The Wellness Forum offers educational programs designed to assist individuals in changing their health outcomes through improved diet and lifestyle habits, mainly Plant Based Nutrition. 

Starting in March, they will be offering Wellness 101 via conference calls. The series will be taught in eight one-hour sessions and we will start a new series every few weeks.  Dr. Popper will be teaching many of these sessions, along with other Wellness Forum staff.  

The calls are live and interactive and open to all current members, even if you already took 101 through a facilitator, a corporation, or other means. The next series is scheduled to start Wednesday March 23 at 8:00 p.m. EDT and run for 8 consecutive weeks:

Wednesdays March 23, 30, April 6, 13, 20, 27, May 4, 11

For questions or to register, call the office at 614-841-7700.  Please let them know that Gretchen Goel referred you!

I will not be contributing money or even “Racing for the Cure” as I’ve stopped participating in this madness since becoming more educated about the cancer industry several years ago.

One thing I discovered after my first cancer charity race was that the majority of these organizations support research that uses animal testing.  Animals undergo unimaginable torture for long periods of time for a cure that will never be found as long as the cancer industry remains a multibillion dollar industry. 

Some people will argue that animals need to be tested for the sake of saving human lives.  Does this make sense when animal tests have been proven to be misleading and potentially dangerous for the evaluation of prescription drugs for human use?   Animals react differently than human beings because they are different from humans.

Tests on animals must be tried out on man through clinical trials before a drug can be considered safe.  Diseases evoked in experiments are not the same as those brought about naturally.  Hundreds of thousands of animals die each year just through vivisection alone.  It is a waste of animal life and a waste of time and money. You can read more about it on the PCRM website.

Pam Popper, Director of the Wellness Forum, has written a beautiful article that talks about where your money really goes when you support the Pink Ribbon campaign and how you can chose to invest your money where it will make a difference in true cancer prevention.  She also explains how much of the prevention through “Early Detection” that is promoted is not really preventing cancer at all.

Endorsement With Time and Money
By Pam Popper, ND 

This article is sure to generate some controversy, but I am motivated to write it anyway based on my very strong convictions about this issue.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This annual, month-long campaign was developed by the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. The company controls most of the ads, pamphlets and other information disseminated to the public, and the campaign focuses on early detection of breast cancer through mammography. Not much, if any attention, is paid to prevention. This is not surprising since AstraZenenca benefits greatly every time a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer. The company manufactures Tamoxifen, the most widely prescribed breast cancer drug in the world. Incidentally, it also makes acetochlor, a carcinogenic herbicide increasingly suspected as being a cause of breast cancer.

Consumers are urged to do many things in conjunction with breast cancer awareness month. In addition to getting a mammogram, women are encouraged to wear pins with pink ribbons, and to donate money to organizations that fund cancer research. Companies are instructed to place pink ribbons on everything from clothing to office supplies. And there are races, competitions and other activities designed to draw attention to the issue. I think it is very important before you “Think Pink” to investigate and determine what you are really supporting when you participate in these activities and whether or not participation keeps you in integrity with your belief system.

Race for the Cure and other activities are sponsored by lots of different organizations, ranging from the American Cancer Society to the Susan Komen Foundation. I truly believe that the people that work for these organizations think that they are doing something worthwhile. But, the scientific evidence just does not confirm the efficacy of their recommendations.

Take the recommendation to get a mammogram, for example. All women over the age of 40 are encouraged to get a mammogram, but even younger women considered at risk are urged to do so as well. Radiologists at the University of Guttingen in Germany, however, have stated that women with genetic predispositions to develop cancer should avoid mammograms. The reason – low-dose X-rays used in mammograms are almost 3 times as effective in mutating genes in human cells as conventional X-rays. Their advice is for high-risk women to insist on other, safer screening techniques. (1)

And, the National Academy of Sciences has stated that even low doses of radiation pose an increased risk of cancer (2). The cumulative radiation damage to DNA from yearly mammograms increases the risk of breast cancer in later years (3).

One meta-analysis of randomized trials in 1997 showed that screening women between the ages of 40 and 49 resulted in an increase in deaths from breast cancer for the first ten years after the screenings began (4). Another study involving 40,000 women from Canada found breast cancer mortality to be equal between a group receiving annual mammograms and another that had just a physical examination annually (5).

Dr. Ralph Moss is currently writing a series in his newsletter about this issue with equally disturbing information about the advisability of mammograms. To access his editorials, please visit http://www.cancerdecisions.com/.

In addition to the advice about screening, many of these organizations recommend mastectomy, prophylactic mastectomy for women with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations, chemotherapy, radiation, and follow-up treatments such as Tamoxifen, even when these treatments show little to no benefit for most women in terms of long-term survival.

Many breast-cancer awareness events and campaigns are promoted by companies that manufacture products that contain cancer-causing agents. The organizations that take money from these companies are inadvertently assisting in perpetuating increases in the cancer rates through use of these products, increases in the number of women who are subjected to disfiguring and life-shortening treatments, all while these companies and organizations give the public appearance of being quite philanthropic.

For example, Avon is the largest corporate funding source for the Komen Foundation and for breast cancer in general. However, Avon manufactures cosmetic products that contain parabens, phthalates and other chemicals that are known endocrine disruptors.

Some of the largest contributors to breast cancer research are those that sell the most toxic products or who stand to gain the most from treatment in those diagnosed. For example, Estee Lauder Companies and Roche Oncology each donate over a million dollars to The Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and AstraZeneca donates between $100,000 and a million dollars as well.

This is why I choose not to run in 5K races that benefit traditional cancer research and treatment, and not to attend fundraisers, wine tastings, and other events that benefit these organizations as well. Although my protest is quite small (none of these events has ever been cancelled because I refused to participate) I refuse to have even one dollar or one minute of my time spent rewarding people and organizations such as these. I am not interested in helping companies such as AstraZeneca, and my belief system does not include prophylactic mastectomy, radiation following lumpectomy, and suppression of promising cancer treatments that are quite successful in other countries.

I would enjoy attending many of these events, and I am under considerable pressure in many instances to participate from well-meaning people who are either trying to help, or just want to have fun also.

But the older I get, the more conscious I become of the fact that everything I do, every penny I spend, even where I am seen, is an endorsement of something, and, for me, the endorsement has to be in integrity with my belief system. I want to endorse health promotion, true prevention, and appropriate treatment, and perhaps someday I’ll sponsor my own series of events for this purpose.

I believe in free choice, and have no interest in talking anyone out of doing anything – whether it be participating in a 5K or undergoing mastectomy. But I also believe in informed choice, and have encountered too many people who simply don’t know much about the beneficiaries of their investment of time and/or money. This article is simply to help people to become more informed investors.

1.www.medicalnewstoday.com/newsid=13423
2.Edwards, R, “Risk of mammograms for certain women,” Times-Herald Record Middletown NY November 12, 2002
3.Gofman, J, Preventing Breast Cancer: The Story of a Major, Proven, Preventable Cause of this Disease, CNR Bk Div 1996, Committee for Nuclear Responsibility
4.Wolfe, S. “Breast Cancer News Info About Screening Mammography and Genetics,” Health Letter vol 20, #1, Jan 2004, Public Citizen Health Research Group
5.Spanier, B, “Do Annual Mammograms Save Lives,” CRABB vol 6 # 3 Summer 2004

“….sending Earth Day thanks to Gretchen Goel for introducing us to a plant-based diet. Since switching three years ago, we’ve saved our Earth an estimated 12,000 pounds in CO2 emissions. Also lost: 40 pounds and 50 cholesterol points. Happily gained: our best health ever (none of the four of us with anything more than …a cold in the past two years). Thanks, Gretchen!”

Wow! If I can just reach one person a month who decides to make the changes my friend Jessica did, and if those people reach out to others who make changes too…

Take a look at this chart taken from p. 230 in The China Study by T. Colin Campbell.

ANIMAL-BASED FOODS (PER 500 CALORIES OF ENERGY)

* Equal parts of tomatoes, spinach, lima beans, peas, potatoes
**Equal parts of beef, pork, chicken, whole milk

How much protein do we need anyway?
Westerners are eating WAY too much protein from animal sources. The World Health Organization recommends that only 2-10% of daily calories need to come from protein sources. According to Organic Athlete, “Most Westerners are consuming somewhere in the range of 120-158% more than what is recommended”. America continues to be the sickest population on the planet with exploding rates of obesity, Type II Diabetes, and heart disease. Yet the healthiest populations, as outlined in The China Study by T. Colin Campbell, are the ones eating a diet that is based on plants.

How can a plant based diet change the destiny of our planet?
Factory Farms are the greatest contributor of pollution on the planet. Animals require tons of resources to raise for slaughter and they pollute with tons of urine and manure up until their violent death. It takes an estimated 4.8 pounds of grain, 390 gallons of water, and .25 gallons of gasoline to produce a pound of beef. We are also shortening their natural lifespan. According to the Humane Society, the lifespan of cattle averages 9 to 12 year. However, “Cattle raised for beef are typically weaned at 6 to 10 months, live 3 to 5 months on range, spend 4 to 5 months being fattened in a feedlot, and are typically slaughtered at 15 to 20 months”

Most people have no idea about the horrors that go on in a slaughter house and how the energy of these animals who are scared and stressed their entire life from being pinned up in a cage and treated like filth is carried on to the final product on the supermarket shelf or the latest dish at the local fast food chain. Why do we treat farm animals like commodities? They are living, breathing animals with personalities that deserve the same kind of respect as our pets. Imagine raising a cow in your backyard from the time it was born. Could you kill it when it was year and half old and put it’s meat in your freezer and refrigerator? No way! Most of us would give it a name and become attached to feeding it every day.  The same example could be used for chickens, ducks and pigs.

Make a conscious choice to reduce the amount of animal products you consume. Your health and the future of our planet depend on it.

Check out The China Study for overwhelming scientific evidence of the health benefits of a plant based diet.