February 6, 2012
By Ethan A. Huff
The media is abuzz with chatter about Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s flip-flopping on the issue of whether or not to fund Planned Parenthood, the controversial reproductive health services group that provides abortions for women, in order for it to offer breast exams and promote mammograms. But the real controversy is the fact that Komen’s mammograms, which are promoted as a “lifesaving” intervention, actually cause breast cancer.
On January 28, 2012, The Washington Post (WP) announced that Komen had decided to cut funding for Planned Parenthood because the group has been embroiled in a federal investigation as to the legitimacy of its funding. And Komen’s official policies do not permit funding for groups that are in the midst of such a controversy.
But just a few days later, the Los Angeles Times and many other media sources reported that Komen had reversed its decision and decided to continue funding Planned Parenthood after all. Apparently Komen’s policies on funding providers that are at the center of congressional investigations is a little more flexible than we all thought.
Komen’s flip-flopping on this important issue has drawn extensive criticism from both sides of the argument. But the bigger issue here, of course, and one that is not receiving any national attention, is the fact that the screening procedures endorsed and promoted by Komen do not necessarily prevent breast cancer — and in the case of mammograms, they actually cause breast cancer.
The mammograms causing breast cancer issues is one that we have addressed on many occasions here at InfoWars, but it is one that deserves repeated attention, especially since Komen is in the spotlight once again. Mammograms not only cause cancer, but they also result in many false positives that lead thousands of women every year to undergo invasive and detrimental procedures for a disease they do not actually have.
Back in 2009, for instance, a study presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) showed that continual low-dose radiation exposure from mammograms can cause breast cancer.
Roughly one year later, researchers from Oslo University Hospital revealed that mammograms cut the risk of dying from breast cancer by about two percent, at best, while simultaneously causing many women to be falsely diagnosed with cancer.
February 6, 2012
A leak at a Southern California nuclear facility that regularly provides power to roughly 1.4 million households has caused the plant to shut down a reactor.
Despite officials insisting that everything will be perfectly alright at the San Onofre nuclear site, this is not the first time as of late that power plants have raised serious questions about their safety in America.
A reactor at the San Onofre nuclear power station was halted Tuesday afternoon after personnel at the plant identified a leak in a steam generator tube. Gil Alexander, a spokesman for Southern California Edison, explains to Reuters that the reactor will remain offline for at least a couple of days.
“We don’t expect any impact on our customers tomorrow,” Alexander adds, yet notes that the reactor in question usually churns out around 1,100 megawatts of electricity to one of the biggest metropolitan areas in the country.
The shutdown is forcing officials to halt operations in Unit 3 of the plant. Unit 2 of the station was already offline at the time of the incident, of which officials say was the result of routine maintenance and upgrades.
Speaking of the alleged minuteness of the leak, Alexander tells the Los Angeles Times that “it wouldn’t even qualify as the least severe” infraction under guidelines set up by the United States’ Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regardless, the plant, located south of San Clemente, California, reported the incident to them anyway.
As it would be, the regulations in place for American facilities are actually more lax than one would expect.
“While the NRC and the nuclear industry have been reassuring Americans that there is nothing to worry about – that we can do a better job dealing with a nuclear disaster like the one that just happened in Japan – it turns out that privately NRC senior analysts are not so sure,” Edwin Lyman, a Union of Concerned Scientists nuclear expert, explained to Reuters last year. Even after the nuclear disaster at Japan’s Fukushima plant in early 2011 raised questions internationally over safety regulations, the United States has done little to improve conditions since.
The reason, some say, is that the regulations in place don’t call for them. In a report conducted by the Associated Press last year, it was revealed that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has repeatedly weakened safety requirements for facilities, regularly allowing antiquated plants to continue operating by making it easier to pass tests in lieu of actually upgrading the facility. The AP found that of the 104 nuclear plants operating in America last year, 66 of them had been re-licensed for an additional 20 years of service. The vast majority of plants in the US, however, are already older than a quarter of a century.
San Onofre, located around 70 miles south of Los Angeles, is one of those.
“I think we need nuclear power, but we can’t compromise on safety. I think the vulnerability is on these older plants,” engineer Richard T. Lahey Jr., formerly with General Electric Co, told the AP last year. Although one-fifth of the nation’s power comes from nuclear plants — and much of Southern California relies on the San Onofre, loosened regulations are repeatedly putting much of America and the world at risk.
November 5, 2009
By Andrew Zajac
Reporting from Washington - In an attempt to reduce the deaths and serious health problems caused by misuse of medication, the Food and Drug Administration is trying to identify the most serious threats and find ways to avoid them.
About 1.5 million preventable “adverse drug events” occur in the United States every year, according to a 2007 study by the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences. Aside from the toll on health, the errors cost an estimated $4 billion a year, the study found.
“I was frankly stunned at the scope of the problem,” FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said at a news conference Wednesday. The plan, dubbed the Safe Use Initiative, “is something that doesn’t require a new scientific discovery or a budget appropriation.”
The FDA called on doctors, other healthcare professionals and consumers to help identify drugs and circumstances that may be particular problems. The agency will hold public hearings to gather information, said Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
Among the issues the agency has identified is the overuse of acetaminophen, a pain reliever that can cause liver damage when taken to excess.
The drug is the primary ingredient in Tylenol and is included in several other over-the-counter medications, so it can be difficult for consumers to judge how much they’ve consumed.
The FDA also will scrutinize the information provided to patients, such as package inserts, labels and instructions that pharmacists give when dispensing prescriptions.
Such an examination is long overdue, said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of the health research arm of Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group.
“About 99.5% of pamphlets are completely unregulated,” Wolfe said. “They are missing critical information.”
The FDA also recommended ways to reduce dosage errors in liquid medications, such as including a spoon or cup to properly calibrate dosage.
Agency officials acknowledged that they don’t have hard figures about how many people die or suffer serious injury from medication misuse. That’s partly because “preventable harm” covers a range of poorly tracked activities including accidental overdoses, dispensing the wrong medication or the wrong dosage, abuse of medication and drug-quality defects.
Medication errors do not include common side effects, such as nausea associated with some anti-cancer medications.
“Everybody is measuring something at a different level,” said Shawn Becker, director of healthcare quality standards for the U.S. Pharmacopeia, a nonprofit organization that sets standards for strength, quality and purity of drugs. “People have been looking at safe medication use issues for a long time. It certainly is a problem.”
October 13, 2009
NBC Los Angeles
Convenience stores may be just that, an easy, fast place to shop. But now, a new study indicates that kids with easy access to convenience stores may be paying for it with a weight gain.
It may not surprise you to hear that teenagers like to buy fattening junk food in convenience stores. But, according to a new study in the journal Pediatrics, researchers at Temple University surveyed more than 800 kids outside urban convenience stores both before and after school. And they found, perhaps not surprisingly, that most of them buy lots of high calorie, low nutrition foods like chips and candy.
The researchers suggest that in future efforts to fight teenage obesity, more attention should be paid to how close convenience stores are to schools.
Click here for the full report.