The Common Mistake Women Make Which Can Turn Them into Cancer Patients

Mammograms Have 'Limited or No Effect' on Breast Cancer Deaths: Study

Story at-a-glance

• New research showed mammograms have little or no influence on the number of women who die from breast cancer
• Past research also found the reduction in mortality as a result of mammographic screening was so small as to be nonexistent—a mere 2.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years were spared as a result of the screening
• Due to false positives, leading to unnecessary and harmful invasive procedures like biopsy, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, mammograms often cause more harm than good

By Dr. Mercola

With only a few weeks to go before the annual October rush promoting mammograms begins, a new study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute is raising some doubts on mammography’s purported merits.

The findings showed mammograms have little or no influence on reducing the number of women who die from breast cancer … and considering there are serious health risks involved, too, what, then, is the point?

Mammograms Again Shown to Have Little to No Value

Breast cancer mortality rates in Sweden have been declining since 1972. Even though this was before mammography was introduced, the reductions have continued and many have attributed it to mammography screening.

The researchers that authored the current study also expected to see a reduction in breast cancer deaths associated with mammograms, but the results showed otherwise:¹

“County-specific mortality statistics in Sweden are consistent with studies that have reported limited or no impact of screening on mortality from breast cancer among women aged 40-69.”

In light of these findings, the study’s lead researcher Dr. Philippe Autier, at the International Prevention Research Institute in Lyon, France, noted:²

"Information to women on mammography screening should better reflect uncertainty on the effectiveness of that test, and underline the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment."

And this is not the first time the effectiveness of mammograms has been called into question. In 2010, another study concluded that the reduction in mortality as a result of mammographic screening was so small as to be nonexistent—a mere 2.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years were spared as a result of the screening.³

Mammograms May Cause More Harm Than Good

Many women are under the impression that a mammogram is simply an innocuous test that might or might not help you detect breast cancer sooner. But research shows this screening may end up harming more women than it helps.

Earlier this year, the Nordic Cochrane Center issued a leaflet explaining the potential benefits and potential harms of mammography, stating that, based on the available research, it no longer seems reasonable for women to attend breast cancer screening. After systematically reviewing the randomized trials of mammography, they concluded that:⁴

"If 2,000 women are screened regularly for 10 years, one will benefit from screening, as she will avoid dying from breast cancer because the screening detected the cancer earlier.

Since these trials were undertaken, treatment of breast cancer has improved considerably. Women today also seek medical advice much earlier than previously, if they have noted anything unusual in their breasts...

Because of these improvements, screening is less effective today and newer studies suggest that mammography screening is no longer effective in reducing the risk of dying from breast cancer.

... Since it is not possible to tell the difference between the dangerous and the harmless cell changes and cancers, all of them are treated.

Therefore, screening results in treatment of many women for a cancer disease they do not have, and that they will not get. Based on the randomized trials, it appears that:

If 2,000 women are screened regularly for 10 years, 10 healthy women will be turned into cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. These women will have either a part of their breast or the whole breast removed, and they will often receive radiotherapy, and sometimes chemotherapy.

Treatment of these healthy women increases their risk of dying, e.g. from heart disease and cancer."

So, to recap, in order for mammographic breast screening to save ONE woman's life:

• 2,000 women must be screened for 10 years
• 200 women will get false positives
• 10 will receive surgery and/or chemotherapy even though they do not actually have cancer

Yet another study, this one published in The Lancet Oncology late last year,⁵ described the natural history of breast cancers detected in the Swedish mammography screening program between 1986 to 1990, involving 650,000 women. Since breast lesions and tumors are typically aggressively treated and/or removed before they can be determined with any certainty to be a clear and present threat to health, there has been little to no research on what happens when they are left alone.

This study however, demonstrated for the first time that women who received the most breast screenings had a higher cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer over the following six years than the control group who received far less screenings! The study concluded that:

"Because the cumulative incidence among controls did not reach that of the screened group, we believe that many invasive breast cancers detected by repeated mammography screening do not persist to be detected by screening at the end of 6 years, suggesting that the natural course of many of the screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress."

FDA Secretly Monitored Mammogram Whistleblowers’ Emails

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) secretly monitored the personal e-mail of nine whistleblowers—its own scientists and doctors—over the course of two years. The monitored employees had warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that posed unacceptable risks to patients.

Six of the monitored scientists and doctors recently filed a lawsuit against the FDA, charging that the agency violated their constitutional rights to privacy by monitoring lawful activity in personal email accounts, and using that information to harass and ultimately relieve some of them of their positions.

According to the Washington Post⁶:

"All had worked in an office responsible for reviewing devices for cancer screening and other purposes. Copies of the e-mails show that, starting in January 2009, the FDA intercepted communications with congressional staffers and draft versions of whistleblower complaints complete with editing notes in the margins. The agency also took electronic snapshots of the computer desktops of the FDA employees and reviewed documents they saved on the hard drives of their government computers."

The FDA has declined to comment on the allegations, stating it does not comment on cases involved with litigation. However, according to internal FDA documents obtained by the plaintiffs under the Freedom of Information Act, the agency had asked the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) inspector general to conduct an investigation back in May 2010, stating suspicions that the plaintiffs had improperly disclosed confidential business information about the devices.

The HHS inspector general's office found no evidence of criminal conduct, stating the doctors and scientists had legal right to share their concerns with Congress and journalists. Hence no investigation was launched. But the FDA was not satisfied.

On June 28 that same year, Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health wrote that, "We have obtained new information confirming the existence of information disclosures that undermine the integrity and mission of the FDA and, we believe, may be prohibited by law," and again requested action be taken against the employees in question. After consulting with general prosecutors, the inspector general declined the second request for an investigation as well. Now the question is whether the agency monitored their employees within legal limits, and whether the purpose of the extensive monitoring was reasonable. Senator Charles Grassley doesn't seem to think so, stating that:

"The FDA has a huge responsibility to protect public health and safety. It's hard to see how managers apparently thought it was a good use of time to shadow agency scientists and monitor their e-mail accounts for legally protected communications with Congress."

Why Getting a Mammogram Can be a Risky Decision

The long-held conventional medical advice has been for women to get an annual mammogram once they hit 40. A couple of years ago, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force decided to alter their mammogram recommendation, advising women under the age of 50 to avoid mammograms, and limit them to every other year after the age of 50. The revision caused outrage among many cancer organizations. What was overlooked, however, was the reasoning behind the Task Force's decision to change their recommendation.

The prior advice was given in 2002, before a host of new research came out showing the problems of overdiagnosis, including false positives.

If a mammogram detects an abnormal spot in a woman's breast, the next step is typically a biopsy. This involves removing a small amount of tissue from the breast, which is then looked at by a pathologist under a microscope to determine if cancer is present. However, early stage cancer like ductal carcinoma in situ, or D.C.I.S., can be very hard to diagnose, and pathologists have a wide range of experience and expertise. There are actually NO universally agreed upon diagnostic standards for D.C.I.S., and there are no requirements that the pathologists doing the readings have specialized expertise...

Many conventional physicians view DCIS as "pre-cancerous" and argue that, because it could cause harm if left untreated it should be treated in the same aggressive manner as invasive cancer; however the rate at which DCIS progresses to invasive cancer is still largely unknown, with the weight of evidence suggesting it is significantly less than 50 percent -- perhaps as low as 2-4 percent.

This suggests that watchful waiting may be the more sensible approach, but most women are not informed of this option and instead go through invasive breast cancer treatments like surgery, radiation and toxic chemotherapy that often turns out to be unnecessary. As discussed above, it's really hard to justify harming 10 women with surgery and toxic chemotherapy treatment in order to save the life of one woman ...

Mammography and its subsequent tests, such as MRIs and stereotactic (x-ray guided) biopsies, likely contribute to cancer because of the cumulative radiation exposure that occurs over a lifetime and the particularly radiation-sensitive nature of breast cells, e.g. BRCA1/2 genes confer greater risk for breast cancer, in part, because they interfere with the repair of radiation-induced DNA damage. Even the National Cancer Institute states that “repeated x-rays have the potential to cause cancer.”⁷

And finally, although receiving a false positive is the major danger of mammograms, false negatives also occur. Mammograms are especially inaccurate for women with dense breasts; New York and Virginia recently passed laws requiring women with dense breasts to be informed they may need to seek alternative screening methods. It’s estimated that up to 75 percent of women in their 40s, and up to 50 percent of all women, have dense breasts, which increases the likelihood that a mammogram will be ineffective and inaccurate.⁸

Thermography: Breast Health Monitoring That’s as Safe as Taking Your Photograph

Download Interview Transcript

I recently interviewed Gaea Powell about the use of thermography as a safe way to monitor your risk of breast cancer over the long term. Thermographic breast screening is as safe as having your photograph taken and measures the infrared heat emitted by your body, translating this information into thermal images. Thermography does not require mechanical compression or ionizing radiation, and can detect signs of physiological changes due to inflammation and/or increased tumor related blood flow approximately 8-10 years before mammography or a physical exam can detect a mass.

So, if your thermogram shows areas of high inflammation, it doesn't mean you have cancer, but it lets you know you need to address that inflammation to avoid deterioration, and in some cases that the area needs further evaluation.

A New Breast Health Assessment Paradigm - Thermography, BSE/CBE, Ultrasound, then MRI

Although scientific evidence supports elimination of mammography as a screening tool, it is currently considered the standard of care. Replacing it with a new breast health assessment paradigm is warranted and inevitable. The new paradigm begins with thermography, a non-invasive physiological screening that can only serve to enhance all anatomical screenings that may follow, such as BSE/CBE, ultrasound and/or MRI. Please understand though that because this paradigm is not yet accepted as the standard of care, most insurance companies will not cover a thermogram, nor an ultrasound or MRI without a "positive" mammogram. However, when choosing an MRI as an elective procedure, one can typically shop around and find a facility that will perform one without insurance for under $1,000.

New Study Shows This Vitamin Prevents Breast Cancer …

There are a number of lifestyle changes that can help prevent breast cancer from ever becoming a reality for you. For starters, we cannot discuss breast cancer without mentioning the importance of vitamin D. Vitamin D, a steroid hormone that influences virtually every cell in your body, is easily one of nature's most potent cancer fighters. Receptors that respond to vitamin D have been found in nearly every type of human cell, from your bones to your brain. Your liver, kidney and other tissues can convert the vitamin D in your bloodstream into calcitriol, which is the hormonal or activated version of vitamin D.

New research published in the journal Steroids has found that calcitriol inhibits the growth of cancer cells, including breast cancer cells, through the following mechanisms:⁹

• Cell cycle arrest
• Promotion of apoptosis (cancer cell death)
• Inhibition of invasion, metastasis and angiogenesis

Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis or programmed cell death. When JoEllen Welsh, a researcher with the State University of New York at Albany, injected a potent form of vitamin D into human breast cancer cells, half of them shriveled up and died within days!¹⁰

It is my professional opinion that for those who are diagnosed with cancer it is criminal malpractice not to recommend vitamin D and aggressively monitor a cancer patient's vitamin D level to get it between 70 and 100 ng/ml.

So please do watch my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to find out what your optimal vitamin D levels should be for prevention and treatment … and how to get them there. This is one of the most important steps you can take to protect yourself from cancer.

Eight More Breast Cancer Prevention Tips

Prevention truly is worth a pound of cure when it comes to cancer, and the following healthy lifestyle strategies can help you avoid ever becoming a cancer statistic.

• Radically reduce your sugar/fructose intake. Normalizing your insulin levels by avoiding sugar and fructose is one of the most powerful physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer. Unfortunately, very few oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today. Fructose is especially dangerous, as research shows it actually speeds up cancer growth.
• Optimize your vitamin D level, as mentioned. Ideally it should be over 50 ng/ml, but levels from 70-100 ng/ml will radically reduce your cancer risk. Safe sun exposure is the most effective way to increase your levels, followed by safe tanning beds and then oral vitamin D3 supplementation as a last resort if no other option is available.
• Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating whole foods like those in my nutrition plan and exercising using high-intensity burst-type activities, which are part of my Peak Fitness program. It's important to lose excess weight because excess estrogen is produced in fat tissue, which can contribute to cancer risk.
• Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as those from krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
• Avoid drinking alcohol, or limit your drinks to one a day for women.
• Watch out for excessive iron levels. This is actually very common once women stop menstruating. The extra iron actually works as a powerful oxidant, increasing free radicals and raising your risk of cancer. So if you are a post-menopausal woman or have breast cancer you will certainly want to have your Ferritin level drawn. Ferritin is the iron transport protein and should not be above 80. If it is elevated you can simply donate your blood to reduce it.
• Breastfeed exclusively for up to six months. Research shows this will reduce your breast cancer risk.
• Avoid xenoestrogens. Xenoestrogens are synthetic chemicals that mimic natural estrogens. They have been linked to a wide range of human health effects, including reduced sperm counts in men and increased risk of breast cancer in women. There are a large number of xenoestrogens, such as bovine growth hormones in commercial dairy, plastics like bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates and parabens in personal care products, and chemicals used in non-stick materials, just to name a few.

Technorati Tags: mammograms,mammogram studies,Cancer,Dr. Mercola,MRI's,Breast Cancer,women's health,cancer causing,FDA,Thermography. BSE?CBE,ultrasound

Suzanne Somers' Amazing Breast Reconstruction Surgery Using Her Own Stem Cells

Video:  Suzanne Somers' Stem Cell Breast Reconstruction Surgery - Episode 1

Watch Suzanne Somers' amazing breast reconstruction surgery on Suzanne Somers Breaking Through - Episode 1. Find out how Suzanne used her own stem cells to regrow her breast after battling breast cancer.

Suzanne has been a trail blazer for women’s health in many areas!

Knockout: Interviews with Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer--And How to Prevent Getting It in the First Place

Susan G. Komen Foundation Reverses Stance on Cutting Funding for Planned Parenthood

Pro-Life Groups Hail 'A Major Victory for Life' & Now Susan G. Komen Foundation Reversed Their Decision

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast cancer charity has reversed its decision to halt funding of breast-screening grants to Planned Parenthood, the organization announced Friday.

In a statement, Komen for the Cure Founder and CEO Nancy Brinker apologized for “recent decisions” and said the organization would continue to fund Planned Parenthood.

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives,” Brinker said.

The reversal comes after three days of intense backlash over Komen’s announcement that it had adopted new criteria that excluded Planned Parenthood from grants because it was under government investigation. Planned Parenthood is currently at the center of a congressional probe into whether taxpayer money was used to fund abortions. Brinker said Friday they would “amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”

“We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities,” she said. While the statement says Komen will not halt current funding, it does not necessarily guarantee future grants.

Brinker’s full statement is below, via the Dallas Morning News, which first broke the story:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

As The Blaze previously reported, the charity was accused of caving to anti-abortion activists opposed to funding Planned Parenthood because of the abortion services it provides.

Friday’s announcement is a dramatic about-face for the organization. On Wednesday, Brinker released a video vowing Komen for the Cure would “never bow down to political pressure.”

“The scurrilous accusations being hurled at this organization are profoundly hurtful to so many of us who put our heart, soul and lives into this organization,” she said. “But more importantly, they are a dangerous distraction from the work that still remains to be done in ridding the world of breast cancer.”

According to the Associated Press, the grants that Planned Parenthood affiliates used for breast exams and related services totaled $680,000 last year. At least one top Komen official quit over the decision to halt funding, and 26 U.S. senators signed a letter urging the charity to reconsider.

Both Komen and Planned Parenthood reported donation spikes in the aftermath of the initial announcement: Brinker said Thursday donations had been up 100 percent in the last two days, while Planned Parenthood reported bringing in about $650,000 in 24 hours. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg himself pledged $250,000 to Planned Parenthood in the wake of Komen’s decision.

This post has been updated since it was first published at the Blaze

Related:

Interesting: Right to Life President: Komen Tied to Abortion Industry

Evelyn Lauder, Founder of Pink Ribbon, Dies at 75, of Non-Genetic Ovarian Cancer

UPDATED: How to donate: Kanzius Cancer Research Foundation

Interesting: Right to Life President: Komen Tied to Abortion Industry

The president of the National Right to Life Committee has penned a new column in which she says the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast cancer foundation is tied to the abortion industry by virtue of its support for Planned Parenthood.

Carol Tobias writes in Legatus, the magazine for Catholic business professionals, that it is natural for Americans to want to help Komen because of the connection most people have to breast cancer, which affects hundreds of thousands of women on an annual basis.

“Almost everyone in America knows a woman who has had breast cancer. Some of those beloved friends and family members may have died from it. So when an organization like Susan G. Komen for the Cure conducts fundraising projects for research, it’s difficult to say no,” Tobias writes. “We’re encouraged to help by buying a certain brand of yogurt or a certain soft drink. Pink ribbons pop up on products everywhere. We can buy items we would normally buy and feel good about helping find a cure.”

But Tobias questions the connection between Komen and Planned Parenthood.

“So if Komen’s mission is to find a cure for breast cancer, why are they giving huge sums of money to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider?” she asks. “According to its Form 990,Komen affiliates gave more than $550,000 to affiliates of Planned Parenthood in 2010. A year earlier, they donated over $731,000. Komen says the grants are used to fund breast exams and mammograms. However, numerous reports confirm that Planned Parenthood doesn’t do mammograms. What Planned Parenthood does do is abortion.”

Tobias says Planned Parenthood bills itself as a legitimate health care provider but it is really an abortion business, citing figures from its own annual reports showing abortion comprises a large percentage of what it does.

“The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has carefully crafted a public image as a protector of women’s health. PPFA is also the largest abortion chain in America. It is fully in the abortion business and its bottom line depends on performing more and more abortions,” Tobias writes. “According to PPFA’s 2008-2009 Annual Report, its affiliates performed 332,278 abortions in 2009 — about 27.4% of all abortions performed in the United States. That’s more than double the number that its affiliates performed in 1990, even as the total number of abortions performed in the U.S. dropped 25% during that period.”

“In fact, 12% of its clients receive abortion services, according to a February 2011 Planned Parenthood factsheet. Therefore, nearly one out of every eight women walking through the door of a Planned Parenthood clinic has an abortion. Of the services Planned Parenthood reported that would have involved pregnant women (abortion, prenatal care, adoption referrals), 97.6% were for abortion,” Tobias continues.

Komen defends its donations to Planned Parenthood by saying they only go for breast screenings (that women can do on their own or with a partner or friend) but Tobias says Komen is helping the abortion business build its customer base by getting women in the door for non-abortion reasons.

“Considering all the money that Planned Parenthood takes in, why in the world would Komen divert money that could be put toward breast cancer research to this abortion behemoth? Federal government grants to PPFA are, by law, not allowed to pay for abortion per se, but the money is certainly used to build infrastructure and promote the organization. Komen, too, says the funds it gives PPFA are not used for abortion, but it helps to bring new clients through the door,” the NRLC president says.

The Right to Life president also says Komen needs to begin educating women about the abortion-breast cancer link.

“Komen’s support of the nation’s largest abortion provider is ironic in that, while Komen works to find a cure for breast cancer, Planned Parenthood is providing a “service” that contributes to the increase of breast cancer. There is a substantial body of evidence to show that getting an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Joel Brind, Ph.D., one of the foremost researchers to make the abortion-breast-cancer link, estimates that upwards of 10,000 cases of breast cancer each year are attributable to induced abortion,” Tobias concludes. “Susan G. Komen for the Cure has created the public image of an organization doing good. Unfortunately, when you think Komen, you have to also think Planned Parenthood; and when you think Planned Parenthood, you have to think abortion.”

Source: LifeNews.com

Side Note:

I have just moved into a new neighborhood.  There is a woman’s clinic down the way that at first glance looked like an all purpose women’s health clinic, but since I walk by there almost daily I quickly realized that it is really an abortion clinic.

Then one day I walked by and there was a new sign:

To me there was something hauntingly troublesome about the sign. It is a sales pitch offering implied redemption for the women they pray upon.  They have now added a second one.

Do good women have abortions?  Of course they do. And in large part because of clinics like this and the agenda of planned parenthood.

Everyone who supports clinics like these and is considering an abortion for any reason really needs to do their due dilligence before going through this procedure:

• Read up on Margaret Sanger, the Founder of Planned Parenthood and her beliefs and goals.
• Read up and watch a few videos on abortion
• Check into adoption as an alternative.
• Really alk to someone who has had an abortion more than 5-years prior.
• Talk to a member of the clergy even if you are not a church-goer even a believer.
• Check out eugenics and the proponents therof, (using abortion, selective breeding ideas, vaccines and death panels)

Abortion is a decision that could haunt you the rest of your life.

And whether you want to think about it or not, you are taking a life… the life of your unborn child.

And there is a bigger agenda behind the abortion movement!

*Since the sign was put up a local church has adopted this clinic for 24/7 prayre vigial for 40-days and 40-nights.

Ask Marion~

FORMER FIRST LADY, CANCER SURVIVOR AND FOUNDER OF THE BETTER FORD CLINIC… BETTY FORD HAS DIED AT AGE 93

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Betty Ford, the former first lady whose triumph over drug and alcohol addiction became a beacon of hope for addicts and the inspiration for her Betty Ford Center in California, died at age 93, a family friend said late Friday.

Her death Friday was confirmed to The Associated Press by Marty Allen, chairman emeritus of the Ford Foundation. Family spokeswoman Barbara Lewandrowski said later that the former first lady died at the Eisenhower Medical Center in Palm Springs. Other details of her death were not immediately available.

Video: Former First Lady Betty Ford Dies at 93

“She was a wonderful wife and mother; a great friend; and a courageous First Lady,” former President George H.W. Bush said in a statement on Friday. “No one confronted life’s struggles with more fortitude or honesty, and as a result, we all learned from the challenges she faced.”

While her husband served as president, Ford‘s comments weren’t the kind of genteel, innocuous talk expected from a first lady, and a Republican one no less. Her unscripted comments sparked tempests in the press and dismayed President Gerald Ford’s advisers, who were trying to soothe the national psyche after Watergate. But to the scandal-scarred, Vietnam-wearied, hippie-rattled nation, Mrs. Ford’s openness was refreshing.

And 1970s America loved her for it.

According to Mrs. Ford, her young adult children probably had smoked marijuana — and if she were their age, she’d try it, too. She told “60 Minutes” she wouldn’t be surprised to learn that her youngest, 18-year-old Susan, was in a sexual relationship (an embarrassed Susan issued a denial).

She mused that living together before marriage might be wise, thought women should be drafted into the military if men were, and spoke up unapologetically for abortion rights, taking a position contrary to the president’s. “Having babies is a blessing, not a duty,” Mrs. Ford said.

“Mother’s love, candor, devotion, and laughter enriched our lives and the lives of the millions she touched throughout this great nation,” her family said in a statement released late Friday. “To be in her presence was to know the warmth of a truly great lady.”

Candor worked for Betty Ford, again and again. She would build an enduring legacy by opening up the toughest times of her life as public example.

In an era when cancer was discussed in hushed tones and mastectomy was still a taboo subject, the first lady shared the specifics of her breast cancer surgery. The publicity helped bring the disease into the open and inspired countless women to seek breast examinations.

Her most painful revelation came 15 months after leaving the White House, when Mrs. Ford announced that she was entering treatment for a longtime addiction to painkillers and alcohol. It turned out the famously forthcoming first lady had been keeping a secret, even from herself.

She used the unvarnished story of her own descent and recovery to crusade for better addiction treatment, especially for women. She co-founded the nonprofit Betty Ford Center near the Fords’ home in Rancho Mirage, Calif., in 1982. Mrs. Ford raised millions of dollars for the center, kept close watch over its operations, and regularly welcomed groups of new patients with a speech that started, “Hello, my name’s Betty Ford, and I’m an alcoholic and drug addict.”

Although most famous for a string of celebrity patients over the years — from Elizabeth Taylor and Johnny Cash to Lindsay Lohan — the center keeps its rates relatively affordable and has served more than 90,000 people.

In a statement Friday, President Barack Obama said the Betty Ford Center would honor Mrs. Ford’s legacy “by giving countless Americans a new lease on life.”

“As our nation’s First Lady, she was a powerful advocate for women‘s health and women’s rights,” the president said. “After leaving the White House, Mrs. Ford helped reduce the social stigma surrounding addiction and inspired thousands to seek much-needed treatment.”

Mrs. Ford was a free spirit from the start. Elizabeth Bloomer, born April 8, 1918, fell in love with dance as a girl in Grand Rapids, Mich., and decided it would be her life. At 20, despite her mother’s misgivings, she moved to New York to learn from her idol Martha Graham. She lived in Greenwich Village, worked as a model, and performed at Carnegie Hall in Graham’s modern dance ensemble. “I thought I had arrived,” she later recalled.

But her mother coaxed her back to Grand Rapids, where Betty worked as a dance teacher and store fashion coordinator and married William Warren, a friend from school days. He was a salesman who traveled frequently; she was unhappy. They lasted five years.

While waiting for her divorce to become final, she met and began dating, as she put it in her memoir, “probably the most eligible bachelor in Grand Rapids” — former college football star, Navy veteran and lawyer Jerry Ford. They would be married for 58 years, until his death in December 2006.

Two weeks after their October 1948 wedding, her husband was elected to his first term in the House. He would serve 25 years, rising to minority leader.

While her husband campaigned for weeks at a time or worked late on Capitol Hill, she raised their four children: Michael, Jack, Steven and Susan. She arranged luncheons for congressional wives, helped with her husband’s campaigns, became a Cub Scout den mother, taught Sunday school.

A pinched nerve in her neck in 1964, followed by the onset of severe osteoarthritis, led her to an assortment of prescription drugs that never fully relieved the pain. For years she had been what she later called “a controlled drinker, no binges.” Now she began mixing pills and alcohol. Feeling overwhelmed and underappreciated, she suffered an emotional breakdown that led to weekly visits with a psychiatrist.

The psychiatrist didn’t take note of her drinking but instead tried to build her self-esteem: “He said I had to start thinking I was valuable, not just as a wife and mother, but as myself.”

The White House would give her that gift.

In 1973, as Mrs. Ford was happily anticipating her husband’s retirement from politics, Vice President Spiro Agnew was forced out of office over bribery charges. President Richard Nixon turned to Gerald Ford to fill the office.

Less than a year later, his presidency consumed by the Watergate scandal, Nixon resigned. On Aug. 9, 1974, Gerald Ford was sworn in as the only chief executive in American history who hadn’t been elected either president or vice president.

Mrs. Ford wrote of her sudden ascent to first lady: “It was like going to a party you’re terrified of, and finding out to your amazement that you’re having a good time.”

She was 56 when she moved into the White House, and looked more matronly than mod. Ever gracious, her chestnut hair carefully coifed into a soft bouffant, she tended to speak softly and slowly, even when taking a feminist stand.

Her breast cancer diagnosis, coming less than two months after President Ford was whisked into office, may have helped disarm the clergymen, conservative activists and Southern politicians who were most inflamed by her loose comments. She was photographed recovering at Bethesda Naval Hospital, looking frail in her robe, and won praise for grace and courage.

“She seems to have just what it takes to make people feel at home in the world again,” media critic Marshall McLuhan observed at the time. “Something about her makes us feel rooted and secure — a feeling we haven’t had in a while. And her cancer has been a catharsis for everybody.”

The public outpouring of support helped her embrace the power of her position. “I was somebody, the first lady,” she wrote later. “When I spoke, people listened.”

She used her newfound influence to lobby aggressively for the Equal Rights Amendment, which failed nonetheless, and to speak against child abuse, raise money for handicapped children, and champion the performing arts.

It’s debatable whether Mrs. Ford‘s frank nature helped or hurt her husband’s 1976 campaign to win a full term as president. Polls showed she was widely admired. By taking positions more liberal than the president’s, she helped broaden his appeal beyond traditional Republican voters. But she also outraged some conservatives, leaving the president more vulnerable to a strong GOP primary challenge by Ronald Reagan. That battle weakened Ford going into the general election against Democrat Jimmy Carter.

Carter won by a slim margin. The president had lost his voice in the campaign’s final days, and it was Mrs. Ford who read his concession speech to the nation.

The Fords retired to a Rancho Mirage golf community, but he spent much of his time away, giving speeches and playing in golf tournaments. Home alone, deprived of her exciting and purposeful life in the White House, Mrs. Ford drank.

By 1978 her secret was obvious to those closest to her.

“As I got sicker,” she recalled, “I gradually stopped going to lunch. I wouldn’t see friends. I was putting everyone out of my life.” Her children recalled her living in a stupor, shuffling around in her bathrobe, refusing meals in favor of a drink.

Her family finally confronted her and insisted she seek treatment.

“I was stunned at what they were trying to tell me about how I disappointed them and let them down,” she said in a 1994 Associated Press interview. “I was terribly hurt — after I had spent all those years trying to be the best mother, wife I could be. … Luckily, I was able to hear them saying that I needed help and they cared too much about me to let it go on.”

She credited their “intervention” with saving her life.

Mrs. Ford entered Long Beach Naval Hospital and, alongside alcoholic young sailors and officers, underwent a grim detoxification that became the model for therapy at the Betty Ford Center. In her book “A Glad Awakening,” she described her recovery as a second chance at life.

And in that second chance, she found a new purpose.

“There is joy in recovery,” she wrote, “and in helping others discover that joy.”

Family spokeswoman Lewanbrowski the family expects to organize a service in Palm Springs over the next couple days. Ford’s body will be sent to Michigan for burial alongside former President Gerald Ford, who is buried at his namesake library in Grand Rapids.

___

Associated Press writers Shaya Tayefe Mohajer in Los Angeles and Mike Householder in Detroit contributed to this report  -  Posted:  The Blaze

Betty Fords Funeral Arrangements Announced:

PALM DESERT, Calif., July 10 (UPI) -- The family of former U.S. first lady Betty Ford said her California memorial service Tuesday would be private, although the public was welcome afterward.

The 93-year-old wife of former President Gerald Ford died Friday at Eisenhower Medical Center in Rancho Mirage of natural causes with family members at her side, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Family spokesman Greg Willard, the Fords' longtime attorney, said in a statement a private memorial at St. Margaret's Episcopal Church in Palm Desert would begin at 11:20 a.m. Tuesday. Eulogies will be given by former first lady Rosalynn Carter, news commentator Cokie Roberts and the director of the Betty Ford Center for addictions, Geoffrey Mason.

Public visitation at the church was scheduled to begin at 3 p.m., Willard said.

Ford's remains will be flown to Grand Rapids, Mich., for burial beside her husband, who died in 2006.

The wife of the 38th president used her status to raise awareness of women's healthcare and substance abuse treatment. She underwent a mastectomy and overcame addictions to alcohol and painkillers, leading to the founding of the clinic named for her in Rancho Mirage, Calif.

Related: 

U.S. Presidential Libraries

Former President Gerald Ford Dies at Age 93

Betty’s Books:

Betty: A Glad Awakening

Healing and Hope: Six Women from the Betty Ford Center Share Their Powerful Journeys of Addiction

The Leafy Green That's Great for Breasts

Here's a peppery green that may do big favors for breast health: watercress.

A favorite addition to afternoon tea sandwiches, watercress should make an appearance in your salads and soups, too, because a recent study suggests that compounds in watercress may help thwart breast cancer.

Why Watercress?

The compounds in question? Isothiocyanates. They're present in all sorts of cruciferous vegetables, like broccoli, kale, and brussels sprouts. And studies suggest that these compounds help remove cancer-causing substances from the body and help suppress tumor growth by tamping down the cancer's blood supply. Now a new study suggests that one particular kind of isothiocyanate found in watercress may help amp up women's defenses against breast cancer. What's more, in a small study of healthy middle-aged breast cancer survivors, those who consumed just over 2 cups of watercress daily experienced a significant increase in circulating blood levels of isothiocyanates.

Count on Cruciferous

Larger scale studies are needed to see whether there's any connection between watercress consumption and a lower risk of developing breast cancer. But for now, we do know that eating lots of leafy greens is a boon to health in general. And a cup of watercress supplies not only isothiocyanates but also calcium, potassium, vitamin C, vitamin A, and lutein -- all for just 32 calories. There are hundreds of tasty ways to eat it up.

h/t tip to RealAge

Stop Using 'Natural' Deodorants Until You Read This

Some of the most popular natural deodorants are the "crystal" deodorant stones and sprays. But most people don't know that these crystal deodorant products contain aluminum.

The crystal deodorant stones are made from alum. The most widely used form of alum used in the personal care industry is potassium alum. The full chemical name of potassium alum is potassium aluminum sulfate.

The reason that most people try to avoid aluminum in deodorant is because of its possible link to Alzheimer's disease. There is some strong evidence of a link -- for instance, in 1988 a truck driver accidentally dumped 20 tons of aluminum sulfate in to a town's drinking water.

Now, over 20 years later, they are finding a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s in the people of this town.

Incidentally, the article linked below notes that, “many doctors such as popular web guru and natural health expert Dr. Mercola suggest avoiding aluminum as much as possible.”

Posted by: Dr. Mercola

Comments by Dr. Mercola:

Let’s get this straight. Even though aluminum is widely distributed in the earth’s crust, it is NOT needed in ANY amounts in your body. All evidence to date points to aluminum as a poison that serves no beneficial role in your body and should be avoided.

Aluminum is widely recognized as a neurotoxin, which has been found in increased concentrations in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease.

Unfortunately, if you use antiperspirants or some deodorants, you are most likely exposing yourself to aluminum.

Aluminum salts can account for 25 percent of the volume of some antiperspirants.

A review of the common sources of aluminum exposure for humans found that antiperspirant use can significantly increase the amount of aluminum absorbed by your body. According to the review, after a single underarm application of antiperspirant, about .012 percent of the aluminum may be absorbed.

Multiply this by one or more times a day for a lifetime and you can have a massive exposure to aluminum -- a poison that is not meant to be in your body.

Antiperspirants work by clogging, closing, or blocking the pores that release sweat under your arms -- with the active ingredient being aluminum. Not only does this block one of your body’s routes for detoxification (releasing toxins via your underarm sweat), but it raises concerns about where these heavy metals are going once you roll them (or spray them) on.

In some cases, it is clear that they may be wreaking havoc directly on your brain. In 1988, for instance, a truck driver accidentally poured 20 tons of aluminum sulphate into a tank containing drinking water.

Some 20,000 people in the village of Camelford were exposed to the chemical for several weeks, and then went on to develop a rare form of early-onset Alzheimer’s disease, along with showing the presence of high levels of aluminum in their tissues.

Deodorants and Antiperspirants Linked to Cancer

Alzheimer’s disease is not the only reason to ditch your aluminum-containing antiperspirant and deodorant, as this heavy metal has also been linked to cancer.

A 2006 study found that aluminum salts can mimic the hormone estrogen, and chemicals that imitate that hormone are known to increase breast cancer risk. Animal studies have also found that aluminum can cause cancer.

Given that antiperspirants are used on your armpits, the aluminum salt concentration is highest near your breast tissue. Further, when women shave under their arms it can result in a higher aluminum-salt absorption rate due to the damaged skin.

In a 2007 study published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, researchers tested breast samples from 17 breast-cancer patients who had undergone mastectomies. The women who used antiperspirants had deposits of aluminum in their outer breast tissue. Concentrations of aluminum were higher in the tissue closest to the underarm than in the central breast.

Aluminum is not normally found in the human body, so this study was a pretty clear sign that the metal was being absorbed from antiperspirant sprays and roll-ons.

It’s worth mentioning that deodorants are not the same thing as antiperspirants. Deodorants may actually be less problematic than antiperspirants, as they work by neutralizing the smell of your sweat and by antiseptic action against bacteria, but do not prevent sweating.

However, many deodorants also contain aluminum, along with chemicals called parabens, which have also been linked to breast cancer. So, you’re clearly better off avoiding both antiperspirants and deodorants.

Supposedly “Safe” Crystal Alum Antiperspirants

“Crystal” deodorant stones are a popular natural deodorant alternative, often used by health-conscious shoppers looking to avoid the aluminum and other chemicals common in most antiperspirants and deodorants.

However, if you’re looking to avoid aluminum, crystal deodorants may not be your best choice.

While many claim to be aluminum-free, they are referring to aluminum chlorohydrate, aluminum chloride, aluminum hydroxybromide or aluminum zirconium.

These types of aluminum are widely used in antiperspirants and deodorants. The aluminum is taken into sweat ducts in the top layer of your skin where they act as a plug, stopping the flow of sweat to your skin’s surface.

There is evidence, however, that this aluminum is absorbed into your body where it may cause serious damage.

The aluminum in crystal deodorant stones is a different type of compound known as an alum, the most common form being potassium alum, also known as potassium aluminum sulfate.

Potassium Alum or Ammonium Alum are natural mineral salts made up of molecules that are too large to be absorbed by your skin. They form a protective layer on your skin that inhibits the growth of odor-causing bacteria. These deodorants are recommended by many cancer treatment centers.

But while this may be a better alternative to most antiperspirants and deodorants on the market, it is not completely aluminum-free.

I’ll share with you my top tips for staying odor-free naturally shortly, but first I want to explain why I stopped using any antiperspirants or deodorants over 25 years ago … and suggest you also do the same.

Final Recommendation:

Please note that this recommendation is for antiperspirants only, not deodorants. Many confuse the two. Nearly all antiperspirants use aluminum or alum-based salts to achieve their sweat reduction effect.

It is an absolute no brainer for you and your family to avoid all conventional aluminum-based antiperspirants. The evidence is very clear that these are absorbed and will contribute to aluminum in your body.

Regarding purportedly safe “alum” based antiperspirants found in most health food stores, the companies that produce these claim that the mineral salts are too large to be absorbed and thus provide no danger. However, we have been unable to uncover any solid evidence that supports this claim so it would seem prudent to avoid using them.

While these crystals are probably better than using a conventional antiperspirant, they are clearly not aluminum-free and it still poses a possible Alzheimer's risk and contributes to background toxicity in your body.

It would seem best to exercise the precautionary principle at this time and avoid these crystal-based alum antiperspirants.

Personally, I have not used antiperspirants for over 30 years, once I realized that they were actually causing the stains in the underarm area of my shirts and that wasn’t due to my own sweat. That was a major clue to me to avoid them.

All I do is use simple soap and water and that seems to work well enough that my friends and relatives do not tell me I have any offensive body odor. I typically will wash under my arms in the morning and after I workout.

This approach has served me well for over three decades, however if you find you need a more aggressive approach, then try a pinch of baking soda mixed into water as an effective all-day deodorant.

Additionally, there are many non-aluminum or alum-based alternatives in your local health food store that would likely serve your needs, but I would encourage you to at least TRY going without before making your mind up.

Remember you will need to check the label not only for “aluminum” but also for potassium alum or potash alum, as the full chemical name of potassium alum is potassium aluminum sulfate.

Related Links:

Does Your Antiperspirant Cause Cancer?

Do You Still Use An Antiperspirant?

Concern Over Deodorants & Breast Cancer

A Third of Breast Cancer Patients 'Treated Needlessly'

Women should make an informed choice about mammogram screenings, the researchers say.

One-third of women diagnosed with breast cancer in public screening programs are treated needlessly because their tumor will not be life-threatening, the British Medical Journal reported Friday.

Scandinavian researchers highlighted the dilemma facing doctors when it comes to detecting and treating breast cancer. Not all breast cancers kill, though.

In some cases, the cancer will grow so slowly that the patient will die of other causes before it produces symptoms, or it might remain dormant or even shrink over the years.

Because doctors have no idea whether a cancer will be lethal or harmless, they tend to treat all patients diagnosed with a tumor. But cancer treatment, using powerful drugs, radiotherapy, or surgery, causes harm.

So it is vital to know how many patients may be being treated unnecessarily, especially given the huge investment in having women undergo regular mammograms.

Karsten Jorgensen and Peter Gotzsche of the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen pored over data from screening programs in Australia, Britain, Canada, Norway, and Sweden.

They looked at trends seven years before and seven years after the programs were implemented.

They found that, when screening programs were introduced, doctors did indeed spot more cases of breast cancer — but also treated more women who would not have needed it.

"One in three breast cancers detected in a population offered organized screening is over-diagnosed," they said.

In an accompanying editorial in the British Medical Journal, Gilbert Welch, a professor at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Research in Vermont, said the findings raise key questions about the trade-off between deaths the screening programs avoid and the harm treatment programs inflict.

One study has suggested that one death is avoided for every two women who are over-diagnosed, while another puts the ratio far higher, at one death avoided for every 10 cases of unnecessary treatment.

"Mammography undoubtedly helps some women but hurts others," Welch said. "No right answer exists. Instead, it is a personal choice."

Copyright AFP

Sources:  NewsMax Health/CBCNEWS.ca

Posted:  True Health Is True Wealth

Related Resources:

• Natural Strategies For Cancer Patients
• Big Red Juice
• Sanoviv Medical Center

Night Light Hikes Prostate Cancer Risk

A new study links high levels of nighttime artificial light with high rates of prostate cancer. The study, conducted jointly by the University of Haifa and the University of Connecticut, analyzed data collected by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and found that the highest rates of prostate cancer occur in countries with the brightest lights at night.

The researchers weighed several factors when determining the “amount of artificial light per night per person,” including a country’s consumption of electricity, density of urban population, and overall socioeconomic status. They then divided countries into three groups according to the average amount of light per person: little exposure, medium exposure, and high exposure.

Countries with low exposure had 66.77 prostate cancer patients per 100,000 people. For countries with medium exposure, the rate increased 30 percent to 87.11 patients per 100,000. Countries with the highest exposure jumped 80 percent to 157 patients per 100,000. The researchers say there is a definite cause and effect between artificial light and prostate cancer, but no one can explain the mechanism, although there are several theories, such as light at night upsetting the body’s biological clock.

In a previous study, the same researchers found a similar link between light at night and breast cancer. 

Migraines Reduce Breast Cancer Risk

In a puzzling twist, women who have a history of migraine headaches are far less likely to develop breast cancer than other women, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.

The study is the first to look at the relationship between breast cancer and migraines and its findings may point to new ways of reducing a woman's breast cancer risk, they said.

"We found that, overall, women who had a history of migraines had a 30 percent lower risk of breast cancer compared to women who did not have a history of such headaches," said Dr. Christopher Li of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, whose findings appear in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.

Li said the reduction in risk was for the most common types of breast cancers -- those driven by hormones, such as estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, which is fueled by estrogen, and progesterone-receptor positive breast cancer, which is fueled by progesterone.

Hormones also play a role in migraines, a brutal type of headache often accompanied by nausea, vomiting and heightened sensitivity to light and sound. Women are two to three times more likely than men to get migraines.

While it is not exactly clear why women with a history of migraines had a lower risk for breast cancer, Li and colleagues suspect hormones are playing a role.

"Women who have higher levels of estrogen in their blood have higher levels of breast cancer," Li said in a telephone interview.

And he said migraines are often triggered by low levels of the hormone estrogen, such as when estrogen levels fall during a woman's menstrual cycle.

Women who get migraines "may have a chronically lower baseline estrogen. That difference could be what is protective against breast cancer," Li said.

Copyright Reuters

Be Very Aware During Breast Cancer Awareness Month

"As you may know, October is "Breast Cancer Awareness Month." Women who test positive for mutations in BRCA1 genes have up to an 87% chance of developing breast cancer, and a 44% chance of developing ovarian cancer by the age of 70.

"As with other genetic mutation diseases..., when there is a test for the mutation, do you want to know your fate? Many vote "no," and I find that amazing. I understand the fear that goes along with realizing you are at significantly higher risk or actually have a potentially devastating disease, but knowledge is power, and prophylaxis and treatment lower your risk of having the worst come to bear." 

Breast Self-Exam Tips

Breast Self-Exam Savvy If it's been a while since you started checking your breasts for lumps, it may be time for a refresher. The American Cancer Society (ACS) has updated its instructions for monthly breast self-exams to reflect new scientific data. Among the changes: - Lie down to perform the exam. When you're lying on your back, the breast tissue spreads evenly over the chest wall and becomes as thin as possible. This makes it easier to feel all of the breast. - Move across the breast in an up-and-down pattern. There's evidence that this is the most effective technique for covering the entire breast. (In the past, women were offered a choice of several patterns.) - Use different levels of pressure: light, to examine breast tissue closest to your skin; medium, to feel a little deeper; and firm, to reach the tissue closest to your ribs. A firm ridge in the lower curve of each breast is normal. The ACS no longer recommends squeezing the nipple, since stimulation can release small amounts of fluid from healthy breasts. (Spontaneous discharge is more worrisome.) - Sit or stand and slightly raise your arm to probe the underarm area. "Go deep into the armpit," says Christine Pellegrino, M.D., director of the Breast Clinic at the Montefiore-Einstein Cancer Center in New York City. - However you check your breasts, do it at the same time every month, to increase your chances of finding any lump that shouldn't be there. Source:  Remedy

Basics To Avoid The Four Deadliest Cancers

About 1.3 million Americans are diagnosed with cancer each year and about 500,000 die from the disease. Some cancers claim more victims than others, and there are things you can do to avoid becoming a victim. Here are the four deadliest cancers and how you can avoid them:

• Lung. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in America and will claim more than 157,000 victims this year. More than 80 percent of lung cancers are linked to smoking. Even if you don’t smoke, but live or work with smokers, your risk rises due to second-hand smoke. Don’t smoke and encourage the smokers in your life to quit.
  
  
• Colon. Colon cancer will kill about 57,000 Americans this year, but it is a highly curable cancer if caught early. Follow your doctor’s advice for screening. Since high-fat diets and sedentary lifestyles double the risk of colon cancer, switch to a diet rich in whole grains and fresh fruits and vegetables and add exercise to your daily routine.
  
  
• Breast. Although 40,000 women will die from breast cancer this year, 85 percent of breast cancer patients are alive five years after diagnosis. The five-year survival rate rises to 95 percent if the cancer is localized, so early detection is essential.
  
  
• Prostate. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men over the age of 70 and will kill 29,000 Americans this year. Although scientists aren’t sure just exactly what triggers prostate cancer, many believe it’s linked to a high fat diet heavy in red meat.

To avoid all cancers:

• Exercise
• Watch your weight
• Don’t smoke
• Eat a low-fat, high fiber diet rich in fruits and vegetables
• Get regular check-ups and screenings -  But do your research on mammograms and others
• Consider genetic testing if certain cancers run in your family
• Limit alcohol consumption
• Drink lots of water but avoid plastic bottles and containers

Even the deadliest cancers can be conquered if they are caught early enough. If you have a family history of cancer, screening and early detection can make the difference between life and death. Avoiding known lifestyle risk factors for cancer such as smoking help you avoid the “Big C.”