outside the school eating lunch with my best friend when Eric Harris came over and started shooting me. I was shot between seven and 13 times. No one really knows the exact number because there were so many bullet tracks. Most of the bullets just went right through me. After I was shot I just lay there, playing dead, and could see others being shot."

These are the recollections of 19-year-old Mark Taylor, who spent nearly two months in the hospital and has endured three years of follow-up operations for the gunshot wounds he received during the murderous 1999 rampage of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo.

Taylor slowly is recovering from his wounds and, in an effort to bring attention to what he believes was the cause of Harris' deadly rage, has filed a lawsuit against Solvay Pharmaceuticals Inc., the manufacturer of Luvox (Fluvoxamine), the antidepressant that Harris had been prescribed and was taking at the time of the shooting spree. Despite the deadly assault against him, Taylor's perception of the young men who nearly killed him is surprising.

Taylor tells Insight, "I'm suing Solvay because I believe that Eric Harris did what he did because of this drug. I didn't personally know Eric, but I knew him as one of the 'Trench Coat Mafia.' Everybody thought Eric and Dylan were the nicest people. My cousin, who was in Eric's class, told me that Eric and Dylan used to bring her flowers and cookies. Eric was forced onto these drugs and I feel sorry for him, like so many other kids who are put on these drugs. I don't have ill feelings against him since I don't think you can hold him accountable, because he didn't know what he was doing." Taylor's lawsuit against Solvay claims that the mind-altering drug Luvox was the cause of Harris' rampage - that the drug made Harris manic and psychotic.

Luvox is in a class of antidepressants called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) that interact with the serotonergic system in the brain, as do Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil. Street drugs that interact with the serotonergic system include LSD and Ecstasy. The Food and Drug Administration approved Luvox in 1997 for treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder in children, but not for treatment of depression.

The Physicians Desk Reference (PDR) records that, during controlled clinical trials of Luvox, manic reactions developed in 4 percent of children. Mania is defined as "a form of psychosis characterized by exalted feelings, delusions of grandeur … and overproduction of ideas." Court records show that the prescription for Harris had been filled 10 times between April 1998 and March 1999, and that three-and-a-half months before the shooting the dose had been increased - a common thread many experts say they are finding prior to adverse reactions to psychotropic drugs. The autopsy on Harris revealed a "therapeutic level" of Luvox in his system.

Other school shooters on antidepressants at the time of their attacks include 15-year-old Kip Kinkel who, while on Prozac, killed his parents and then proceeded to school where he opened fire on classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others; 14-year-old Elizabeth Bush, on "antidepressants" when she wounded one student at Bishop Neumann High School in Williamsport, Pa.; and 18-year-old Jason Hoffman, on Effexor and Celexa when he wounded one teacher and three students at Granite Hills High School in El Cajon, Calif.

The medical histories of scores of "school shooters" have not been revealed, allegedly to protect the minor child. Ann Blake Tracy is a consultant in Taylor's lawsuit and director of the International Coalition for Drug Awareness. She holds a doctorate in biological psychology and is a specialist in what she believes are the adverse reactions to SSRI medications. She says Luvox caused Harris to go on the Columbine shooting spree and thinks the medical history of children who commit violent acts in school should be made public.

"Suing Solvay for the injuries Mark Taylor suffered is one of the biggest SSRI suits we'll ever see," Tracy says. "It's a pivotal case because what happened at Columbine was so big. It's really crazy when you think about it. All you have to do is read the Luvox package insert to see that Eric's actions were due to an adverse reaction to this drug. Show me a drug anywhere that has listed mania and psychosis as frequent adverse reactions. That is what the insert says for Luvox. There is no doubt in my mind that Luvox caused Eric Harris to commit these acts."

The PDR lists adverse reactions of Luvox to the nervous system as:

"FREQUENT: amnesia, apathy, hyperkinesis, hypokinesis, manic reaction, myoclonus, psychotic reaction;

"INFREQUENT: agoraphobia, akathisia, CNS depression, convulsion, delirium, delusion, depersonalization, drug dependence, emotional liability, euphoria, hallucinations, hostility, hysteria, incoordination, increased salivation, increased libido, paralysis, paranoid reaction, phobia, psychosis, sleep disorder, stupor, twitching, vertigo."

Tracy continues, "Beyond the adverse reactions listed about Luvox, one of the first clues I had that these boys were on antidepressants was when it was made public that Eric [Harris] and Dylan Klebold had both been in anger-management classes. Anger-management classes equal antidepressants. Unfortunately, Dylan Klebold's medical records have been sealed, so there's no way of knowing what if anything he was on, but it makes sense that if he was in anger-management classes he was prescribed some antidepressant."

The problem, Tracy concludes, "is that this is a public-safety issue. So why is everything kept so secret, under lock and key? This information should be made available to the public so that people can learn from it and maybe we can stop this kind of tragedy from happening in the future. We've got a nightmare on our hands with these drugs, an absolute nightmare. We've got kids on these drugs that are ticking time bombs in every school in America. Most of these drugs are not approved for children, but it doesn't stop doctors from prescribing them. Laws should be passed requiring that this medical information be made public. And states should demand toxicology reports for drugs of this kind in all murders and suicides."

Donald Marks specializes in internal medicine, has a doctorate in microbiology and has worked in pharmaceutical research for more than a decade in the area of drug safety and clinical research. Marks was brought into the Solvay lawsuit as an expert by Taylor and is not surprised that there may be a causal relationship between Luvox and Harris' murderous behavior. Marks also testified in a Wyoming case last year involving a murder related to the SSRI Paxil in which the defendant won an $8 million judgment against GlaxoSmithKline, maker of Paxil.

As part of the Columbine lawsuit, Taylor claims that Solvay failed to warn adequately of the risks and adverse reactions associated with Luvox, and Marks provides a preliminary expert opinion to the court stating that Solvay "acted in an unreasonable manner" by failing to provide adequate warnings of the adverse reactions to the drug. The Marks opinion continues: "In view of the evidence of a strong and likely causal relationship between SSRI medications, of which Luvox is one, and akathisia/suicide/homicide, Solvay should only have marketed this drug with prominent warnings and cautionary statements."

U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Brimmer has accepted Marks' preliminary report, allowing the case to go forward and giving the expert access to information that has been held under lock and key in a vault in Denver since the Columbine shooting. Marks tells Insight that "the preliminary report was based on what I know from past cases, because I haven't been allowed to examine information about Mr. Harris or anyone who knew him. The information has been locked in a room in Denver, and I haven't been allowed in the room until now."

According to Marks, "The real problem is that physicians, of which I am one, are not told that there is a potential for a causal relationship between these drugs and homicide and suicide. Therefore we're not educated to look for the kinds of adverse reactions that could herald this kind of event. That's why proper warnings about such drugs are so essential. I'm in the process of updating my report for the court, but my preliminary impression from looking at the material is that there very well could be a causal relationship here, that this drug could have been a factor that tipped Harris from being a troubled teen to a murderer."

Marks says, "In the report, I talk about the adverse-event profiles of other SSRI medications and how, in the context of rules of evidence, a statement of general causation could be made for all SSRI medications and how it could be applied to Luvox. The neuro-psychiatric-event profiles of the SSRI drugs are clearly associated with seizures and psychosis. Some have been associated with hypoglycemia, suicide and homicide. So it's not entirely implausible that one additional member of this class, like Luvox, would have those same effects."

The fact that the court has allowed the case to go forward is a good sign for Taylor, but there have been some very strange developments. Lincoln, Neb., attorney John DeCamp, who now represents Taylor against Solvay, tells Insight that "two days after I took the case, Solvay pulled Luvox from the market. I don't know if my coming on the case had any bearing on them pulling the drug, but it is interesting." Solvay announced that the drug was being removed temporarily from the U.S. market to revise data about how Luvox is manufactured.

Another interesting twist involves families pulling out of the lawsuit. "I am very reliably informed," DeCamp says, "and I'm satisfied that the people telling me this aren't lying, that at the settlement conference families were informed that a Colorado law that applies both in federal and state court says: 'If you lose, you pay.' These families were told that if they continued to sue and lost the case they would be sued in return and they'd lose their homes, cars and everything for the rest of their lives. So if you were one of these families what would you do?"

According to DeCamp, "My client is basically judgment-proof. In other words, Mark doesn't have anything. The other families didn't settle, they just dropped out of the suit - they were basically told that they were going to lose and, when it was over, the pharmaceutical companies were going to own their lives. It's fair to say that my client was presented with this argument, but he doesn't have anything."

The lawyer continues, "It's also interesting in this case that there's more security to keep related evidence from surfacing than there is to get into the White House or Fort Knox. I have never, in 35 years practicing law, seen its like. There's been more evidence gathered than you can even imagine - things that I hope one day will be made public. I stated in court that if ever there was a monumental event this is it and the information that is locked in this room should be made public. History will be very unforgiving if that doesn't happen."

But the foremost question in the minds of experts on adverse reactions to SSRIs is whether history is just repeating itself. Recent court decisions, however, may be useful in Taylor's case against Solvay.

In April 2001, then 16-year-old Cory Baadsgaard took a rifle to Wahluke High School in Washington state and took 23 classmates and a teacher hostage. Baadsgaard was held in jail for 14 months. Based on expert testimony by psychiatrists about the adverse reactions to the drugs he was taking, he finally was released from jail under community supervision for five years. Baadsgaard has no memory of his violent actions toward his classmates, which took place exactly 21 days after he had been cold-turkeyed off Paxil and switched to a high dose of Effexor (an SSRI) to treat "situational depression."

Cory's father, Jay Baadsgaard, says, "The morning that Cory went to school and did what he did, my wife and I just knew that it had to be something with the drugs. That morning he had taken about 300 milligrams of Effexor, and I thought it was something about him going off one of the drugs and then the high dose of the other. One of Cory's friends told us that Cory was yelling and then he just stopped, looked down and saw the gun in his hand and woke up."

There is no doubt that Cory is lucky not to have gone further, says his father, "and I guess I could blame myself for having the gun available, but if I'd known then just what these drugs could do it would have been the drugs that would not have been in our home. They always talk about how the kids who do these things are the ones who get picked on by the jocks and stuff, but Cory was a jock. He was on the varsity basketball team, played football and golf, and was very popular in school. I pray every night that the media will get ahold of this issue. If Cory had been on PCP the media would say 'Oh, he needs drug rehabilitation,' but because these were prescribed medications they say 'Oh, it can't be that,' but now we know it can be."

Taylor hopes his lawsuit against Solvay will make people aware of the dangerous side effects of such drugs. "Someone," he says, "has to do something about these drugs, because too many people are dying."
Insight Magazine September 2, 2002

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT

Antidepressants are a serious problem in this country as they at best treat the symptoms and can cause devastating consequences, evidenced by the above article.

Earlier this year I spoke with Dr. Tracy in Salt Lake City. She is one of the leading experts in the U.S. on the dangers of antidepressants and she is frequently used as an expert witness in lawsuits. Her book Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? the Rest of the Story on the New Class of Ssri Antidepressants Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Lovan, Luvox & More is a enlightening documentation of the major complications that can result from taking these drugs.

Antidepressants are the top-selling therapeutic class, with $12.5 billion in retail sales. Depression is an enormously common problem and many people use a drug-based solution to address it.

Sure seems to make a lot more sense to recommend the use of simple therapies which are far more effective and virtually non-toxic.
Now, what would those be?

First and foremost, especially with pregnant women, the use of omega-3 oils is an absolute must. It is also clear that omega-3 fat supplementation and restriction of omega-6 fats will profoundly improve the brain function.

Dr. Stoll is the director of the psychopharmacology research lab at Boston's McLean Hospital and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. He discusses this extensively in his book The Omega-3 Connection. He reviews the new evidence supporting the use of omega-3 oils for depression.

I thoroughly enjoyed his book, but disagree with his recommendations to avoid using cod liver oil. It is my experience that as long as the dose is carefully monitored, cod liver oil is far more beneficial than traditional fish oil capsules.

Secondly exposure to full spectrum lighting is key. In the summer this is a no-brainer, just spend one hour outside in the sunlight, not behind a window. The window will filter out many of the over 1500 wavelengths that are present in full sunlight. If the problem occurs during the winter then access to full spectrum fluorescent lighting will be very important.

If people with depression tried following the following three steps, the great majority would notice an amazing improvement in their depression:

Omega-3 oils, specifically fish oil, is probably the single most important nutrient for a child with ADHD to take.

Next they should only drink water as their beverage, taking care to avoid fruit juices, soda and milk.

Restrict sugars and grains, which cause insulin levels to be elevated.

Additionally, psychological acupressure techniques like EFT are a profoundly helpful tool to help to quickly, inexpensively and permanently resolve the underlying cause of depression. I have recently updated my video series on how to actually perform the treatment.
My updated video series has many new advantages:

· New material - over half of the material is new and updated
· Professionally edited
· Is available on VHS or DVD
· Over two hours of updated information on my Eating Plan
· Live demonstration of how to juice
· Anyone with a more serious depression however should seriously consider seeing one of the many outstanding EFT clinicians who you can locate on our referrals page.http://mercola.com

Breast Cancer Deception
by Sherrill Sellman

Every October since 1985, pink ribbons are displayed in posters, magazine advertisements, and proudly adorn women's lapels heralding Breast Cancer Awareness Month. The multitudes of runs, hikes, walks, and other fundraising events raise hundred of millions of dollars to conquer that dreaded scourge of the modern woman, breast cancer. High profile companies like Avon, Lee Denim, and Revlon have joined ranks along with the Susan G. Komen Foundation's "Race for the Cure", and the City of Hope Hospital's "Walk for Hope". Popular celebrities lead the charge.

Each year, 180,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 44,000 will die of the disease. The US has one of the highest breast cancer rates in the world. Fifty years ago the incidence of Breast Cancer for a woman's lifetime risk was one in twenty. Now it has skyrocketed to one in eight. Clearly the so-called war on cancer has not even made a dent in the breast cancer epidemic as the rates continue to climb at the rate of one per cent per year.

The motto of Breast Cancer Awareness Month is "Early Detection is Your Best Protection". The National Cancer Institute stated in 1995 that "Breast cancer is simply not a preventable disease". This tune was reiterated in 1997 by the American Cancer Society who also announced that "there are no practical ways to prevent breast cancer -- only early detection."1 So mammograms are the front line of defense. Celebrities like Rosie O'Donnell offer free t-shirts with the honorable words "I've Been Squished" if you'll make a date with your local x-ray department.

So let's all join in and wave our pink ribbons and don those running shoes and take to the roads, right? Wait! Before you get swept up by the emotional frenzy of this call to arms, there is something you should know.

Who Profits from Breast Cancer?
Breast Cancer Awareness month's primary sponsor and mastermind of the event in 1985 was Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, now known as AstraZeneca. Zeneca is the company that manufactures the controversial and widely prescribed breast cancer drug, Tamoxifen. Did you know all TV, radio, and print media campaigns are paid for and must be approved by Zeneca?

It is less known that Zeneca also makes herbicides and fungicides. One of their products, the organochlorine pesticide, Acetochlor is implicated as a causal factor in breast cancer. Its Perry Ohio chemical plant is the third largest source of potential cancer causing pollution in the U.S., spewing 53,000 pounds of recognized carcinogens into the air in 1996.

Why The Breast Cancer Increase?
When it comes to environmental toxicity, carcinogens found in pesticides, herbicides, plastics, and other toxic chemicals that are known to cause cancer -- especially breast cancer -- there is booming silence by all Breast Cancer Awareness Month programs. Did the alarming increase of breast cancer rates just mysteriously happen? Or perhaps, the focus on the cure has conveniently ignored the cause? After, all it wouldn't really be good PR for Zeneca to have it known that their chemical products directly contribute to the breast cancer epidemic.

Many experts predicted as far back as 30 years ago that cancer rates would increase, citing an explosion of synthetic chemicals. From 1940 through the early 1980's, production of synthetic chemicals increased by a factor of 350.

Billions of tons of toxic substances that never existed are now released into the environment. Yet only 3 percent of the 75,000 chemicals in use have been tested for safety. These toxic time bombs are found in our water, air, and soil. Women who live near toxic waste dumps have 6.5 times the incidence of breast cancer.

A survey conducted by Dr. Mary Wolff of Mt. Sinai Hospital, New York found that women with breast cancer had four times the levels of DDE found in non-carcinogenic tumors. Also, another study investigated why upper class women in the community of Newton, Massachusetts had higher breast cancer rates than the lower economic women. The researchers attributed the increase to greater use of professional lawn care service and more dry cleaning.

Pesticides & Breast Cancer
The pesticide breast cancer link was stunningly highlighted in research from Israel which linked three organochlorine pesticides detected in dairy products to an increase of 12 types of cancer in 10 different strains of mice. After public outcry in 1978, the Israeli government was forced to ban the pesticides Benzene Hexachloride, DDT, and Lindane. Interestingly, breast cancer mortality rates which had increased every year for 25 years, dropped nearly 8 per cent for all age groups and dropped more than a thirty-three percent for women ages 25-34 in 1986.

The American Cancer Society was founded with the support of the Rockefeller family in 1913. Members of the chemical and pharmaceutical industry have long had a place on its board. Could that have something to do with the fact that the American Cancer Society's latest report on cancer prevention makes no mention of environmental factors?
www.ssellman.com

This is Breast Cancer Unawareness Month

FDA Advisory Committee Urged To Reject Zeneca's application of Tamoxifen For Preventing Breast Cancer in Healthy Women as the Drug is Ineffective and Dangerous
The following was released by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Professor Environmental Medicine, University of Illinois School of Public Health and Chairman of Cancer Prevention Coalition; Barbara Seaman, co-founder National Women's Health Network, Washington, D.C.; and Ann Fonfa, the Annie Appleseed Project, New York:

On September 2, FDA's Advisory Committee on Oncologic Drugs will review Zeneca Pharmaceutical's New Drug Application (NDA) for approval of tamoxifen "for the prevention of breast cancer in (healthy) women at high risk." Claims that tamoxifen can prevent breast cancer are based on an April 6, 1998 National Cancer Institute (NCI) preliminary report, unsupported by a scientific publication, of a short term trial on some 13,000 healthy women at "high risk" of breast cancer, including women over the age of 60, who were randomly given tamoxifen or a placebo; further details of the report are still not available to the scientific community and the public.

The trial was terminated prematurely in view of the reduction in the incidence of breast cancer in all Tamoxifen-treated age groups. However, serious and sometimes fatal complications, including uterine cancer and pulmonary embolism, were seen in postmenopausal women among whom the incidence of breast cancer was reduced by 1.7%, while the incidence of serious complications was increased by 2.2% in non-hysterectomized women.

The brevity of the trial prevented recognition of other delayed serious health risks. Of particular concern is the fact that tamoxifen is a highly potent carcinogen, inducing liver cancer in rats at low doses equivalent, based on blood levels, to those used in the trial. Disturbingly, women in the trial were not informed of the clear evidence of these risks. The absence of reported liver cancer in women treated with tamoxifen for breast cancer is hardly reassuring as relatively few women have been treated for over 5 years and followed up for a further 20 years before which the development of liver cancer would be most unlikely. Additionally, there are serious questions as to whether tamoxifen actually reduced the incidence of breast cancer or merely delayed its onset by treating small undetected tumors. In fact, two articles published on July 11, 1998 in the journal, The Lancet, reported no evidence of breast cancer prevention by tamoxifen in two major European trials.

In an August 17 written statement, which will be read into the record at the September 2 Advisory Committee Hearing, Dr. Epstein concluded: "NCI's preliminary April 6 report on the prevention of breast cancer by tamoxifen has still not yet been finalized and published in a scientific journal. The Advisory Committee should also consider the propriety of Zeneca's NDA as it is based, in part, on data which have not been made fully available to the public although the underlying (NCI) research was funded by the public. Furthermore, the claimed evidence for chemoprevention has been discredited by two subsequent scientific publications. Of as great concern is the well documented evidence of short term life-threatening complications, and also risks of delayed fatal complications, evidence for which has been trivialized and suppressed by NCI. Based on these scientific and ethical considerations, the Advisory Committee is urged to deny approval of Zeneca's NDA."

Finally, the NDA poses further serious questions in view of Zeneca's control and funding of the heavily promoted annual October National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This campaign urges women to have mammography, in spite of its highly questionable effectiveness and risks in premenopausal women, while avoiding any reference to a wide range of scientifically documented safe and effective methods for reducing risks of breast cancer. These include avoidance of prolonged and early onset use of oral contraceptives; obesity and inactivity, and high fat and dairy food products contaminated with carcinogenic and estrogenic industrial chemicals. Such critical omissions are favorable to Zeneca's efforts to influence public policy in favor of approval of large scale tamoxifen chemoprevention, targeted for up to 30 million U.S. women at "high risk" of breast cancer.

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. emeritus professor environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition 2121 W. Taylor Street, MC 922, Chicago, IL 60612 email: epstein@uic.edu website: www.preventcancer.com

THE HEALTHY AT 100! TOUR
Australia and New Zealand 2002
By Phillip Day

My subject is Life Management: all the things we should have been taught at school about how to survive in the outside world, but weren't. How many of us are dying unnecessarily? How many of us are not living, but just existing? How many are crippled with the misery of illnesses to which we know the answers? How many enslaved by debt when a simple strategy can move us through the woods to the green pastures beckoning? Who among us is terrified by what is happening in the world today? How many are fearful of violence, fearful of what our nations have become, fearful of losing our security.… How many are just plain fearful?

This is a wake-up call to all the ordinary, decent citizens out there who want to take their precious country back from the violence, the sleaze, the pop-pornography, the fiscal rape of the tax-payer and from a healthcare system still following the wrong course with the maximum of precision. If you feel outraged over what your nation has become, do you know that millions of people think the same way you do, but have stayed silent over issues our grandfathers took for granted? These millions are now stirring and are determined to say 'Enough!' Come along and discover how you can join us and make a difference.

THE WORKSHOP - (Bring a notepad and a sharp pencil!)
Come prepared! I will give you the simple tools you can use IMMEDIATELY to make incredible, positive and lasting changes in your life. WHATEVER YOU DO, don't miss this chance to hear the talk that has been educating and ENTHRALLING AUDIENCES EVERYWHERE. This information can literally change your life!

DON'T PANIC IF YOU CANNOT WRITE FAST ENOUGH! BOOKS AND TAPES WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR SALE AT THE MEETING VENUES.

SO WHAT'S IT ABOUT?

Find out the SIX ASTOUNDINGLY SIMPLE REASONS why the Karakorum, Abkhasians and Hunzakuts are routinely LIVING TO A HEALTHY AND MOBILE 100+ in the absence of Western healthcare, and how you can too!

Why are 1 in 2 over 70 years of age expected to get Alzheimer's disease and other 'mental impairment problems'? WHAT CAN YOU DO to prevent this? How does the liver play a vital role?

What are the twelve foods you must AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE?

Find out the ten ways you can BURN BODY FAT RAPIDLY!

How can the number one killer, heart disease, BE SO EASILY AND CHEAPLY PREVENTED? Why is this life-saving information, researched to the highest levels of biochemistry, NOT BEING CIRCULATED?

What can you do naturally to PREVENT AND TREAT CANCER, according to leading experts? Why is the public deliberately denied this life-saving protocol?

Discover the HARMFUL TOXINS we innocently allow into our bedrooms and bathrooms that are contributing to our misery, physical handicap and early death.

Why are women today SUFFERING an astonishing increase in hormonal problems, breast cancer, cysts, fibroids and gynaecological problems? WHAT CAN BE DONE simply to remove this misery from so many lives?

How is psychiatry behind the DAMAGING OF OUR SOCIETIES today? Why can this branch of 'medicine' justifiably be labelled A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY?

Who are the 'Dark Gods' of psychiatry, who spawned two world wars, have revolutionised the educational system TO PREVENT CHILDREN LEARNING CORRECTLY, introduced political correctness, LEGALLY REPLACED PARENTS as the arbiters of the family, maimed and brain-damaged HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TRUSTING PATIENTS with drugs, psychosurgery and electrocution, and today preside over the DOPING UP OF OUR SCHOOLKIDS AND ELDERLY, the destruction of our RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, the non-effectiveness of our political and legal systems and THE SUBVERTING OF OUR LAWS? What can be done to expose them and GET SOCIETY BACK ON TRACK?

What's really behind 'mental illnesses', such as ADD/ADHD, Aspbergers, autism, schizophrenia, over-eating, epilepsy, addictions, depression, insomnia, anxiety, anorexia, bulimia, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS (motor neuron) and others? Are there SIMPLE AND STRAIGHT-FORWARD MEASURES you can use for yourself to help or reverse these conditions?

What about AIDS, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, osteoporosis, asthma, heartburn, diabetes, Crohn's, vaccination mania, stroke, foot and mouth disease, mad cow and other ailments afflicting our societies today? What is the GREAT NEWS we can bring to bear to eradicate these from our own bodies, our families and our nations?

Why do people do what they do? Why are some MOTIVATED AND SUCCESSFUL and some aren't? Why are some POPULAR and some aren't? Why do people get addicted to moods and destructive behaviour in relationships and business? What can be done to coach ourselves to avoid these painful blights on our lives and set ourselves on the road to peace, laughter and progress? What can we do TODAY to TURN THE CORNER, climb out of the rut and enjoy a healthier, wealthier, happier, fulfilling and LONGER life and RECLAIM OUR NATIONS?

My job for the past 17 years has been to understand human behaviour and assist people to develop the TOOLS AND SKILLS to HELP THEMSELVES, regardless of the condition in which I found them. My message to you for 2002 is simple: Whether you are sick, unhealthy, depressed, demotivated, disliking your job, fed up with a relationship, broke, fearful, beset by feelings of doom or just plain, flat-out BORED WITH YOUR EXISTENCE, if you do only ONE POSITIVE THING for 2002, start the revolution in your life and your nation with a visit to any one of my meetings for a complete mental and physical 60,000-MILE SERVICE! Let's get you up on the rack, change your oil and get the wheel nuts off to see WHAT CAN BE DONE. Get ready for some action and let's have some fun!

NON-GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING:
ATTENDING THESE LECTURES COULD SERIOUSLY
IMPROVE YOUR HEALTH AND HAPPINESS

To find out more, view my tour schedule here
www.credence.com.au/tour/healthy.php

Carbs Can Cause Pancreatic Cancer in Women

A diet high in white bread, white rice and potatoes puts women at much higher risk of pancreatic cancer, especially if they are overweight and don't do adequate exercise.

Previously, the only known risk factor for pancreatic cancer, which kills 30,000 people a year in the United States, was smoking. The researchers found that the risk for women who are both overweight and sedentary is 2.5 times higher.

What role does diet and insulin have in the increased risk of pancreatic cancer?

The researcher's presumption is that being obese, a sedentary lifestyle, a diet high in sugars all increase insulin levels. Insulin production is one of the pancreas' main functions and is used by the body to process blood sugar.

In the laboratory, insulin promotes the growth of pancreatic cancer cells. The researchers suspect that body states that maintain high levels of insulin increase pancreatic cancer's ability to survive and grow. Researchers now believe that up to a third of all cancers may be caused by diet and lifestyle.
National Cancer Inst 2002 September 4;94(17):1293-300

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT: This is not a new association! It's just now published in the National Cancer Institute's journal. I posted the following over a year ago:

These articles are particularly important, as pancreatic cancer is a devastating and fatal cancer. It affects nearly 30,000 Americans a year and has an extremely low survival rate. Most traditional approaches fail and the person has usually passed on within six months.

It's very clear that sugar will increase your risk of cancer. That is well documented by the articles below, but not commonly appreciated by most physicians.

What is becoming increasingly established is that exercise will also lower your risk of cancer.

My guess is, as the article suggests, this is primarily mediated through exercise's effects on insulin levels.

Insulin seems to be one of the main drivers for cancer. So if you want to prevent cancer, or want to treat cancer, it is absolutely imperative that you keep insulin levels as low as possible. Following the eating plan is an effective way to do this.
www.mercola.com

PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: Sugar, sugar, sugar, white bread, white bread, no exercise, no exercise, sodas, coffee, chocolate, alcohol - enough said. For sensible eating advice and recipes to match, please obtain a copy of Health Wars and Food For Thought. Don't die badly, or unnecessarily.
www.credence.org

Well done, CBS

Everyone needs to email CBS News, '48 Hrs.', and thank them for airing, a second time, their special on psychiatry's bogus disorder, ADHD.

Psychiatric front groups, like CHADD, are going nuts (as they do when their bogus diagnoses and mind-altering drugs are exposed), emailing and complaining to 48 Hrs. that they shouldn't have aired the show. Attached are web pages highlighting the details of the program.

1) Click on www.cbsnews.com, then go to the very bottom of that page and click on the tiny link 'feedback'.

2) Send your comment. If you wish, thank the producers and Dan Rather for the program on ADHD and how much you liked it, how important it was, etc.

3) PLEASE DO THIS ASAP. IT WILL ONLY TAKE 2 MINUTES AND WILL HAVE A BIG IMPACT ON GETTING CBS TO DO MORE.

4) SEND THIS EMAIL TO YOUR FRIENDS TO DO THE SAME.

PHILLIP DAYS COMMENT: ADHD - oh, dear. If this nefarious mental hoax has struck anyone you know or love, please obtain a copy of my book, The Mind Game. If anyone you know is on psychiatric medication for ADD or ADHD, please read the same book. In fact, if you have found yourself going to see a psychiatrist, READ THIS BOOK!

Psychiatrists - Don't let them get away with it.
www.credence.org

Dangerous Grains

If you suffer from a condition such as osteoporosis, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis or depression, you're unlikely to blame your breakfast cereal. After all, intolerance of wheat, or celiac disease (CD), is a an allergic reaction to a protein called gluten, thought to affect only about one in 1,000 people.

But now two American clinicians, James Braly and Ron Hoggan, have published a book, Dangerous Grains, claiming that what was thought to be a relatively rare condition may be more widespread than was previously thought. Braly and Hoggan suggest that gluten intolerance does not just affect a few people with CD, but as much as 2-3% of the population.

They claim that gluten sensitivity (GS) is at the root of a proportion of cases of cancer, auto-immune disorders, neurological and psychiatric conditions and liver disease. The implication is that the heavily wheat-based western diet - bread, cereals, pastries, pasta - is actually making millions of people ill.

Your doctor, if asked about CD, would tell you that it involves damage to the gut wall, which makes for problems absorbing certain nutrients, such as iron, calcium and vitamin D. As a result, you are more likely to develop conditions such as osteoporosis and anemia, as well as a range of gastrointestinal problems.

Children who have it are often described as "failing to thrive". The proof that you have CD comes when gut damage shows up in a biopsy. The treatment, which has a high rate of success, is to remove gluten - found in rye and barley as well as wheat - from your diet.

But if Braly and Hoggan are right, the problem is far more widespread than the medical profession believes. Celiac disease, they suggest, should be renamed "gluten sensitivity" and, in an appendix to the book, they claim that no fewer than 192 disorders, ranging from Addison's disease and asthma to sperm abnormalities, vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis and hyperthyroidism, are "heavily overrepresented among those who are GS".

Dangerous Grains contains more than a dozen case histories of people who have recovered from a wide variety of chronic conditions - back pain, chronic fatigue, the auto-immune disorder lupus - simply by following a gluten-free diet. Both authors claim great personal benefits from such a change. "After eliminating gluten grains," writes Hoggan, "I realized how uncomfortable and chronically ill I had been for most of my life."

If you are someone who has visited a clinical nutritionist or a naturopath, this will come as no great surprise. One of their most common suggestions is temporarily to remove wheat from the diet to see if it makes a difference. In fact, so widespread has talk of a wheat allergy become that last November the Flour Advisory Board felt impelled to issue a statement warning of the dangers of this idea. Professor Tom Sanders, head of nutrition and dietetics at King's College, London, was quoted as saying: "Unless you suffer from celiac disease, a very rare condition, cutting wheat out of your diet is extremely unwise."

Sanders certainly represents the mainstream medical view, but there is good evidence - such as the work of Dr Harold Hin, a GP from Banbury in Oxfordshire - to suggest that it may be in need of revision. Over the course of a year, Hin carried out a blood test on the first 1,000 patients who came to his surgery complaining of symptoms that might indicate CD, such as anemia or being "tired all the time". Thirty proved positive and a diagnosis of CD was confirmed by a biopsy.

This indicated that CD was showing up at a rate of three per 100 - 30 times more than expected. Significantly, all but five had no gastrointestinal symptoms. "Underdiagnosis and misdiagnosis of coeliac disease," Hin concluded in an article for the British Medical Journal in 1999, "are common in general practice and often result in protracted and unnecessary morbidity."

More recently, a large research program carried out by the University of Maryland Center for Celiac Research in Baltimore has confirmed Hin's findings. Scientists there tested 8,199 adults and children. Half the sample had various symptoms associated with CD and, of those, one in 40 of the children tested positive for CD and one in 30 of the adults.

But it wasn't just those who seemed ill who were having problems with wheat. Far more worrying was what the Maryland researchers found when they tested the other half of the sample, who were healthy volunteers, selected at random. Among kids under 16, one in 167 had CD, while the rate among the adults was even higher - one in 111.

If those proportions are true for the American population in general, this means that 1.8m adults and 300,000 children have undiagnosed CD - people who, sooner or later, are going to develop vague symptoms of feeling generally unwell, for which they will be offered various drugs that are unlikely to make much difference. Ultimately, they are at higher risk of a range of chronic diseases.

There seems, therefore, to be good evidence that CD is underdiagnosed. But Braly's and Hoggan's proposition is more radical than that. They believe that the immune reaction to gluten that damages the gut in CD can also cause problems almost anywhere else in the body. The evidence for this is a test involving a protein found in gluten called gliadin. When the body has an immune reaction, it makes antibodies. The test for anti-gliadin antibodies is known as AGA and people who test positive to AGA often have no sign of gut damage.

In fact, according to Dr Alessio Fasano, who carried out the University of Maryland research, "Worldwide, CD 'out of the intestine' is 15 times more frequent than CD 'in the intestine'." Braly estimates that between 10% and 15% of the US and Canadian populations have anti-gliadin antibodies, putting them at risk of conditions as varied as psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, jaundice, IBS and eczema.

The idea of gluten causing damage to parts of the body other than the gut is supported by another UK practitioner, Dr M Hadjivassiliou, a neurologist at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield. He ran an AGA test on patients who had "neurological dysfunction" with no obvious cause and found that more than half tested positive. What is more, only a third of the positive group had any evidence of CD gut damage. In other words, while the gluten antibodies can damage the bowels, they can also cause problems elsewhere. In this case, it was the cerebellum, or the peripheral nervous system.

So if a reaction to gluten can cause problems in the brain, might it also be linked to immune disorders? Braly and Hoggan certainly think so, and claim considerable clinical success in treating patients for conditions such as Addison's disease, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and ulcerative colitis with a gluten-free diet. In fact, almost all the body's systems can be affected (see below). So if you suffer from a chronic condition that doesn't seem to respond to treatment, cutting out wheat for a while seems worth a try.

Are you gluten sensitive?

If you suffer from any of the following, the possibility that you are GS may be worth investigating.

Upper respiratory tract problems such as sinusitis, "allergies", "glue ear"

Symptoms related to malabsorption of nutrients such as anemia and fatigue (lack of iron or folic acid), osteoporosis, insomnia (lack of calcium)

Bowel complaints: diarrhoea, constipation, bloating and distention, spastic colon, Crohn's disease, diverticulitis

Autoimmune problems: rheumatoid arthritis, bursitis, Crohn's disease

Diseases of the nervous system: motor neuron disease, certain forms of epilepsy

Mental problems: depression, behavioral difficulties, ME, ADD
The Guardian September 17, 2002
Per www.mercola.com
UK website for sufferers of coeliac disease: http://www.coeliac.co.uk/
A good US website: http://www.celiac.com/

PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: Simply removing troublesome elements from the diet has seen startling recoveries! Gluten problems are also linked to many types of 'mental disorders', as I discuss in my recent release, The Mind Game. Anyone who suspects that this type of intolerance might be affecting them in any way should seek the help of a nutrition-qualified practitioner who can devise a strategy for bypassing the problem.

Eat and Drink Your Way to Mental Health, Say Researchers
by Celia Hall

People who experience mood swings can improve so much with simple dietary changes that they no longer need anti-depressants, researchers say today.

The Food and Mood study, supported by the mental health charity Mind, found that 80 per cent of people interviewed said they felt better when they changed what they ate and drank and a quarter said their mood swings, depression or anxiety disappeared. The greatest benefit was felt by drinking more water and eating more vegetables or by reducing or avoiding eating sugar and drinking coffee. "Our results do not prove anything but I think there is some-thing going on here that needs further investigation," said Amanda Geary, a nutritional therapist and founder of the study.

"We had questions about taking weird and wacky supplements but most people were making sensible changes to their diet and finding a major benefit in their mental and emotional health. If someone came to me complaining of anxiety, for example, I would ask how much caffeine they drank and about their consumption of refined sugar."

Richard Brook, chief executive of Mind, said the charity was pleased to see increased recognition of links between food and mood. "This recognition has begun to allow people to have more control over their mental health, and develop self-management programmes," he said.

The survey was conducted among 200 people, mostly women living in south-east England, who had already been in touch with the Food and Mood programme. Eighty per cent said cutting down on sugar had been helpful. The cure for caffeine was 79 per cent, alcohol 55 per cent and chocolate 53 per cent.

Benefits were also felt from drinking more water (80 per cent) eating more vegetables (78 cent), eating more fruit (72 cent) and eating more fish (52 cent).
Telegraph, 18th September 2002

PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: …which is the central message of my new book The Mind Game. If you suffer from anything which has been labelled 'a mental illness', please obtain a copy of this book and go through the dietary information contained in Part 2. Why suffer one moment longer?

Feeling Outraged

Did you know that parents who choose complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments for their children can be forced to give them toxic chemotherapy instead? In the US, that is the law of the land. Michael and Raphaela Horwin discovered this, to their amazement, when their two-year-old son Alexander developed a deadly brain tumor. After researching various treatment options, they wanted to take him to be treated by Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD, a physician in Texas. Dr Burzynski uses non-toxic treatments that are being studied in a number of clinical trials.

But the Horwins' conventional doctors, backed by the full power of the state, forced them to agree to chemotherapy for their child. If the parents had not consented, Alexander could have been taken from them by force. Yet the chemo in question was neither proven nor effective, and the child died.

If you are ready and willing to be thoroughly outraged, read the article, "FDA Forces Fatal Chemo on Kids," at wired.com. Also read Michael Horwin's impassioned plea, "War on Cancer': Why Does the FDA Deny Access to Alternative Cancer Treatments?" which was published last year in the California Western Law Review. Horwin, originally a health care administrator, became a lawyer in the hope of changing these Draconian laws and making sure that this violation of freedom of choice (and simple decency) does not happen to other caring parents and their children.

I realize that these laws were passed so that "kooky" parents could not abuse their children by withholding necessary medical treatments. But when it comes to cancer, there are often no "proven" treatments, and people of good will can differ about the correct approach. In such a situation, shouldn't the judgment of parents prevail?

Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

References:
Philipkoski K. FDA forces fatal chemo on kids.
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,55683,00.html
Horwin M. "War on cancer": Why does the FDA deny access to alternative cancer treatments? http://www.ouralexander.org/war1.htm

INTERNATIONAL FLUORIDE INFORMATION NETWORK
IFIN BULLETIN: West Jordan, Utah, first in the nation...

Dear All,

We have just received this exciting news from Jeff Green greenjeff@cox.net

Congratulations to Jeff, Rosemary Minervini, Rae Howard and all the other tireless citizens in Utah who helped West Jordan, Utah, to become the first city in the nation to pass Water Product Quality Control Resolution!

Paul Connett
____________________________________________________________
From Jeff Green:

Below is an announcement by Rosemary Minervini and Rae Howard who report that West Jordan, Utah is the first in the nation to pass the Water Product Quality Control Act in the form of a resolution.

With minor variation this resolution mirrors proposed ordinances which have qualified for the November 2002 ballot in Watsonville and Redding California as an initiative; beginning petition circulation as an initiative in Santa Maria, CA; and in public discussion in several other cities in Washington State, Oregon, California, and Erie, PA.

Congratulations to the citizens of West Jordan for selecting representatives who followed their common sense and performed due diligence rather than falling prey to the endorsement shell game presented by proponents of fluoridation.

Because of special circumstances this was passed in the form of a resolution and there are limitations on its ability to require action by other entities; however, this resolution specifically calls for supporting other legislative action to fulfill their underlying intent, and may begin a landslide of communities who will join West Jordan in seeking a widespread call to action by the State Legislature.

We anxiously awaited reporting this action until a certified copy could be obtained and made available electronically. The scanned-in text of the resolution is found at:
http://stopfluoridation.homestead.com/WestJordanResolutionPg1.html

A smile and a thumping of the heart to those who have worked so tirelessly to accomplish this first of many.

Tuesday, September 3, 2002:
The West Jordan City Council voted unanimously for a resolution objecting to adding concentrations of contaminants to their drinking water which exceed Maximum Contaminant Level Goals. The resolution also says that any substance added to water supplies for the purpose of treating people rather than treating water, must have an approved health claim for that substance by the FDA or other controlling entity.

It is very important to note that this resolution did not pass with the intent to stop fluoridation. It would be very counterproductive for opponents of fluoridation to say that it would, or to proclaim passage of the resolution as a "victory" in the fight against fluoridation.

An extremely important and commendable step has been taken by West Jordan's City Council in expressing their concern for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens in their community. We hope other cities in Salt Lake County will follow their leadership in this issue.

In any public statements or presentations, please just focus on the basic facts:
(1) The resolution is non-binding;
(2) It deals with any product or substance added to drinking water - not just fluoridation chemicals;
(3) It was not intended to stop fluoridation;
(4) It deals specifically and only with contaminants in drinking water and approval for health claims made by products added to drinking water; and
(5) It supports county, state and federal legislation which addresses the provisions of the resolution.

A scanned copy of the West Jordan resolution on Water Product Quality Control is on our Web site (see link below).
Rosemary Minervini and Rae Howard

To read a scanned copy of the resolution:

http://stopfluoridation.homestead.com/WestJordanResolutionPg1.html

Medicine Mix-Ups Kill 2000 People
by Nick Papps

Mix-ups with medicines are killing more than 2000 Australians every year. Illegible prescriptions, poor drug packaging and mistakes with drugs cause more deaths each year than car crashes.

One of Australia's leading health experts said medication errors may be killing up to 5000 Australians every year.

A Herald Sun investigation has also revealed:

Victoria's doctors deal with an estimated 100,000 adverse drug reactions and errors every year.

One Victorian pharmacist has been linked to two deaths after mixing up prescriptions.

The state's health watchdog wants tighter drug controls and a computerised prescribing system for hospitals.

Victorian hospitals will be required to detail medical errors in a national database.

Health Services Commissioner Beth Wilson said drug safety standards had dropped in Melbourne hospitals and they needed to reduce medication mistakes. "They need to do much more," she said. "I'm having a drop in standards reported to me. We need to act on it."

Ms Wilson said clearer handwriting, more hospital pharmacists and computerised systems for managing patients' drug requirements were needed to stop mix-ups. "We need tighter controls," Ms Wilson said. "At the moment we have got good control at a (hospital) pharmacy level. Once out on the ward, there isn't as much control."

At the Alfred Hospital, 130 medicine-related incidents were recorded in a six-month period to October 2001.

A survey by the Alfred Hospital also found up to 60 per cent of patients' drug sheets failed to show any details on patients' allergy status.

Alfred medical services assistant director Dr Mark Lubliner said a new education and drug management program at the hospital resulted in 95 per cent of drug sheets detailing allergy status.

The Royal Children's Hospital detects about 100 medication errors each month. Deputy director of clinical support services Dr Colin Feekery said most were trivial. Medication mistakes are detailed on a national register kept by the Australian Patient Safety Foundation.

Foundation president Professor Bill Runciman said up to 5000 Australians die every year from medication errors. "It's at least 2000 a year. That's probably on the conservative side," he said.

Last year, 1750 Australians died in car crashes.

Professor Runciman said half of the medication errors could be prevented by better management systems, such as computerised prescriptions rather than hand-written forms. "It's been shown to reduce adverse drug events and save a huge amount of money," he said.
He said medication errors cost up to $500 million a year.

A Human Services Department committee is examining the introduction of electronic prescriptions in Victorian hospitals.

Recent figures showed that 400,000 GP visits in Australia each year are related to adverse drug reactions and prescription errors.

Pharmacy Board of Victoria registrar Stephen Marty said similar drug names and packaging often resulted in incorrect drugs being dispensed. Mr Marty said a computerised bar-coding system to cross-check drugs with prescriptions could cut dispensing errors in half.

Drug manufacturers' organisation Medicines Australia defended drug packaging and naming. Chief executive Alan Evans said all names and packaging were approved the Federal Government.
Herald Sun, 30th August 2002

The National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC) was and is Urged by Dr. Samuel Epstein to Consider Breast Examination as a Practical Alternative to Mammography

The NBCC's recommendations against premenopausal mammography was confirmed and extended by leading epidemiologists at its tenth anniversary Washington, D.C. meeting. However, consideration should also be given to promoting the role of breast examination as an effective and safe alternative to screening.

Dr. Anthony Miller, co-investigator of the recent Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study, will report on a unique trial of some 39,000 postmenopausal women. Half performed monthly breast self examination (BSE) following instruction by trained nurses, had annual clinical breast examinations (CBE) by trained professionals, and also had annual mammograms. The other half practiced BSE and had annual CBE's but no mammograms; it may be noted that CBE performance by trained nurses was as good, if not better, than the study surgeons. Dr. Miller concluded: "The addition of annual mammography to physical examination has no impact on breast cancer mortality". Thus, mammographic detection of non-palpable cancers failed to improve survival rates.

Dr. Peter Gotzsche will further challenge claims that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by enabling early detection and treatment. Based on recent analysis of two large Swedish trials, he concluded: "There is no reliable evidence that screening decreases breast cancer mortality--(and thus that) screening is unjustified".

As detailed in a review, in press in the International Journal of Health Services, by Dr. Samuel Epstein, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, and Barbara Seaman, reservations on the efficacy, besides hazards, of screening are further stressed by the following considerations:

Mammography is not a technique for early diagnosis of breast cancer which is rarely detectable until about eight years old. Screening should thus be recognized as damage control rather than, misleadingly, as "secondary prevention".

Missed cancers are common in premenopausal women due to their dense breast structure, and also in postmenopausal women on estrogen replacement therapy who often develop breast densities, making their mammograms difficult to read. Also, about one third of all cancers, and more of the aggressive premenopausal cancers, are diagnosed between annual screenings. Women can thus be lulled into a false sense of security by an apparently negative mammogram.

Misdiagnosed cancers are common in premenopausal women, postmenopausal women on estrogen replacement therapy, and women with a strong family history, and can reach 100% over a decade's screening. Misdiagnoses thus result in anxiety, more mammograms, unnecessary biopsies and even mastectomies.

Overdiagnosis with subsequent overtreatment are among the major risks of mammography. With increased screening, pre-invasive breast duct cancer or ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS), is now diagnosed in some 40,000 women annually and unnecessarily treated as invasive cancer by lumpectomy plus radiation or even mastectomy. However, most DCIS never becomes invasive even if untreated, and mortality is low, 1%, whether diagnosed and treated early or late.

Screening poses cumulative cancer risks. Contrary to assurances that radiation exposure is trivial, the routine of taking four breast films results in 1 rad (radiation absorbed dose) exposure, in contrast to about one thousandth less for a chest x-ray. The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each rad exposure increasing cancer risk by 1%, resulting in a cumulative 10% increased risk over 10 years screening; risks are greater for "baseline" screening at younger ages. Risks are even higher for silent carriers of the A-T gene, accounting for up to 20% of all cancers. Less recognized dangers are due to the often painful breast compression during premenopausal mammography. This may rupture blood vessels in or around small undetected cancers with resulting lethal spread of malignant cells.

Concerns on the unreliability, besides dangers, of premenopausal screening are so pervasive
that this practice remains unique to the U.S.

Screening poses an inflationary threat; average Medicare and insurance costs are $70 and $125, respectively. If all 20 million premenopausal women had annual mammograms, minimal costs would be $2.5 billion. These costs would be quadrupled if the industry succeeds in replacing film machines, costing about $100,000, by digital machines, costing about $400,000, for which there is no evidence of improved effectiveness.

Breast examination, CBE combined with BSE, is effective, safe and low in cost in striking contrast with mammography. The American Cancer Society (ACS) admitted in 1985 that "at least 90% of the women who develop breast carcinoma discover the tumor themselves". Nevertheless, the ACS, National Cancer Institute, American College of Radiology, and the mammography industry, all remain dismissive of breast examination. Claims for the benefits of mammography screening at all ages, in a non-peer reviewed ACS publication in the May issue of Cancer, are highly flawed including by "before-after" comparisons of women unstratified by menopausal status.

National networks of CBE and BSE clinics staffed by trained nurses should be established. These clinics could further empower women by providing them with scientific information on breast cancer prevention of which women still remain largely unaware.

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. emeritus Professor environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition 2121 W. Taylor Street, MC 922, Chicago, IL 60612 email: epstein@uic.edu website: www.preventcancer.com

Risks of Ovarian Cancer from the Commonly Prescribed Drug Evista Supported by Recent Evidence, Warns the Cancer Prevention Coalition

(Chicago, IL - October 24, 2002) - The Cancer Prevention Coalition today warned that women taking the osteoporosis drug Evista (raloxifene), marketed since 1997 by Eli Lilly, are at increased risk of ovarian cancer.

"There is ample scientific evidence that Evista poses risks of ovarian cancer. We also know that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has ignored these risks," said Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition.

Whether the large-scale treatment of women with Evista since 1997 has resulted in an increased incidence of ovarian cancer cannot yet be determined, as the latest NCI cancer incidence data are now two years old. These reveal an 8 percent increased incidence of ovarian cancer in white females over 65, those most likely to be treated with Evista, from 1997 to 1999.

"This delay in reporting cancer incidence is unacceptable. This is all the more so in view of NCI's admission, in the 10/16/02 issue of the Journal of the NCI, of additional reporting delays, besides underestimating the increasing incidence of cancer," noted Dr. Epstein.

Lilly's own study specifically designed to prove the drug's safety found that the drug was shown to induce ovarian cancer in rats and, at doses well below the therapeutic, in mice. The study admitted, "The clinical relevance of these tumor findings is not known."

However, this conclusion violates the strong scientific consensus that the induction of cancer in well-designed studies in two species creates the strong presumption of human risk.

Nevertheless, Lilly failed to disclose this critical information in the: "Warning" section of the Physician's Desk Reference; a 12/4/97 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine; full page advertisements in major national newspapers; and the drug's label. Even more critical is NCI's continuing silence on this avoidable risk of ovarian cancer despite its annual multibillion-dollar taxpayers' funding.

A study by University of Southern California researchers, presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology July 2001 annual meeting, has provided further evidence of Evista's cancer risk. It showed that Evista increases the growth rate of ovarian cancer cells in laboratory studies, and may increase risks of recurrence of ovarian cancer.
These warnings were first raised by Dr. Epstein in a 1/12/98 Jim Lehrer Newshour program and a subsequent 2/4/98 (PR Newswire) press release. That release prompted two women to contact the Coalition saying that they had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer following Evista treatment. The first was a 68-year old Delray Beach, Florida woman, following two years treatment to prevent worsening of her osteoporosis. The second was a 53-year old Chicago woman, treated with Evista for over three years to prevent osteoporosis, and recurrence of her previously treated breast cancer. She was contacted by Lilly about a year ago to obtain information for filing an Adverse Drug Reaction with the FDA. Both women were prescribed the drug in the absence of informed consent with regard to risks of ovarian cancer.

Ovarian cancer strikes about 23,000 women annually, accounting for 4 percent for all of their cancers. About 14,000 women die from ovarian cancer annually, making it the most lethal reproductive cancer.

Commenting on these facts, Dr. Epstein charges that Lilly's suppression of evidence of ovarian cancer risks from Evista is as reckless as FDA's marketing approval.

"The FDA should promptly require "Black Box" warnings on Evista labels to warn physicians and patients of the drug's risks. Additionally, women who have been prescribed the drug (or who have participated in clinical trials) should be offered lifelong surveillance for the early detection of ovarian cancer at Lilly's expense," Dr. Epstein said. "Even more reckless is the continued failure of the cancer establishment, the federal National Cancer Institute and the "charitable" American Cancer Society to warn women of Evista's undisclosed and avoidable risk of ovarian cancer, besides a wide range of other cancers," he added.

Finally, the Cancer Prevention Coalition urges Gilda's Club, The Prevention First Coalition, and other women's reproductive health groups to join the Cancer Prevention Coalition in disseminating information on risks of ovarian cancer from Evista treatment.
Samuel S. Epstein, MD
www.preventcancer.com

Poor Health Outlook for Pessimists

Pessimists tend to have worse health over the long-term than their positive peers. Or, put more positively, optimists tend to have better health over the long-term than their negative peers.

That is the conclusion in the second of a series of studies: the first part of the series found that positive people generally live longer than their negative peers.

Nearly 500 people were first evaluated between 1962 and 1965 for the study, and found that 100 were optimistic, 75 pessimistic, and 275 had a mix of attitudes toward life. Thirty years later the researchers re-evaluated them again, and found the pessimistic patients had lower ratings in all tested areas of health than the optimists and those with a mix of attitudes.
Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2002;77:748-753

Newsweek Magazine Ran An Article On Teen Depression

The following are 2 letters to the editor.

To the Editor:

It is hard to tell where the Big Pharma, 24-page, "special advertising supplement" leaves off and the feature article "Teen Depression" begins. As with all of your articles on "biological" psychiatry, this one too, is replete with brain pictures and medical allusions despite the scientific fact of the matter, that it is all about the mind and not at all about the brain. This is a point you should assign a true science writer to but, instead you join psychiatry, long since, bought- and-paid-for by Big Pharma, spinning of illusions of brain diseases and chemical imbalances, where none exist, for which to sell "chemical balancers"-pills. Under "Trouble spots" we read "Scientists aren't sure if brain changes during adolescence lead to depression, but they've identified possible sources for the moodiness and rash behaviors that can become patholological". Psychiatrist, Madelyne Gould of Columbia, posits: "Parents often think their kid is just being a kid-that all teenagers are moody, oppositional and irritable all the time." What she is saying is that they are no longer just kids; they are abnormal/diseased. Psychiatrist, Harold Koplewicz of my alma mater, NYU, turns the word on its head: "Depression [is] such a misused term. We're not talking about demoralization or about being dispirited. We're talking about a real illness that has neurobiological underpinning and that parents have to take as seriously as diabetes." Koplewicz is fully 'out of the closet' with his claim of psychiatric diseases. As I testified to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, hearing, "Behavioral Drugs in Schools," September 29, 2000: "For any physician to say that any psychiatric condition is an actual disease is a fraud."

Truly yours,
Fred A. Baughman Jr. MD
Fellow, American Academy of Neurology
1303 Hidden Mountain Drive
El Cajon, CA 92019

Letter to the Editor

I will never purchase, nor look at another copy of Newsweek again. Unless this letter to the editor is published.

The cover story on Teen Depression, ("Young and Depressed," Oct 7th) was an out of control vehicle for the pharmaceutical industry to keep drugging our children. Young and depressed? About what? America is the alleged envy of the world, but for some reason we support a 12.5 billion dollar antidepressant industry. Teen Depression is a myth and the unscientific labeling of children as "depressed" is merely child abuse. And parents who agree to their children being drugged with Ritalin or Paxil or whatever because they won't give them enough attention - should be jailed. Young and depressed? Come on, make teens get some "exercise" and demand of themselves normal self worth for crying out loud.

Sincerely,
Tony Zizza
1326 Waterton Trail
Douglasville, GA 30134

NEWSWEEK Tuesday 10/8/02

HYPOTHESIS:
Underarm Cosmetics are a Cause of Breast Cancer
by Philippa D Darbre

THE HYPOTHESIS
I propose a novel hypothesis that the chemical constituents of antiperspirant/deodorant cosmetics applied to the underarm area are a cause of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND
Breast cancer is the major cancer of women in the western world, but shows a rising incidence all over the world (Ursin et al, 1994). Epidemiological evidence demonstrates that 90% of breast cancers are environmental in origin (Lipworth, 1995) and linked to a western lifestyle, but the specific environmental causes have never been identified. In recent years, two tumour suppressor genes, BRCA1 (Miki et al, 1994) and BRCA2 (Wooster et al, 1995), have been cloned which confer susceptibility to breast cancer, but loss of function of these genes accounts for a maximum of 5-10% of breast cancer (Easton et al, 1993). The main identified risk factors are hormonal and linked, in particular, to lifetime exposure to oestrogen through variations in menarche, menopause, childbirth and personal choices such as use of the contraceptive pill or hormone replacement therapy (Lipworth, 1995). Diet, smoking and alcohol can also exert influences (Lipworth, 1995). However, these known risk factors confer only a small increased risk and the main causative agents of breast cancer remain unaccounted for.

A novel, unexplored but plausible explanation for the cause of breast cancer is the use of underarm cosmetics. These chemicals are applied repetitively and frequently to an area directly adjacent to the breast area. They are not rinsed off but left always on the skin. They are used by women with ever increasing frequency and by ever younger girls before puberty. They are now also being used by some men in increasing amounts. The progressive increase in use of these cosmetics in the western world over the past 100 years is illustrated by US sales figures (Laden and Felger, 1988). Sales in 1914 reached sufficient levels to support national advertising, and rose from there to US business worth $30million in 1947 to $300million in 1970 to over $1billion in 1983 (Laden and Felger, 1988). Although these cosmetics are regulated as over-the-counter drugs (Laden and Felger, 1988), there are no indications on the containers of the safe level of usage or whether the constituent chemicals are safe for prolonged use by young children before puberty. Contrary to common belief, there is great diversity in use of these cosmetics across the population. My own unpublished survey within the University of Reading shows that women use a variety of different products, each containing different types and amounts of chemicals and that frequency of use varies from never to more than 5 times a day. Such diversity in usage provides ample possibility for cancer to arise through quantity used, through pattern of usage or through individual susceptibility to specific product formulations.

ANATOMICAL SITE OF BREAST CANCER
The strongest supporting evidence for a role for underarm cosmetics in breast cancer comes from published clinical observations showing disproportionately high incidence of breast cancer both in the upper outer quadrant of the breast and in the left breast. Numerous clinical studies, dating back decades, have shown that the upper outer quadrant of the breast is the most frequent site of carcinoma. This basic observation has now become textbook fact (Haagensen, 1971) and for countries as different as India (Hussain et al, 1994), the West Indes (Raju and Naraynsingh, 1989), and Italy (Azzena et al, 1994), and irrespective of race within any one country (Patterson et al, 1998). The upper outer quadrant is also the most frequent site of breast cancer in men as well as in women (Jaiyesimi et al, 1992; Rizk et al, 1994). The accepted explanation is that this region of the breast contains a greater proportion of the epithelial target tissue but evidence for this explanation seems to be largely anecdotal and as written by Haagensen himself (Haagensen, 1971) "This is a purely anecdotal explanation, but I know of no other".

An alternative explanation of these studies could simply be that the upper outer quadrant is the local area adjacent to which the underarm cosmetics are applied. Since they are applied in large amounts, they may simply penetrate through the skin of the local area without even invoking any major physiological carrier such as blood or lymphatics. It is interesting to note that the disproportionate incidence of female breast cancer in the upper outer quadrant rises with year of publication, from 30.9% in 1926 (Lane-Claypon, 1926) to 43-48% in 1947-1967 (Truscott, 1947; Harnett, 1948; Nohrman, 1949; Smithers et al, 1952; Donegan and Spratt,1967) and to 60.7% in 1994 (Azzena et al, 1994). If this observation of published trends is not just a reflection of different study populations and reflects some real increasing incidence in the upper outer quadrant relative to other quadrants with time, then this would question the explanation as being due always to more epithelial tissue in that region. Other workers have also queried explanatory dogma through their studies showing an even distribution of cancer between quadrants in large and small breasts, despite the less marked quadrant distribution of tissue in the smaller breasts (Rimsten, 1976).

Another set of numerous studies, also without adequate explanation, show that the left breast is more prone to development of cancer than the right breast in both female (Busk and Clemmesen, 1947; Harnett, 1948; Smithers et al, 1952; Garfinkel et al, 1959; Haagensen,1971) and male (Busk and Clemmensen, 1947; Jepson and Fentiman, 1998) breast cancer. This has been attributed to more epithelial cells on the left side of the breast due to preferential vascular supply to the left side of the body during intrauterine cardiac development (Jepson and Fentiman, 1998) but a simpler and equally plausible reason could relate simply to the right-handed nature of a majority of the population resulting in a greater application of chemicals to the left underarm area. This could be tested by study of the quadrant incidence in left- and right-handed people, if such data were available.

Lastly, the reasons for enhanced risk of (Chen et al, 1999) or even coexistence of (Fenig et al, 1975) contralateral breast disease have yet to be explained. This type of pathological pattern is more consistent with a general intolerance to chemicals of cosmetics applied under both arms than to the equivalent of several coincidental monoclonal initiation events (Ponten et al, 1990).

CONSTITUTENTS OF UNDERARM COSMETICS AND POSSIBLE ROLE IN CARCINOGENESIS:

i) Chemical constituents
If underarm cosmetics play any role in breast cancer, then the challenge will be to identify specific chemical culprits. All ingredients will have been tested by current safety guidelines (Laden and Felger, 1988), but the effects of long-term use over an entire lifetime by the whole global population of women (and increasingly by men) can only be investigated retrospectively. The main active ingredients of underarm cosmetics are:

1) Antiperspirant agents
2) Deodorant agents
3) Preservatives

Minor components include fragrance and colourings.

The antiperspirant component acts to block the sweat ducts, so preventing escape of sweat onto the body surface (Laden and Felger, 1988). The main active agents are metal salts, principally aluminium chlorhydrate and the aluminium zirconium chlorhydrate glycine complexes. Their mechanism of action is not fully established but is thought to involve the formation of a physical plug at the top of the sweat duct (Laden and Felger, 1988) which is composed of a combination of precipitated salts and damaged cells. This plug then prevents the secretion of sweat. The deodorant components are antimicrobial agents which act to kill bacteria on the body surface (Laden and Felger, 1988). Since it is the bacterial action on sweat which generates the undesirable odour from sweating, the deodorant is designed to eliminate the smell (Laden and Felger, 1988). Finally, since consumers expect long shelf life from these cosmetics, preservatives are added, especially to stick, roll-on and cream formulations, to prevent microbial and fungal growth in the containers during long-term storage.

ii) Possible mechanism of action
Any carcinogenic action by the constituent chemicals of underarm cosmetics would require a minimal combination of initiating and promoting agents. The simple suggestion would be that underarm cosmetics act by delivering to the breast area a regular supply of components capable of both initiation and promotion of breast cancer, and which are simply absorbed through the skin into the local breast area. However, it is also possible that there would be interactions with other physiological, dietary and environmental agents, possibly with the underarm cosmetics acting as the final insult.

iii) Initiation
Initiation would require agents capable of binding to DNA and causing DNA damage and mutation. The active antiperspirant agents include aluminium and zirconium salts (Laden and Felger, 1988), and there is evidence that aluminium can bind to DNA (Karlik et al, 1980; Ahmad et al, 1996). There are also reports of accumulation of aluminium in human breast material (Mulay et al, 1971) and in mammary tumours of rats (Ogoshi et al, 1994). Another alternative source of initiating agents could arise from chemicals secreted in the sweat itself (Stowe and Plaa, 1968) if they could accumulate at the point where sweat ducts are blocked by the antiperspirant agents. This has been suggested in an anonymous e-mail widely circulated across the world over the past two years, but although it has stimulated discussion, most conclusions have been negative due to the fact that the source of the e-mail has, unfortunately, never been identified.

iv) Promotion
Promotion of breast cancer would require agents capable of enabling growth of breast epithelial cells. In view of the well established role of oestrogen in growth of breast cancer cells both in vivo and in vitro (Miller, 1996), the most likely promotional candidate would have oestrogenic properties. It is possible that promotion could result from exposure to physiological oestrogens, since established risk factors for breast cancer include lifetime exposure to oestrogen (Lipworth, 1995). However, the human population is now also exposed to a variety of pollutant chemicals which can mimic the action of oestrogen and which, due to their lipophilic nature, are stored in human breast fat (Darbre, 1998). These include a variety of pesticides such as DDT (Smith, 1999) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (Dobson and van Esch, 1993). Some PCB congeners can mimic the action of oestrogen (Nesaretnam et al, 1996; Nesaretnam and Darbre, 1997) and can enhance breast cancer in an animal model (Nesaretnam et al, 1998). Such chemicals accumulate in body fat over a lifetime but can be released during times of fasting or dieting and can be released into breast milk during lactation (Darbre, 1998).

However, it is also possible that underarm cosmetics contain themselves oestrogenic chemicals capable of being absorbed through skin and acting locally. There is now evidence that parabens (alkyl esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid) can mimic the action of oestrogen (Routledge et al, 1998; Byford et al, 2001) and parabens are used as preservatives in over 13,000 cosmetic formulations including underarm cosmetics in concentrations of up to 1% (Elder, 1984). Parabens have been shown to bind to the oestrogen receptors of rat uterus (Routledge et al, 1998; Blair et al, 2000) and of MCF7 human breast cancer cells (Byford et al, 2001). They show oestrogenic activity in yeast cell assays (Routledge et al, 1998) and in regulating gene expression and growth of oestrogen-responsive human breast cancer cells (Byford et al, 2001). Their oestrogenic activity has also been detected in vivo in fish (Pedersen et al, 2000) and in the immature rodent uterine weight assay (Routledge et al, 1998; Hossani et al, 2000). Interestingly, oestrogenic activity in the latter assays was found only when administration was subcutaneous and not oral (Routledge et al, 1998; Hossani et al, 2000) suggesting that topical application of parabens in cosmetics could provide an oestrogenic stimulus. The issue of penetration of parabens through the human underarm skin needs now to be studied, but parabens have been shown capable of penetrating skin in animal studies (DalPozzo and Pastori, 1996) and our own preliminary unpublished work has shown that parabens can be detected in human breast fat by either simply thin-layer chromatography or by high-pressure liquid chromatography followed by mass spectrometry.

INHERITED SUSCEPTIBILITY TO BREAST CANCER
About 5-10% of female breast cancer is inherited as a genetic susceptibility with an increased risk of developing breast cancer (Easton et al, 1993). In recent years, two of the susceptibility genes BRCA1 (Miki et al, 1994) and BRCA2 (Wooster et al, 1995) have been cloned and sequenced. BRCA1 has been implicated to play a primary role in maintenance of DNA repair; BRCA2 is a DNA binding protein but its function has yet to be fully understood (Hilakivi-Clarke, 2000). Both these genes act as tumour suppressor genes in that loss of their function is associated with increased risk of breast cancer (Hilakivi-Clarke, 2000), presumably through an inability to maintain normal DNA repair systems. Although much has therefore now been learnt about the inheritance of susceptibility, the question remains as to susceptibility to what? It is possible that the explanation lies in susceptibility to use of underarm cosmetics. Loss of BRCA1 or BRCA2 will have compromised the ability of the breast cells to repair DNA damage and it is possible that this could lead to increased sensitivity to any DNA damaging chemicals of underarm cosmetics.

BENIGN BREAST DISEASE
Breast cancer represents only around 5% of clinical abnormalities of the breast (Haagensen, 1971). Other major problems of the breast include fibroadenomas and breast cysts (Haagensen, 1971). Interestingly, the upper outer quadrant is not only the most common site of the tumour in cancer but also of the abnormalities in many benign breast conditions including fibroadenoma and breast cysts (Rimsten, 1976) and phyllodes tumour (Stebbing and Nash, 1995). It is interesting to note that breast cysts are caused by blocked breast ducts (Haagensen, 1971). The reason for their high incidence rate remains unknown but they are of considerable concern since their presence can be an indicator of cancer to come (Dixon et al, 1999). Since antiperspirants act by blocking sweat ducts (Laden and Felger, 1988) and breast cysts result from blocked breast ducts (Haagesen, 1971), it is possible that breast cysts might also arise from underarm cosmetic use. Application of underarm cosmetics is rarely so precise that ingredients fall only on the underarm site and not partly also on adjacent breast areas. There is no reason to believe that antiperspirants should not do the same to adjacent breast ducts as to the sweat ducts, if sufficient cosmetic is applied and if the cosmetic is applied carelessly to areas beyond the immediate underarm site, particularly since breast is essentially a modified sweat gland (Anderson, 1991).

CONCLUSIONS:
Whether or not this hypothesis proves to be correct, it deserves serious testing by both scientists and clinicians. The nature of the chemicals in these cosmetics and the lack of any advice about safe quantity or frequency of application should be of major concern alone. However, their use by ever younger children before puberty is also an extremely worrying trend. There is evidence that the origin of breast cancer can be many years before the symptoms become visible and that there may even be a specific time period before puberty when the breast is particularly susceptible to carcinogenesis (Russo and Russo, 1987). Studies of Japanese survivors of the atomic bomb in 1945 have shown that the highest risk of radiation-induced breast cancer was in girls who were prepubertal at the time of exposure (Tokunaga et al, 1979).

If there proves to be any truth in the hypothesis, then underarm cosmetics can be given up without addictive or life-threatening consequences. Furthermore, since these cosmetics are applied voluntarily, then women would have, for the first time, an opportunity to choose to reduce their own personal risk of breast cancer.
European Journal of Cancer Prevention, 10:389-393, 2001.
Division of Cell and Molecular Biology, School of Animal and Microbial Sciences, The University of Reading, PO Box 228, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AJ, UK. E-mail: p.d.darbre@reading.ac.uk

PHILLIP DAY'S COMMENT: Ms Darbre is to be applauded for producing her hypothesis which I believe deserves to be rapidly distributed around the world. So many chemicals used in personal care products have not been adequately tested for their long-term effects. This is also true for many foods we consume, such as white bread, sugar, coffee and others, that are taken for granted. My own investigations into the antiperspirant/deodorant conundrum have led me actively to encourage the public to seek safe alternatives to the chemical products being sold without a care in every supermarket across the world. Stay natural with safer, gentler products. And if you have chronic body odour, investigate a colon cleanse, a change of diet to raw fruits and vegetables, and increase water intake to 2-3 litres a day.

REFERENCES
Ahmad R, Naoui M, Neault JF, Diamantoglou S, Tajmir-Riahi HA (1996). An FITR specroscopic study of calf thymus DNA complexation with Al (III) and Ga (III) cations. J Biomol Struct Dyn 13: 795-802.

Anderson TJ (1991). Genesis and source of breast cancer. British Medical Bulletin 47: 305-318.

Azzena A, Zen T, Ferrara A, Brunetti V, Vasile C, Marchetti M (1994). Risk factors for breast cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 15: 386-392.

Blair RM, Fang H, Branham WS et al. (2000) The estrogen receptor relative binding affinities of 188 natural and xenochemicals: structural diversity of ligands. Toxicol Sci 54: 138-153.

Busk T, Clemmesen J (1947). The frequencies of left- and right-sided breast cancer. Brit J Cancer 1: 345.

Byford JR, Shaw LE, Drew MGB, Pope GS, Sauer MJ, Darbre PD. Oestrogenic activity of parabens in MCF7 human breast cancer cells. J Steroid Biochem Molec Biol (2001, in press).

Chen Y, Thompson W, Semenciw R, Mao Y (1999). Epidemiology of contralateral breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8: 855-861.

DalPozzo A, Pastori N (1996). Percutaneous absorption of parabens from cosmetic formulations. Int J Cosmetic Sci 18: 57-66.

Darbre PD (1998). Environmental contaminants in milk: the problem of organochlorine xenobiotics. Biochem Soc Trans 26: 106-112.

Dixon JM, McDonald C, Elton RA, Miller WR (1999). Risk of breast cancer in women with palpable breast cysts: a prospective study. The Lancet 353: 1742-1745.

Dobson S, van Esch GJ (1993). Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Terphenyls, ed.2. Environmental Health Criteria 140. World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.

Donegan WL, Spratt JS (1967). Cancer of the second breast. In: JS Spratt, Donegan WL Cancer of the Breast,Philadelphia: WB Saunders, p 179.

Easton D, Ford D, Peto J (1993) Inherited susceptibility to breast cancer. Cancer Surveys 18: 95-113.

Elder RL (1984) Final report on the safety assessment of methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben and butylparaben. Journal American College Toxicology 3: 147-209.

Fenig J, Arlen M, Livingston SF, Levowitz BS (1975). The potential for carcinoma existing synchronously on a microscopic level within the second breast. Surg Gynecol Obstet 141: 394-396.

Garfinkel L, Craig L, Seidman H (1959). An appraisal of left and right breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 23: 617.

Haagensen CD. (1971). Diseases of the Breast, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders.

Harnett WL (1948). A statistical report on 2529 cases of cancer of the breast. Brit J Cancer 2: 212.

Hilakivi-Clarke,L (2000). Estrogens, BRCA1, and breast cancer. Cancer Research 69: 4993-5001.

Hossaini A, Larsen JJ, Larsen JC (2000). Lack of oestrogenic effects of food preservatives (parabens) in uterotropic assays. Food and Chemical Toxicology 38: 319-323.

Hussain MA, Sawkat A, Tyagi SP, Reza H (1994). Incidence of cancer breast at Aligarh. J Indian Med Assoc 92: 296-297.

Jaiyesimi IA, Buzdar AU, Sahin AA, Ross MA (1992). Carcinoma of the male breast. Ann Intern Med 117: 771-777.

Jepson AS, Fentiman IS (1998). Male breast cancer IJCP 52: 571-576.

Karlik SJ, Eichhorn GL, Lewis PN, Crapper DR (1980). Interaction of aluminium species with deoxyribonucleic acid. Biochem 19: 5991-5998.

Laden K, Felger CB. (1988). Antiperspirants and deodorants. Cosmetic Science and technology Series volume 7. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Lane-Claypon JE (1926). A further report on cancer of the breast with special reference to its associated antecedent conditions. Reports on Public Health and Medical Subjects no 32,London: Ministry of Health.

Lipworth L (1995). Epidemiology of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Prevention 4: 7-30.

Miki Y, Swensen J, Shattuck-Eidens D et al .(1994). A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1. Science 266: 66-71.

Miller WR (1996). Estrogen and Breast Cancer, Chapman and Hall.

Mulay IL, Roy R, Knox BE, Suhr NH, Delaney WE (1971). Trace-metal analysis of cancerous and non-cancerous human tissues. J Natl Cancer Inst 47: 1-13.

Nesaretnam K, Corcoran D, Dils RR, Darbre P (1996). 3,4,3',4'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl acts as an oestrogen in vitro and in vivo. Mol Endocrinol 10: 923-936.

Nesaretnam K, Darbre P (1997). 3,5,3',5'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl is a weak oestrogen agonist in vitro and in vivo. J Steroid Biochem Molec Biol 62: 409-418.

Nesaretnam K, Hales E, Mohammed S, Krausz T, Darbre P (1998). 3,4,3',4'-Tetrachlorobiphenyl (TCB) can enhance DMBA-induced mammary carcinogenesis in rat. Eur J Cancer 34: 389-393.

Nohrman BA (1949). Cancer of the breast. Acta Radiol, Suppl 77.

Ogoshi K, Yanagi S, Moriyama T, Arachi H (1994). Accumulation of aluminium in cancers of the liver, stomach, duodenum and mammary glands of rats. J Trace Elem Electrolytes Health Dis 8: 27-31.

Patterson SK, Helvie MA, Joynt LK, Roubidoux MA, Strawderman M (1998). Mammographic appearance of breast cancer in African-American women. Acad Radiol 5: 2-8.

Pedersen KL, Pedersen SN, Christiansen LB, Korsgaard B, Bjerregaard P (2000) The preservatives ethyl-, propyl-, and butylparaben are oestrogenic in an in vivo fish assay. Pharmacol Toxicol 86: 110-113.

Ponten J, Holmberg L, Trichopoulos D, Kallioniemi OP, Kvale G, Wallgren A, Taylor-Papadimitriou J (1990). Biology and natural history of breast cancer. Int J Cancer Suppl 5, 5-21.

Raju GC, Naraynsingh V (1989). Breast cancer in West Indian women in Trinidad. Trop Geogr Med 41: 257-260.

Rimsten A (1976). Symptoms and signs in benign and malignant tumours of the breast. Upsala J Med Sci 81: 54-60.

Rizk SN, Assimacopoulos CA, Ryan JJ (1994). Male breast cancer: three case reports and review of the literature. SDJ Med 47: 343-346.

Routledge EJ, Parker J, Odum J, Ashby J, Sumpter JP (1998) Some alkyl hydroxy benzoate preservatives (parabens) are estrogenic. Toxicol and Appl Pharmacol 153: 12-19.

Russo J, Russo IH (1987).Biology of disease. Biological and molecular bases of mammary carcinogenesis. Laboratory Investigation 57: 112-137.

Smith D (1999) Worldwide trends in DDT levels in human breast milk. Int J Epidemiol 28: 179-188.

Smithers DW, Rigby-Jones P, Galton DAG, Payne PM (1952). Cancer of the breast. Brit J Radiol, Suppl 4.

Stebbing JF, Nash AG (1995). Diagnosis and management of phyllodes tumour of the breast: experience of 33 cases at a specialist centre. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 77: 181-184.

Stowe CM, Plaa GL (1968). Extrarenal excretion of drugs and chemicals. Annu Rev Pharmacol 8: 337-356.

Tokunaga M, Norman JE, Asano M, Tokuoka S, Ezaki H, Nishimori I, Tsuji Y (1979). Malignant breast tumors among atomic bomb survivors, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1950-74. J Natl Cancer Institute 62: 1347-1359.

Truscott BM (1947). Carcinoma of the breast. Brit J Cancer 1: 129.

Ursin G, Bernstein L, Pike MC (1994). Breast Cancer. Cancer Surveys 19/20: 241-264.

Wooster R, Bignell G, Lancaster J et al .(1995). Identification of the breast cancer susceptibility bene BRCA2. Nature 378: 789-792.

Testimony Request

Credence Publications is soon to be releasing its latest book on the benefits of water. It is well-documented that increasing our water consumption can actually alleviate and prevent many illnesses and conditions that currently, are being combated by conventional drugs alone.

If you have a personal testimony as to the healing power of water or any relevant story about water and you would like to share your experience, please write in the first instance to Steven Ransom at steve1@onetel.net.uk We would love to hear from you.

Many Thanks, Credence