(NaturalNews) February is Cancer Prevention Month, though you might never guess it given the lack of publicity compared to attention given to the non-profits who focus on "finding a cure" as part of "Cancer Awareness" campaigns. The biggest of all the cancer non-profits is the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which has over 100 "Race for the Cure" and other events scheduled for 2013.
As this $400 million per year giant pink gorilla of cancer charities continues to grow, the question that begs answering is: "Is the Komen Foundation really running for a cure or are they instead running mostly to keep their foundation going and the money flowing in?"
After all, you would think that any serious effort to find a cure for breast cancer or any other form of cancer would center on the role of toxins, which are increasingly recognized as far and away the major cause of cancer. Yet, in the Komen Foundation's lengthy list of risk factors, not a mention is made of risks posed by exposure to toxins.
Looking for a cure or "pinkwashing" for the sake of money?
A look at the corporate sponsors and stock ownership of the Komen Foundation might provide at least a partial answer to why toxins aren't mentioned. Is it a coincidence that prominent Komen Foundation sponsors includes food and cosmetic companies whose products, GMOs and other toxins contribute to cancer?
One notable example of corporate sponsors for the Komen Foundation is food giant General Mills, which is listed among the Komen Million Dollar Elite Club. General Mills recently spent over $1 million on another cause - the successful corporate effort to defeat the California GMO labeling initiative. There is also the new campaign between Komen and Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Furthermore, though mammograms have come under increasing scrutiny for causing cancer and leading to unnecessary surgeries and treatments, the Komen foundation gives lip service to the "debate over mammograms" and continues to promote mammograms as an important screening tool. Is it likewise a coincidence that the Komen Foundation owns stock in General Electric, a huge Komen sponsor and one of the largest manufacturers of mammography machines in the world? Or that Dupont, a leading maker of mammography film, is also a sponsor?
If the Komen Foundation were truly running to find a cure, would it not make sense that they would be keenly interested in how a woman beat terminal breast cancer? In at least one instance, the Komen Foundation instead ran right on by one woman who tried to contact them to tell them how she used natural therapies to beat what mainstream doctors had said was terminal cancer.
When the woman used alternative treatments to beat metastatic breast cancer that had been deemed terminal, she immediately faxed, called and emailed dozens of people at the Susan G. Komen foundation as well as the media and other foundations "to let them know they can stop running."
"I was shocked, betrayed, appalled and sickened that no one in the research department would call me back. I beat my disease, and no one cared, not a one. No media, no doctor, no foundation gave (me) the time of day."
"The advocacy group I used stated that all foundations were like this."
"They don't really want to find a cure, they want to keep searching and doing experiments so that they can keep their jobs."
Sadly, the huge cancer industry cannot continue its jobs, profits and expansion if cancer is prevented or actually cured - and that includes charities who "pinkwash" the truth for the sake of money. Sources:
Tony Isaacs, is a natural health author, advocate and researcher who hosts The Best Years in Life website for those who wish to avoid prescription drugs and mainstream managed illness and live longer, healthier and happier lives naturally. Mr. Isaacs is the author of books and articles about natural health, longevity and beating cancer including "Cancer's Natural Enemy" and is working on a major book project due to be published later this year.