40 Women With Breast Cancer Had This “Cosmetic Ingredient” in Their Tissues -Health & Beauty Informations. This article, entitled 40 Women With Breast Cancer Had This “Cosmetic Ingredient” in Their Tissues, we have prepared this article carefully for you so you can retrieve information therein. Hopefully you understand the contents of this article that we put under the category awareness, well, happy reading.

Title : 40 Women With Breast Cancer Had This “Cosmetic Ingredient” in Their Tissues
link : 40 Women With Breast Cancer Had This “Cosmetic Ingredient” in Their Tissues

40 Women With Breast Cancer Had This “Cosmetic Ingredient” in Their Tissues

new research has detected the presence of paraben esters in 99 percent of sampled breast cancer tissue. The study examined 40 women who were being treated for primary breast cancer.

In 60 percent of cases, five of the different esters were present. Parabens are chemicals with similar properties to estrogen and estrogen hormone is involved in the development of breast cancer. The study notes that:

"Variation was notable with respect to the esters of individual parabens, location within locations one breast ., and the like in different breasts

median total values ​​in nanograms per gram of tissue for tissue samples 160 were higher for n-propyl and methyl paraben; levels were lower for n-butylparaben, ethylparaben and isobutylparaben ...

can not identify the source of paraben, but paraben was measured in 7/40 patients who never reported having used underarm cosmetics in your life. "


sources and dangers of parabens

Deodorants and antiperspirants are among the main sources of parabens, but the fact that even those who by reports, never used them still had parabens in their breast tissue clearly demonstrates that these chemicals, regardless of what products are added to, can, and apparently going, they accumulate in the breast tissue.

is important to recognize that whatever you spread on the skin can be absorbed into your body and potentially cause serious effects over time, as this research shows.

(For more information on the potential of its cosmetics toxicity, I urge you to review deep extensiveSkin EWG report.) 3 Parabens inhibit the growth of bacteria, yeasts and molds, and They are used as preservatives.

The label can be listed as:


These chemicals are commonly used in:


studies have shown that parabens can affect your body as estrogen, which can lead to muscle mass diminished extra fat storage, and male gynecomastia (breast growth). Other studies, in addition to the one offered here have also been linked to breast cancer parabens. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has linked methyl paraben, in particular, metabolic, developmental, hormonal and neurological

disorders and various cancers.


How to avoid some of the most common culprits

Avoid parabens and other harmful chemicals forced to become an avid label reader. Note that products that have "all natural" labels may still contain harmful chemicals, including parabens, so be sure to check the list of ingredients.

Another alternative is to make your own personal care products. In many cases it is much easier than it seems. Michael DeJong, ecologist and author of books on green living has a book calledClean Curas 4 , which is full of affordable, easy and natural resources that you can make at home to treat common ailments with objects you have in your own refrigerator and pantry.

When it comes to deodorants, an option is to skip altogether. Simple soap and water has served me quite well. For some odors extra protection, try a pinch of baking soda mixed with a small amount of water.


Caution: There is a new class of carcinogenic Brand "Estrogens ..."

Recent research has also confirmed the existence of a hitherto unknown class of cancer-causing materials can be found in many consumer products. Some of them even foods and supplements as "nutrients" are added. These compounds that mimic estrogen are as follows :. Metals

Yes, it has been shown that a wide range of metals to act as "metalloestrogens" with the potential to add to the burden of estrogenic human breast, which increases the risk of breast cancer. The following metals have been identified as being able to bind to receptors on cellular estrogen and then imitating the actions of physiological estrogens


According GreenMedInfo:

"... [E] Xposure sodium selenite (and sodium selenate) is difficult to avoid, since it is the main source of supplemental selenium in vitamins market mass, food, drinks, etc. the same is true for the inorganic forms of chromium, copper, nickel, tin and vanadium, found on the labels of many multivitamins mass market. Another source of daily exposure to metalloestrogen million consumers is antiperspirants based on aluminum ".

cadmium with the highest risk of breast cancer

A recent study published in the journal Cancer Research indicates that women whose diets contain high levels of cadmium are at increased risk of developing breast cancer. Cadmium is a heavy metal long known to be carcinogenic, and, as you can see by their inclusion in the list above, it has also been identified as a metal that can bind to estrogen receptors, mimicking effectively the female hormone estrogen . The study found that among nearly 56,000 women, people with the highest intakes of cadmium were 21 percent more likely to develop breast cancer. 7

Cadmium crops seeps into fertilizer, or when rain or deposit of sewage sludge on farmland. Potatoes and whole grains are a couple of primary sources of cadmium, but is also present in air pollution from burning fossil fuels, and therefore can also be inhaled. According to the Los Angeles Times: 8

"The study provides new evidence in a large human population that environmental chemicals that mimic the effects of the female hormone estrogen may contribute to the risk of certain cancers, including endometrial and breast of women ... the finding comes just three months after the Institute of Medicine, a body of prestige of independent biomedical researchers, concluded that a series other factors - most within the power of women to control, such as obesity and medication hormone replacement -. were the most important sources of risk of breast cancer

the report referred to is breast cancer and the Environment :. a lifetime approach by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) 9 published in December last year, which analyzes the environmental impacts on the risk of breast cancer

the report is a step in the right direction, since it recognizes the need to further investigate the role environmental toxins play in the development of breast cancer. This is important, because while individuals can do everything possible to avoid harmful chemicals, if we really want to quell the rise in cancers of all kinds, we must remove chemicals linked to cancer of consumer products, manufacturing and other sources of exposure. Moreover, the IOM report also identifies ionizing radiation as one of the major contributors to breast cancer, which of course includes mammograms ...





could be damaged more women who helped with mammography?

Mammograms expose a woman's body to radiation that can be 1,000 times greater than that of a chest X-ray, which increases the risk of cancer. Mammography also compresses the breasts strongly (and often painfully), which could lead to a spread of deadly cancer cells, if any.

Earlier this year, the Nordic Cochrane Collaboration issued a report stating that mammography can cause more harm than good. Its prospectus, screening mammography for breast cancer 10 is an important reading for all women. Even more provocative is the new book, mammography screening: truth, lies and controversy by Peter C. Gøtzsche, Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis Director at the Nordic Cochrane Centre and chief medical officer. The first paragraph of the announcement of the book reads: 11

"The most effective way to reduce the risk of becoming a patient with breast cancer of women is to avoid screening. "

While this may sound too shocking to be true for some, the available data is fully compatible with this conclusion. According to the Cochrane Collaboration, for every 2,000 women invited for screening in the course of 10 years, a woman will have prolonged his life. Meanwhile, 10 healthy women who have not been diagnosed with cancer if it had not been for mammography, will be misdiagnosed with breast cancer, and will be treated unnecessarily. In addition, more than 200 women experience significant psychological distress for many months due to false positives.


The cancer industry is riddled with corruption ...

There are a lot of conclusive information out there that can, and ultimately, it is used to request a congressional hearing on mammography coverup. Already in 1974, Professor Malcolm C. Pike of the University of Southern California, School of Medicine, said the National Cancer Institute (NCI) that a number of experts had concluded that "give younger women 50 years mammography routinely is close to unethical. "in the 1990s, Dr. Samuel Epstein warned about the dangers of mammography, which says:


" breast before menopause is very sensitive to radiation, each exposure of 1 rad increase the risk of breast cancer by about 1 percent, with 10 percent higher cumulative risk for each breast during detection of a decade. .. the high sensitivity of the breast, especially in young women, with radiation induced cancer was known before 1970. However, following the establishment 300,000 women screened with X-ray dose high enough to increase the risk of breast cancer by up to 20 percent in women aged 40 to 50 years who were mammogramed annually. "

However, despite all the evidence against the routine use of it, mammography remains the recommended "prevention" for all women over 40. Alarmingly number one strategy, there is no evidence indicating the Food and Drug Administration US (FDA) has been negligent (to put it mildly) in its approval of a number of cancer detection devices. Recently it was learned that whistleblowers within the agency had been controlled in secret for two years; all of whom worked in the office responsible for the review of medical devices, including cancer detection devices. Employees supervised warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that pose unacceptable risks to patients.

Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health has repeatedly tried to take action against employees, claiming they had revealed information that undermined the integrity and mission of the FDA. Shuren is also the official who oversees dental mercury fillings, which have been fraudulently referred to as "silver fillings. 'Shuren promised to make an announcement on dental amalgam before the end of 2011, but just before the end of the working year, the agency acknowledged that no announcement was imminent. - not in 2011, and perhaps not at all

again and again, Mr. Shuren shows loyalty to the interests of the industry rather than health and public safety ... But he is not alone. in a letter of 2009 from an unspecified number of employees of the FDA for the transition team of President Obama, the authors clearly outlined the need for a comprehensive review of the agency due to the entrenched systemic corruption at the highest levels 12 they write.

"There is currently an atmosphere at FDA that honest employee fears the dishonest employee, and not vice versa. It is worrying that the atmosphere does not yet exist at FDA where honest employees committed to integrity and mission of the FDA can act without fear of reprisal. ... United States urgently needs a change in the FDA because the FDA is fundamentally divided, not having fulfilled its mission, and because the restoration of an adequate and FDA work effectively is vital for physical and economic health of the nation. "



Mammograms no longer recommended for women in their 40s

The group preventive work in the United States revised its recommendations on mammograms in October 2009, 13 indicates that women in their 40s should not get routine mammograms for early detection of breast cancer. in his instead, the panel recommended to wait until the age of 50, and only have a mammogram every two years instead of annually. the Canadian Task Force did the same in November last year.

While many organizations cancer incensed and avoided new policy task forces', it is important to realize that the main reasons for this change in the guidelines were the dangers and documented breaches of mammographic screening. However, there is no convincing evidence that mammography is not all that is good as it is, and the FDA is not doing its job in place to protect your health. Instead, they are busy tending to industry and skirting the limits of the law protecting a lucrative business model. This is a tragedy, considering the number of alternatives out there that could help stem the tide of cancer ...

There are a wide variety of prevention and treatment strategies that appear to be safer and more effective than conventional strategies such as mammograms and model of "cut-burn-poison" of cancer treatment ... for more information, see the related articles listed below.

Source: Dr. Mercola through actual Pharmacy

Thanks for Reading 40 Women With Breast Cancer Had This “Cosmetic Ingredient” in Their Tissues

Thank you for reading this 40 Women With Breast Cancer Had This “Cosmetic Ingredient” in Their Tissues, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.

You are now reading the article 40 Women With Breast Cancer Had This “Cosmetic Ingredient” in Their Tissues Url Address https://healthnbeautyarticles.blogspot.com/2013/08/40-women-with-breast-cancer-had-this.html