The promotion and marketing of breast cancer has been rapidly increasing, programming unsuspecting minds with the possibility of becoming a statistic. The pink ribbon symbol is widespread, to be found in even the most unexpected places. We are gradually being inundated with pink merchandise sold or given away in support of breast cancer awareness, such as seen in the pinkribbonshop.com. The NFL has an online store—NFL Breast Cancer Awareness Gear! There is a Barbie doll called the Pink Ribbon™ Barbie® Doll. There is breast cancer awareness toilet paper with pink ribbons all over it, and of course breast cancer awareness toothbrushes. The public is led to believe that being in possession of such items will promote an awareness of this pandemic, and it does. Instead it has an adverse effect.
Breast cancer is at an all-time high, despite ongoing research, as vast amounts of dollars continue to be poured into research and marketing. This increase is due to the upsurge of fear in women. The fear of encountering this life-shattering experience overshadows many women’s lives. Women are continuously reminded of the possibility of this demise unless they succumb to the suggestions of the marketing game. They are encouraged to have regular breast exams, especially after entering the age bracket of 30 and older. The suggested age used to be over 40 but this is gradually being rolled back.
Breast cancer warning signs are everywhere! Women of all ages live in fear of being the next victim, while being urged to be hyper-aware. Breast cancer has become the boogieman, as daughters, mothers, grandmothers, friends and lovers are warned to be ever-so-vigilant, checking in dark places for the impartial assailant. Celebrities and television personalities are paraded before us on television screens and billboards to remind us that, if it happened to them, it surely can happen to you. The slogans range from “Race for the Cure” to “I am a survivor.” Advertisers continue to promote mammograms and soy products for women, both of which increase the possibility of disharmony to the body. Women diagnosed with breast cancer are increasingly removing healthy breasts for fear of developing cancer in the other breast. Some are also removing their breast before any potential diagnosis. Below is an excerpt from an article by Tara Parker-Pope titled, “After Cancer, Women Remove Healthy Breast.”
1.For decades, advocates have fought to protect women from disfiguring breast cancer surgery, arguing that it was just as effective to remove only the cancerous tissue rather than the whole breast.
But today, a growing number of women with breast cancer are pushing surgeons in a startling new direction. Not only do they want the cancerous breast removed, but they also want the healthy breast cut off.
“I just didn’t want to worry about it,” explained Liliana Holtzman, 50, an art director in Ann Arbor, Mich., who had both breasts removed after a cancer diagnosis five years ago. “It was for my own peace of mind. I wanted to do everything I could.”
The percentage of women asking to remove both breasts after a cancer diagnosis has more than doubled in recent years. Over all, about 6 percent of women undergoing surgery for breast cancer in 2006 opted for the procedure, formally known as contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Among women in their 40s who underwent breast cancer surgery, one in 10 opted to have both breasts removed, according to a University of Minnesota study presented last week in St. Louis at the annual meeting of the Society of Surgical Oncology.
Surprisingly, the practice is also more popular among women with the earliest, most curable forms of cancer. Among women who had surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ, sometimes called Stage 0 cancer or precancer, the rate of double mastectomy rose to 5.2 percent in 2005, from 2.1 percent in 1998, according to a 2009 study in The Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Women with a known genetic risk for breast cancer can lower the chances of developing it by having both breasts removed before cancer appears. But for most women given a diagnosis of breast cancer, cutting off a healthy breast does not improve the odds of survival.
Perhaps the biggest contributor to this increase is fear. This article aims to spotlight a programmed experience directed to a particular area of the body, as well as to shed light on the programming of one’s mind. Let us be very aware that a woman’s breasts represent the nurturing bosom of a mother. They represent the female archetype, the mother, the nurturer. They are not simply tools for marketing, using sex to sell products. The breasts are more than sculpted objects to be maintained by surgical enhancements for sheer visual effect. The increased rate of removal of a woman’s breasts symbolizes the longstanding dismissal and lack of the nurturing frequency of the feminine in our world. T
he woman represents the feminine vibration and the womb of humanity. The world has been functioning on an estrogen deficiency with an excess of testosterone. Breast cancer is said to be a result of excessive estrogen and a stagnation of blood circulation according to a number of researchers including Dr. John R. Lee. This imbalance has been reflected in our world for quite some time. The outer is a reflection of the inner. Ours has been a masculine-dominated experience in this collective experience called reality. There seem to be well-disguised saboteurs, or perhaps not disguised, but with the spell cast over the minds of the masses they remain hidden in plain sight. Are there unseen hands working fervently to suppress the return of the feminine vibration, to maintain the disruption of an essential balance that once existed?
The system of controllers operates in layers or in a hierarchical format. This allows a filtration of layers directing one’s attention away from the root cause or from the initiator/s of the agenda. This increasing ritual of breast removal is comparable to mothers without breasts, who are unable to produce breast milk for their babies. From breast milk flow life-giving properties supporting health and strong immune support against foreign invaders of the body. Mother’s milk can greatly establish a foundation of health during the growth of a child beyond puberty. What is also interesting is that breastfeeding is known to be the mother’s best defense against breast cancer. So there is much irony here in the increasing practice of the removal of a woman’s breast. This analogy strongly applies to the spiritual growth of humanity. Both masculine and feminine energies, positive and negative charges are essential in the growth process of the collective or an individual. It is the yin and yang seen throughout all expressions of life as currently understood. There is such subtlety in the reprogramming process, to a point that if the establishment were to plant the idea of the unimportance of women’s breasts, encouraging an entire society to remove them, over a period of years this would be widely accepted without question.
The Race For The Cure:
7. The "Race for the Cure" scam exposed: The cancer industry's guilt-powered shakedown of a gullible public By Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
You've probably seen billboards that proclaim "Race for the Cure." There are a multitude of false presuppositions in this statement, but let's start with the obvious -- the myth that there is a "cure" to the disease being fought by the race. Let's take breast cancer as the disease of choice, for example. The slogan on these billboards presupposes that there is a chemical cure for breast cancer just waiting to be discovered, and if we could just turn over enough rocks, we could find this magical cure and all live happily ever after without breast cancer.
This presupposition is just plain wrong. There is no chemical cure for breast cancer because breast cancer is not a germ-based infectious disease in the first place; it's just a name given to an observable pattern of symptoms that are indicative of cellular malfunction and a systemic failure of the immune system in a human being. There is no breast cancer disease in the same sense that there is malaria, AIDS or cholera. Breast cancer is a name given to the side effects of poor health that just happen to emerge first in the breast tissues.
It is also ridiculous to imply that if we all race enough, run enough miles or walk enough steps, then somehow a chemical cure will magically be found. Of course, we have to raise money while we're running around in circles in order to find this elusive cure, but that's the whole point, isn't it? To raise money and donate that money to various nonprofit groups that actually function as front groups for the cancer industry, which is all about Big Business and big profits. If money actually solved cancer, the disease would have been solved long ago, because billions of dollars have already been poured into research for this fictitious disease, and still, there are no solutions.
In exploring the encoded implications of the breast cancer marketing campaign it should be strongly realized that the bodies of most human beings remain continually in the fight-or-flight mode, which means that we are always in survival mode. This is a physiological chemical state controlled by the limbic system. Many of us are therefore functioning in endless shock mode. Shock is continuously charged by outside stimuli, such as the assault of breast cancer marketing. The potential for breast cancer is stimulated in the body by this message. Below are excerpts from an article by Dorothy M. Neddermeyer, PhD., which explains the discoveries of Dr. Hamer in reference to trauma and shock as triggers for cancer. The article is titled, “The Fight Against Breast Cancer: Breast Cancer On The Rise.”
2. Dr Hamer discovered that like himself, every one of his patients had gone through a very stressful episode prior to being diagnosed with cancer, and, upon investigating other diseases found that every disease is controlled from its own specific area in the brain and linked to a very particular, identifiable, “conflict shock.”
Dr. Hamer based his theory on five biological laws that apply scientifically to each and every case of disease. They include:
1. Any cancer starts with a traumatic event, that is to say, an extremely brutal shock, a dramatic and acute conflict, experienced in loneliness and sensed by the patient as the most serious he has ever known.
2. It is the subjective meaning of the conflict, the way the patient experienced it at the moment of the traumatic event, its coloring, which determines:
a) Hamer’s focus, that is, the specific area of the brain, which, under the influence of the psychic trauma, suffers a breakdown and thus induces an ill-proliferation of cells (cancer) in the organ dependent on this short circuited cerebral area;
b) The location of the cancer in the organism.
3. There is exact correlation between the evolution of the conflict and the evolution of the cancer on a double level: cerebral and organic. http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/hamer.html
To further explain Dr. Hamer’s thesis, the brain has neurons, which have specialized projections called dendrites and axons. Dendrites bring information to the cell body and axons take information away from the cell body. Information from one neuron flows to another neuron across a synapse. The synapse is a small gap separating neurons. The synapse consists of:
1. a presynaptic ending that contains neurotransmitters, mitochondria and other cell organelles,
2. a postsynaptic ending that contains receptor sites for neurotransmitters and,
3. a synaptic cleft or space between the presynaptic and postsynaptic endings.
Nothing can be healed through a process of ‘fighting against it.’ First we need to look at how reality is created. Thoughts are created in the mind and feelings follow. Thoughts and feelings are impulses of energy. The human body is made up of trillions of cells. Cells of the nervous system, called nerve cells or neurons, are specialized to carry “messages” through an electrochemical process. The human brain has approximately 100 billion neurons.
Marketing continuously suggests that we are fighting for a cure or fighting for peace. The implication of struggle is always present, but struggle or chaos is also a necessary part of reformation and growth. As they say, we must choose our battles. Most of what we cling to is cultural programming. We are part of the human cult, experienced through smaller franchises such as our environmental and social cultures. We are faced with conditioning such as pink is for girls and blue is for boys. Did we ever wonder where this science came from? What or who exactly established these codes that lead us to automatic gender assumptions when certain colors are presented? This becomes an important question in examining the encoded pink ribbon symbol for breast cancer. Most of us grew up with an automatic acceptance of the color and gender assignment, but surprisingly the pink and blue gender assignment was not always this way. According to Wikipedia:
3. In Western culture, the practice of assigning pink to an individual gender began in the 1920s or earlier. From then until the 1940s, pink was considered appropriate for boys because being related to red it was the more masculine and decided color, while blue was considered appropriate for girls because it was the more delicate and dainty color, or related to the Virgin Mary. Since the 1940s, the societal norm was inverted; pink became considered appropriate for girls and blue appropriate for boys, a practice that has continued into the 21st century.
• Men imprisoned on accusations of homosexuality or same-sex sexual activity were forced to wear a pink triangle. Nowadays, an inverted pink triangle is often worn with pride.
• A Dutch newsgroup about homosexuality is called nl.roze (roze being the Dutch word for pink), while in Britain, Pink News is a leading gay newspaper and online news service. There is a magazine called Pink for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual (LGBT) community which has different editions for various metropolitan areas. In France Pink TV is an LGBT cable channel.
• In business, the pink pound or pink dollar refers to the spending power of the LGBT community. Advertising agencies sometimes call the gay market the pink economy.
There is much analysis that can be done here in assessing the fact that the colors were reversed. For now a more important realization is that pink is a mixture of red and white. We are tossed symbol after symbol from the moment of birth, most of which we do not question. Everything is coded. These symbols aid in regulating our lives by reminding us of vast cult codes present in preschool, relationships, education and spiritual beliefs, right through to the work world. Our minds are programmed and reprogrammed at the whim of these societal overlords. In the case of the pink ribbon, are codes simply overlaid with new codes? Are we marching to the beat of both sets of codes? The subtlety of the switching of codes is genius, as we seldom notice the change taking place before us or in us. The unaware and unquestioning individual simply becomes a lab rat whose mind is ripe for the insertion of new codes, symbols and reality constructs of someone else’s design. When one is blind to the workings of savvy players one will more easily accept the transitions taking place. Those who question deeply always oppose being marched into manipulated conversion.
With the color pink being a combination of red and white, it symbolizes the decrease in red blood cells essential for carrying oxygen to the body. Instead the red is diluted by white signifying a greater amount of white blood cells. Infections and high stress can cause a high count of white blood cells (WBCs), which decreases the normal supply of red blood cells (RBCs), the carriers of oxygen. Being aware that high stress can impact the body in this manner, resulting in “pink,” we realize the ongoing stress triggered by this kind of “pink” marketing. One may argue that they are simply making people aware of breast cancer and early detection. But this kind of marketing of “BC awareness” has yet to provide solutions other than an awareness that there is still no cure! So what are women and families left with? Fear! Fear births stress! Not only does it birth stress but the mind begins to construct the very thing that we fear. The imagination goes into full swing. When my sister-in-law died of breast cancer in 1996 one of the last things that she said to me (understand that this was coming from someone who was not steeped in deep spiritual insights) was “I kept saying that I had breast cancer until I finally got it. I know that I brought it forth”. Her imagination went into overdrive in manifesting her fear. This overdose of focus on breast cancer is like a horror movie. It’s like the blob growing out of control. Who established this kind of heavy marketing and why?! Was the color pink selected based on the simple fact that pink is the chosen female color code? One begins to question the motives and detailed assessments made in making decisions involving the general populous.
Breast cancer continues to be one of the more highly funded diseases receiving over $750 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2009. This amount does not include additional private funding. In an article titled, “BREAST CANCER: Wishes, Lies and Profits,” Marilyn Kaggen exposes facts kept from the general public in the following excerpt: (article written in 1992) http://www.purewatergazette.net/kaggen.htm
4.Warnings about the risks of mammography have continued to come from highly qualified critics. Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and director of the activist group People Against Cancer Dr. Samuel Epstein advises: "Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early cancer, especially if you are pre-menopausal. The x-rays may actuality increase your chances of getting cancer." In 1988 Professor of Radiology Dr. John H. Gohagan predicted that lowering the recommended age of mass mammography from 50 to 40 would increase radiation-induced breast cancer by about 300%. And Dr. Skrabanek admonished that women were not being told about the potential risk of getting breast cancer from the very test that is supposed to detect it.
While radiation exposure from mammography has supposedly decreased since the 1970s, due to improved equipment and techniques, the actual exposure a woman gets from a given machine can vary considerably. A 1988 FDA survey of mammography facilities revealed inconsistencies, with an alarming number of machines using much higher than necessary doses. Modern medicine has no idea what exposures to breast tissue are safe and will not induce breast cancer. Biostatistician Irwin Bross, in 1977 congressional testimony, charged that "The big science federal agencies, their industrial constituencies, and their allies . . . have been lying to the public about hazards of low-level ionizing radiation for 25 years." International relations expert Dr. John W. Gofman writes of "evidence . . . growing ever stronger that the cancer risk per rad of dose is worse in the low-dose range than in the high-dose range." We do know that the damage from radiation is cumulative and that the breast contains the human tissue that--second only to fetal tissue--is most sensitive to it.
Mammography is hazardous and ineffective, and we can't even say we haven't been warned. Dr Irwin Bross, testifying before a congressional subcommittee investigating the BCDP in 1977, predicted ". . exposure to diagnostic x-ray will probably result in the worst iatrogenic (medically caused) epidemic in breast cancer history."
The article continues to explore the surge in the sale of breast cancer merchandise and the increase in patients during the month of October; the month selected for breast cancer awareness.
5. "This month is terrific," said Nick Zaharias, vice president for philanthropy and marketing at Lawrence General Hospital. "We have seven major events. We had a breakfast at the Lawrence Senior Center with 200 guests and a fashion show with 400 guests, and our messaging around these events is all about the importance of breast cancer awareness."
He said the result is that the average number of mammograms at the hospital's cancer-screening unit increases from 650 a month to 850 or 900.
"We have a free breast clinic going on right now, and it's packed," Zaharias said, "Every October we have an uptick."
A great deception lies behind the intense marketing of this life-stealing affliction. People are driven to desperation through fear and forced to continue turning to the very system responsible for the projections through which their lives play out. They are reminded to get sick and to die. Their fate will be in the hands of the food and drugs approved and marketed, until they begin to decline them. The following is an excerpt from an article titled, “The Food & Drug Administration (FDA),” by Barry Lynes:
6. In 1967, FDA stopped the use of an experimental cancer vaccine which was producing significant results. It was developed by H. James Rand, inventor of the heart defibrillator. J. Ernest Ayre, an internationally recognized cancer specialist (co-developer of the PAP test) and Dr. Norbert Czajkowski of Detroit, Michigan assisted Rand. Treating only terminal cancer patients, the Rand vaccine produced objective improvement in 35% of 600 patients while another 30% demonstrated subjective improvement. "One 65 year old woman with spreading tumor" was "completely cured in 4 months." Another woman with extensive breast cancer was cured in 6 months. The FDA stopped the vaccine's use in a federal court hearing where neither the cancer patients nor their doctors were allowed to testify. When U.S. Senator Stephen Young of Ohio protested, it was to no avail. Senator Young could get nowhere with FDA Commissioner James L. Goddard. Senator Young recalled:
"I could not move them. They would not even agree to a modification of the ruling (banning the Rand vaccine), which would at least allow the 100 (cancer) patients at Richmond Heights (Ohio) to complete their injections. The Justice Department was prepared to go along, but the FDA Commissioner, Dr. James Goddard, was adamant, even belligerent. It's wrong of the government to snatch away this hope when there is no evidence against its use offered in court. It's damnably wrong."
It is known that when FDA Commissioner Goddard's own wife had serious health problems and orthodox medicine could not help her, Goddard contacted alternative health practitioners who quietly healed his wife. But for the suffering victims of cancer who needed the Rand vaccine or some other nontraditional treatment, Goddard lowered the boom, using the federal courts to enforce his dictum. Such are the ways of the FDA.
Goddard's greatest disservice to the American people was his persecution of DMSO, a simple molecule which often brought miraculous pain relief and offered numerous possibilities for medical advancement in other areas, including cancer. One respected science writer suggested that Goddard crushed DMSO research in order to gain increased police powers from Congress. The FDA has never admitted its errors regarding DMSO although the positive studies from qualified scientists number over a thousand while the FDA's criticisms have been shown to be almost completely based on lies or unsubstantiated rumors. Yet by the late 1980s, twenty years later, the FDA continues to imprison DMSO advocates. The malignity of Goddard's arbitrary and conscienceless acts in 1966-1968 against reputable scientists, dedicated doctors and the public good is one of the darkest chapters of FDA history.
No one is sure of the real reasons why it happened and why it continues to be covered up twenty years later. It has been suggested that one or more drug companies sabotaged DMSO because it threatened so many of their profitable products. One drug company executive reportedly told the leading DMSO researcher:
"I don't care if it is the major drug of our century - and we all know it is - it isn't worth it to us."
Who had the power to keep such a miraculous drug off the shelves? Surely not just an FDA Commissioner flexing his muscle. Was it a combination of drug companies whose individual profits were threatened by the miracle drug's possibilities?
"(It is) not our (FDA) policy to jeopardize the financial interests of the pharmaceutical companies." - from testimony before Congress of Dr. Charles C. Edwards, at the time Commissioner of the FDA
It has also been surmised that FDA Commissioner Goddard used DMSO in 1966 in an attempt to become the medical dictator of America. In the years that followed, FDA officials simply refused to expose the agency's "dirty laundry." Hence the on-going suppression of what many recognize as "the major drug of the century."
In any case, Goddard instilled fear into honest researchers and physicians as no previous FDA Commissioner had done. He ruined careers. He introduced an intensified police force mentality into FDA with his emphasis on hiring ex T-men and G-men. He consciously blacklisted scientists as punishment for opposing him. And members of his agency, either with his encouragement or his acquiescence, openly began ignoring the Constitution for the sake of promotions and power.
In examining the approach of the spiritual, new age or conscious community, it is evident that they too are impacted by this projected experience. It is clear that there are other factors involved in one’s potential journey down this path. Cancer is ultimately the result of certain emotional confines and withholdings, which eventually express themselves as various forms of cancer or other illnesses. The external fears imposed by the marketing companies ignite or impact already suppressed fears, eventually causing a reaction such as an eruption or blockage in the body.
For some the practice of release work with a professional has assisted the body in moving through these blockages. Others simply accept their fate and potential outcome of succumbing to the disease. For others it is a spiritual transformation they believe they must endure. No matter what the validation may be, it is clear that something has occurred in the life of the individual to activate those potentials within the body. Again we are dealing with the activation of bloodline and ancestral programs. Many possibilities are latent in the body and will only be activated by certain conditions imposed on the body. Most often there are fears about experiencing the health conditions of one’s mother or father, or a sibling, or even a grandparent. As stated above “Women with a known genetic risk for breast cancer can lower the chances of developing it by having both breasts removed before cancer appears.” Families operate based on patterns and programs from the simplest actions to more pronounced rituals. Such things can vary from diet to the way we think. They can also include religious or spiritual beliefs, or one’s general belief system. Such patterns form a network or an inner matrix, which re-presents itself throughout the bloodline and becomes encoded into the genetics of that lineage if strongly rooted.
In these coded patterns are latent conditions that will only become active when triggered by certain suggestions. In consciously deciding the condition of your body, questioning your perception or belief system about health is a necessary start. In so doing you may encounter echoes from your past where your mother perhaps made statements that stuck with you. Growing up we all heard statements, phrases and comments, from our mothers, fathers, siblings and the people we trusted, that have disabled our lives. There is fear in reflecting on your mother’s words of warning about any number of things, and so you live cautiously, in fear of being victimized by that about which you received relentless warning. We spend much time running away and guarding ourselves against potential threats to our health and ultimate demise of our life-breath. We experiment with an endless number of precautionary methods. This is also a stressful process on the body and on the mind.
Humanity is positioned in a thrust mode for an upsurge in consciousness, and one can choose this direction. The concluding cycle of our times carries with it an increasing cancer and health theme. Everything ultimately peaks or tops off. The focus should not be on external projections but rather on the reality one wishes to create, the unfolding of one’s journey. Creating new holograms, those not based on latent ancestral and bloodline codes, would be the next step. This does not mean that one won’t be presented with the illusion of threatening potentials, but the choice of non-acceptance is an option. It is possible to decline, not based on fear, but based simply on the realization that it is not a necessary experience for you.
For some it will require standing your ground. When standing your ground under such circumstances, in order to cement your declining, you must know without a doubt that the experience is no longer necessary for you. You will need to examine your thoughts and beliefs in order to finally conclude that you really do not need this experience. Most often subconsciously we believe that we are deserving of the experience. We see it as karma. If you are routinely getting your checkup at the doctor you must also examine the root beliefs of this pattern. Is there a deep-rooted fear about your health that you are hoping to catch in time by getting regular checkups? What are you checking for? Or are you simply following the accepted protocol for good health? These are questions that must be dealt with in order to override the triggers. This article is in no way encouraging anyone to toss aside their methods of maintaining health, and that includes their doctor visits and medications.
Your choices will be your own based on an examination of your rituals, routines, fears, and concerns. We always have a choice in the shaping of our lives. Our image of reality is based on our observation of it. Your perception is the lens through which you will view, accept and define reality. What is the belief system through which your perception is filtered? You are the one pulling the strings, regardless of the marketing companies and the illusion of external control. Marketing and external projections can only appear to affect us when we take it in through our limited filters and beliefs. Even then you still have a choice. This article is about bringing awareness to the hypnosis and programming to which we have succumbed at the expense of our own life force. It is all an essential experience, but perhaps this article is meant for you because you might no longer need to experience that particular process. In the end, as always, we are in a grand game and marketing is a significant aspect of the game, wielded by those who control, hypnotize and brainwash. It is up to the aware game player to reexamine his or her playbook, and perhaps it’s time to change one’s position in the game.
1.Tara Parker-Pope titled After Cancer, Women Remove Healthy Breast
2. The Fight Against Breast Cancer: Breast Cancer On The Rise
4. BREAST CANCER: Wishes, Lies and Profits by Marilyn Kaggen
5. Breast cancer awareness products have become big business By Bill Kirk
6. The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) by Barry Lynes
7. The "Race for the Cure" scam exposed: The cancer industry's guilt-powered shakedown of a gullible public
©2019 Sonia Barrett