Re: OT - National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up

[Guest guest]

I would like to add my own observations regarding possible causes of breast cancer, if I may. I noticed many years ago that the slight pains I would get almost daily in my breasts and underarms would disappear when I removed my bra for extended periods of time (like over a weekend, when I was just staying around the house, or when I was in bed with a cold or a flu for a few days). This discovery, along with hearing and reading about how people who discovered lumps in their breasts were immediately sent to get their lymph nodes from under their arms biopsied, caused me to read up a bit more about lymph nodes and their actual (known) functions at the time.

I discovered that one of the main functions of the lymph nodes is to act as a blood filtering/purifying system. And the lymph nodes under our arm pits, in particular, act in such a way to keep the blood going to our breasts pure and clean.

This set me to thinking about the restrictive qualities of bras, not so much on the breasts themselves, but the part that goes around the upper abdomen and attaches in the back. This part is usually quite snug (it needs to be, to provide the proper solid base for the rest of the garment, otherwise it would slide around and there would be spillage all the time) and, as such, it must restrict blood flow to some degree. And where would this restriction occur, but right under the underarm lymph nodes.

So what are these bras doing to us then? They restrict the flow of blood to the lymph nodes, which in turn need that blood flowing freely in order to perform their purifying functions properly. Just think how the impurities must be clogging things up in there without sufficient blood flow to carry oxygen, nutrients and all the necessary cleansing agents used by the lymph nodes to perform their intended functions properly.

I tested out my theory on myself over and over again. I wore my bra for long stretches and noted the little pains that kept coming and going in my underarms and breasts and how my underarm lymph nodes seemed somewhat swollen when these pains occurred. Then I would stop wearing my bra for weeks and months at a time and realize that these pains absolutely ceased to manifest themselves when I did this. Also, my lymph nodes never felt enlarged either during these times. Just to be sure I was not in the land of " coincidences " , I repeated this experiment many times, at differing time intervals over several years, until I finally convinced myself, that what I was experiencing was not due to any " coincidences " , but purely physiological, cause and effect reactions.

Well, after becoming sure of this, beyond the shadow of a doubt, I stopped wearing my bra almost completely. I only wear it very rarely in the summertime when I need to wear light clothing in public. Then, as soon as I get back home, I remove the bra immediately and massage my underarm lymph nodes for about 5-10 minutes on each side. This has been going on for well over 15 years now. I have not had a single recurrence of pains in my breasts or under my arms in all this time!

It also occurs to me that the allopathic doctors (as usual), tend to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, when they carefully remove all the lymph nodes from under the armpits when they are treating someone for breast cancer. Seems to me they are effectively removing the filtration system that keeps those breasts supplied with clean, life-giving blood. When the trap in the sink gets clogged, you don't throw out the trap, you clean it and make sure it can resume performing its given function again. Why can't these learned men (women) figure this out and stop aggravating the situation by removing women's defense systems (the lymph nodes), instead of finding ways to rectify the damage (eliminate the cause of the obstruction) and improve the situation?

I guess the reason might be because Big Pharma won't make much money on discarded undergarments...HealthseekerOn Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 3:07 AM, Viviane Lerner <vivlerner@...> wrote:

http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org] October 30th, 2008

National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up

For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the month of October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast cancer. No doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less absurd this year than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just that even for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be expected to buy.

While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's women's mags were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic in talking about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a young pretty white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.

I was also pleased to see Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston Globe discussing the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.

She points out that, " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has gone hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About 80,000 synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and their number increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them have been screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in the environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent review by the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources cause breast cancer in animals.

Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors in multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally believed to indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been closely studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene, which is in gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air pollution from vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in paint strippers and glues.

There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural estrogens in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is important to consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer development. Many other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds - chemicals that affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast cancer risk. Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels, plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke, prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care products including sunscreens. "

Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to claim is safe while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important to note that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like the Komen Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink line of clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find a cure for test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have said way too many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be helping fight this disease take money from those whose products are part of the problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until we do that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts and kills women.

=====In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

[Guest guest]

I would like to add my own observations regarding possible causes of

breast cancer, if I may. I noticed many years ago that the slight

pains I would get almost daily in my breasts and underarms would

disappear when I removed my bra for extended periods of time (like

over a weekend, when I was just staying around the house, or when I

was in bed with a cold or a flu for a few days). This discovery, along

with hearing and reading about how people who discovered lumps in

their breasts were immediately sent to get their lymph nodes from

under their arms biopsied, caused me to read up a bit more about lymph

nodes and their actual (known) functions at the time.

I discovered that one of the main functions of the lymph nodes is to

act as a blood filtering/purifying system. And the lymph nodes under

our arm pits, in particular, act in such a way to keep the blood going

to our breasts pure and clean.

This set me to thinking about the restrictive qualities of bras, not

so much on the breasts themselves, but the part that goes around the

upper abdomen and attaches in the back. This part is usually quite

snug (it needs to be, to provide the proper solid base for the rest of

the garment, otherwise it would slide around and there would be

spillage all the time) and, as such, it must restrict blood flow to

some degree. And where would this restriction occur, but right under

the underarm lymph nodes.

So what are these bras doing to us then? They restrict the flow of

blood to the lymph nodes, which in turn need that blood flowing freely

in order to perform their purifying functions properly. Just think how

the impurities must be clogging things up in there without sufficient

blood flow to carry oxygen, nutrients and all the necessary cleansing

agents used by the lymph nodes to perform their intended functions

properly.

I tested out my theory on myself over and over again. I wore my bra

for long stretches and noted the little pains that kept coming and

going in my underarms and breasts and how my underarm lymph nodes

seemed somewhat swollen when these pains occurred. Then I would stop

wearing my bra for weeks and months at a time and realize that these

pains absolutely ceased to manifest themselves when I did this. Also,

my lymph nodes never felt enlarged either during these times. Just to

be sure I was not in the land of " coincidences " , I repeated this

experiment many times, at differing time intervals over several years,

until I finally convinced myself, that what I was experiencing was not

due to any " coincidences " , but purely physiological, cause and effect

reactions.

Well, after becoming sure of this, beyond the shadow of a doubt, I

stopped wearing my bra almost completely. I only wear it very rarely

in the summertime when I need to wear light clothing in public. Then,

as soon as I get back home, I remove the bra immediately and massage

my underarm lymph nodes for about 5-10 minutes on each side. This has

been going on for well over 15 years now. I have not had a single

recurrence of pains in my breasts or under my arms in all this time!

It also occurs to me that the allopathic doctors (as usual), tend to

be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, when they carefully

remove all the lymph nodes from under the armpits when they are

treating someone for breast cancer. Seems to me they are effectively

removing the filtration system that keeps those breasts supplied with

clean, life-giving blood. When the trap in the sink gets clogged, you

don't throw out the trap, you clean it and make sure it can resume

performing its given function again. Why can't these learned men

(women) figure this out and stop aggravating the situation by removing

women's defense systems (the lymph nodes), instead of finding ways to

rectify the damage (eliminate the cause of the obstruction) and

improving the situation?

I guess the reason might be because Big Pharma wouldn't make much

money on discarded undergarments... And, since Big Pharma calls the

shots on what to teach doctors, being that they are heavily involved

in funding universities and the " peer-reviewed " , " reliable " ,

" scientific " studies that are sponsored by them (Big Pharma), there is

really not much chance of information like this getting out on a grand

scale, is there? The nets are closed.

Healthseeker

>

> http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]

> October 30th, 2008

> National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up

>

> For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the hyper-

> commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the month of

> October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast

> cancer. No doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any

> retail establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less

> absurd this year than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the

> election or just that even for a a good cause there is so much pepto

> pink schtuff we can be expected to buy.

> While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's women's

> mags were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic

> in talking about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer

> as a young pretty white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend

> continues.

>

> I was also pleased to see Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston Globe

> discussing the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.

>

> She points out that,

> " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has

> gone hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer.

> About 80,000 synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States,

> and their number increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7

> percent of them have been screened for their health effects. These

> chemicals can persist in the environment and accumulate in our

> bodies. According to a recent review by the Silent Spring Institute

> in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources cause breast cancer in

> animals.

> Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors in

> multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally

> believed to indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have

> been closely studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about

> benzene, which is in gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,

> which are in air pollution from vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and

> charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is widely used in medical

> settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in paint strippers

> and glues.

> There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural

> estrogens in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is

> important to consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast

> cancer development. Many other chemicals, especially endocrine-

> disrupting compounds - chemicals that affect hormones, such as the

> ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in plastic bottles and cans -

> are also thought to raise breast cancer risk. Endocrine-disrupting

> compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels, plastics, air

> pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke,

> prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care

> products including sunscreens. "

>

> Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to claim is

> safe while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also

> important to note that automotive companies are big donors to

> organizations like the Komen Foundation and Ford has created a cause-

> branding Warriors in Pink line of clothing while this year BMW was

> offering to donate money to find a cure for test driving their toxic

> exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have said way too many times before,

> as long as the organizations that claim to be helping fight this

> disease take money from those whose products are part of the problem,

> we will not be able to fully address the cause and until we do that,

> the `cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts and kills

> women.

>

> =====

>

> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

> interest in receiving the included information for research and

> educational purposes.

>

[Guest guest]

Please look up and read " Dressed to Kill " a book all about the

relationship between bras and breast cancer.

You'll never wear a bra again - I swore off of them 20 years ago, and

I still get stairs at my sagging obviously unfettered boobs, but it's

worth it!

t

On Nov 1, 2008, at 10:17 PM, healthseeker888 wrote:

> I would like to add my own observations regarding possible causes of

> breast cancer, if I may. I noticed many years ago that the slight

> pains I would get almost daily in my breasts and underarms would

> disappear when I removed my bra for extended periods of time (like

> over a weekend, when I was just staying around the house, or when I

> was in bed with a cold or a flu for a few days). This discovery, along

> with hearing and reading about how people who discovered lumps in

> their breasts were immediately sent to get their lymph nodes from

> under their arms biopsied, caused me to read up a bit more about lymph

> nodes and their actual (known) functions at the time.

>

> I discovered that one of the main functions of the lymph nodes is to

> act as a blood filtering/purifying system. And the lymph nodes under

> our arm pits, in particular, act in such a way to keep the blood going

> to our breasts pure and clean.

>

> This set me to thinking about the restrictive qualities of bras, not

> so much on the breasts themselves, but the part that goes around the

> upper abdomen and attaches in the back. This part is usually quite

> snug (it needs to be, to provide the proper solid base for the rest of

> the garment, otherwise it would slide around and there would be

> spillage all the time) and, as such, it must restrict blood flow to

> some degree. And where would this restriction occur, but right under

> the underarm lymph nodes.

>

> So what are these bras doing to us then? They restrict the flow of

> blood to the lymph nodes, which in turn need that blood flowing freely

> in order to perform their purifying functions properly. Just think how

> the impurities must be clogging things up in there without sufficient

> blood flow to carry oxygen, nutrients and all the necessary cleansing

> agents used by the lymph nodes to perform their intended functions

> properly.

>

> I tested out my theory on myself over and over again. I wore my bra

> for long stretches and noted the little pains that kept coming and

> going in my underarms and breasts and how my underarm lymph nodes

> seemed somewhat swollen when these pains occurred. Then I would stop

> wearing my bra for weeks and months at a time and realize that these

> pains absolutely ceased to manifest themselves when I did this. Also,

> my lymph nodes never felt enlarged either during these times. Just to

> be sure I was not in the land of " coincidences " , I repeated this

> experiment many times, at differing time intervals over several years,

> until I finally convinced myself, that what I was experiencing was not

> due to any " coincidences " , but purely physiological, cause and effect

> reactions.

>

> Well, after becoming sure of this, beyond the shadow of a doubt, I

> stopped wearing my bra almost completely. I only wear it very rarely

> in the summertime when I need to wear light clothing in public. Then,

> as soon as I get back home, I remove the bra immediately and massage

> my underarm lymph nodes for about 5-10 minutes on each side. This has

> been going on for well over 15 years now. I have not had a single

> recurrence of pains in my breasts or under my arms in all this time!

>

> It also occurs to me that the allopathic doctors (as usual), tend to

> be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, when they carefully

> remove all the lymph nodes from under the armpits when they are

> treating someone for breast cancer. Seems to me they are effectively

> removing the filtration system that keeps those breasts supplied with

> clean, life-giving blood. When the trap in the sink gets clogged, you

> don't throw out the trap, you clean it and make sure it can resume

> performing its given function again. Why can't these learned men

> (women) figure this out and stop aggravating the situation by removing

> women's defense systems (the lymph nodes), instead of finding ways to

> rectify the damage (eliminate the cause of the obstruction) and

> improving the situation?

>

> I guess the reason might be because Big Pharma wouldn't make much

> money on discarded undergarments... And, since Big Pharma calls the

> shots on what to teach doctors, being that they are heavily involved

> in funding universities and the " peer-reviewed " , " reliable " ,

> " scientific " studies that are sponsored by them (Big Pharma), there is

> really not much chance of information like this getting out on a grand

> scale, is there? The nets are closed.

>

> Healthseeker

>

>

> >

> > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]

> > October 30th, 2008

> > National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up

> >

> > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the

> hyper-

> > commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the month of

> > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast

> > cancer. No doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any

> > retail establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less

> > absurd this year than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the

> > election or just that even for a a good cause there is so much pepto

> > pink schtuff we can be expected to buy.

> > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's women's

> > mags were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic

> > in talking about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer

> > as a young pretty white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend

> > continues.

> >

> > I was also pleased to see Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston Globe

> > discussing the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.

> >

> > She points out that,

> > " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has

> > gone hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer.

> > About 80,000 synthetic chemicals are used today in the United

> States,

> > and their number increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7

> > percent of them have been screened for their health effects. These

> > chemicals can persist in the environment and accumulate in our

> > bodies. According to a recent review by the Silent Spring Institute

> > in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources cause breast cancer

> in

> > animals.

> > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors

> in

> > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally

> > believed to indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few

> have

> > been closely studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about

> > benzene, which is in gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,

> > which are in air pollution from vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and

> > charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is widely used in medical

> > settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in paint

> strippers

> > and glues.

> > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural

> > estrogens in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is

> > important to consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast

> > cancer development. Many other chemicals, especially endocrine-

> > disrupting compounds - chemicals that affect hormones, such as the

> > ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in plastic bottles and cans -

> > are also thought to raise breast cancer risk. Endocrine-disrupting

> > compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels, plastics, air

> > pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke,

> > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care

> > products including sunscreens. "

> >

> > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to claim

> is

> > safe while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also

> > important to note that automotive companies are big donors to

> > organizations like the Komen Foundation and Ford has created a

> cause-

> > branding Warriors in Pink line of clothing while this year BMW was

> > offering to donate money to find a cure for test driving their toxic

> > exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have said way too many times before,

> > as long as the organizations that claim to be helping fight this

> > disease take money from those whose products are part of the

> problem,

> > we will not be able to fully address the cause and until we do that,

> > the `cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts and kills

> > women.

> >

> > =====

> >

> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

> > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

> > interest in receiving the included information for research and

> > educational purposes.

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have had personal experience with lymphatic system congestion.. I

do wear a bra... I kinda have to.... I am a big size.. It would be a

societal disgrace to walk around with these big boulders without

something to at least keep them tastefully hidden...

I am all about detoxing and letting the lymph nodes do their job..as

you said to help rid the body of toxins..but I dont think that

society is ready to see women walking around with big fat bouncy

boobs..

I think there might be some validity to what you are saying about the

constriction of blood flow in that particular area where the bra gets

strapped on..BUT I dont think that is that big of a contributing

factor to breast cancer..

In my ongoing research and detox program, I have learned that there

is more that factors in to what causes it..

I have loads of info on that on my website if you are interested..

R

>

> > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]

> > *October 30th, 2008*

> > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-

Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-

cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>

> > ***

> >

> > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the

> > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the

month of

> > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast

cancer. No

> > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail

> > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less

absurd this year

> > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just

that even

> > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be

expected to

> > buy.

> > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's

women's mags

> > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic

in talking

> > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a

young pretty

> > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.

> >

> > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston

Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articl

es/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing

> > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.

> >

> > She points out that,

> > " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has

gone

> > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About

80,000

> > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and

their number

> > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them

have been

> > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in

the

> > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent

review by

> > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and

radiation sources

> > cause breast cancer in animals.

> > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause

tumors in

> > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally

believed to

> > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been

closely

> > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene,

which is in

> > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air

pollution from

> > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene

oxide, which is

> > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common

solvent in

> > paint strippers and glues.

> > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural

estrogens

> > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is

important to

> > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer

development. Many

> > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds -

chemicals that

> > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is

found in

> > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast

cancer risk.

> > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides,

fuels,

> > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco

smoke,

> > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care

products

> > including sunscreens. "

> >

> > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to

claim is safe

> > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important

to note

> > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like

the Komen

> > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink

line of

> > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find

a cure for

> > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have

said way too

> > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be

helping

> > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part

of the

> > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until

we do

> > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts

and kills

> > women.

> >

> > =====

> >

> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

> > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

interest in

> > receiving the included information for research and educational

purposes.

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Define society?!

I don't give a rat's behind about society's perception of me. If they don't like boobs swinging in the wind, tell them to go suck on a genetically modified tree.

Ingrid (braless for ages)

ROFL are you kidding?!Society is not ready for women to walk around without bras??????Well, society is not ready to hear that the government and pharmaceutical industries are working in cohesion to kill us. So I'm just going to keep vaccinating and medicating my children.You have to be friggen kidding me....

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM, cafefanatik <cafefanatik@...> wrote:

I have had personal experience with lymphatic system congestion.. I do wear a bra... I kinda have to.... I am a big size.. It would be a societal disgrace to walk around with these big boulders without something to at least keep them tastefully hidden...I am all about detoxing and letting the lymph nodes do their job..as you said to help rid the body of toxins..but I dont think that society is ready to see women walking around with big fat bouncy boobs..I think there might be some validity to what you are saying about the constriction of blood flow in that particular area where the bra gets strapped on..BUT I dont think that is that big of a contributing factor to breast cancer..In my ongoing research and detox program, I have learned that there is more that factors in to what causes it..I have loads of info on that on my website if you are interested.. R> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]> > *October 30th, 2008*> > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>> > ***> >> > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the> > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the month of> > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast cancer. No> > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail> > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less absurd this year> > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just that even> > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be expected to> > buy.> > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's women's mags> > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic in talking> > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a young pretty> > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.> >> > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing> > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.> >> > She points out that,> > "Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has gone> > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About 80,000> > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and their number> > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them have been> > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in the> > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent review by> > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources> > cause breast cancer in animals.> > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors in> > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally believed to> > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been closely> > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene, which is in> > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air pollution from> > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is> > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in> > paint strippers and glues.> > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural estrogens> > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is important to> > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer development. Many> > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds - chemicals that> > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in> > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast cancer risk.> > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels,> > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke,> > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care products> > including sunscreens."> >> > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to claim is safe> > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important to note> > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like the Komen> > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink line of> > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find a cure for> > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have said way too> > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be helping> > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part of the> > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until we do> > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts and kills> > women.> >> > =====> >> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is> > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in> > receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

Exactly.Who says you have to wear a bra because your breasts are big? If you were supposed to wear a bra, wouldn't you have been born with it? I don't understand where women get the idea that they need bras.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Ingrid Blank <enb1@...> wrote:

Define society?!

I don't give a rat's behind about society's perception of me. If they don't like boobs swinging in the wind, tell them to go suck on a genetically modified tree.

Ingrid (braless for ages)

ROFL are you kidding?!Society is not ready for women to walk around without bras??????Well, society is not ready to hear that the government and pharmaceutical industries are working in cohesion to kill us. So I'm just going to keep vaccinating and medicating my children.You have to be friggen kidding me....

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM, cafefanatik <cafefanatik@...> wrote:

I have had personal experience with lymphatic system congestion.. I do wear a bra... I kinda have to.... I am a big size.. It would be a societal disgrace to walk around with these big boulders without something to at least keep them tastefully hidden...I am all about detoxing and letting the lymph nodes do their job..as you said to help rid the body of toxins..but I dont think that society is ready to see women walking around with big fat bouncy boobs..I think there might be some validity to what you are saying about the constriction of blood flow in that particular area where the bra gets strapped on..BUT I dont think that is that big of a contributing factor to breast cancer..In my ongoing research and detox program, I have learned that there is more that factors in to what causes it..I have loads of info on that on my website if you are interested.. R> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]> > *October 30th, 2008*> > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-

cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>> > ***> >> > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the> > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the month of> > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast cancer. No> > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail> > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less absurd this year> > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just that even> > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be expected to> > buy.> > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's women's mags> > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic in talking> > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a young pretty> > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.> >> > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing> > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.> >> > She points out that,> > " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has gone> > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About 80,000> > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and their number> > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them have been> > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in the> > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent review by> > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources> > cause breast cancer in animals.> > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors in> > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally believed to> > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been closely> > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene, which is in> > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air pollution from> > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is> > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in> > paint strippers and glues.> > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural estrogens> > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is important to> > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer development. Many> > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds - chemicals that> > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in> > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast cancer risk.> > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels,> > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke,> > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care products> > including sunscreens. " > >> > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to claim is safe> > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important to note> > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like the Komen> > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink line of> > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find a cure for> > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have said way too> > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be helping> > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part of the> > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until we do> > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts and kills> > women.> >> > =====> >> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is> > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in> > receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

ROFL are you kidding?!Society is not ready for women to walk around without bras??????Well, society is not ready to hear that the government and pharmaceutical industries are working in cohesion to kill us. So I'm just going to keep vaccinating and medicating my children.

You have to be friggen kidding me....On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM, cafefanatik <cafefanatik@...> wrote:

I have had personal experience with lymphatic system congestion.. I

do wear a bra... I kinda have to.... I am a big size.. It would be a

societal disgrace to walk around with these big boulders without

something to at least keep them tastefully hidden...

I am all about detoxing and letting the lymph nodes do their job..as

you said to help rid the body of toxins..but I dont think that

society is ready to see women walking around with big fat bouncy

boobs..

I think there might be some validity to what you are saying about the

constriction of blood flow in that particular area where the bra gets

strapped on..BUT I dont think that is that big of a contributing

factor to breast cancer..

In my ongoing research and detox program, I have learned that there

is more that factors in to what causes it..

I have loads of info on that on my website if you are interested..

R

>

> > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]

> > *October 30th, 2008*

> > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-

Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-

cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>

> > ***

> >

> > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the

> > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the

month of

> > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast

cancer. No

> > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail

> > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less

absurd this year

> > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just

that even

> > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be

expected to

> > buy.

> > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's

women's mags

> > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic

in talking

> > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a

young pretty

> > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.

> >

> > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston

Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articl

es/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing

> > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.

> >

> > She points out that,

> > " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has

gone

> > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About

80,000

> > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and

their number

> > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them

have been

> > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in

the

> > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent

review by

> > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and

radiation sources

> > cause breast cancer in animals.

> > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause

tumors in

> > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally

believed to

> > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been

closely

> > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene,

which is in

> > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air

pollution from

> > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene

oxide, which is

> > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common

solvent in

> > paint strippers and glues.

> > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural

estrogens

> > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is

important to

> > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer

development. Many

> > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds -

chemicals that

> > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is

found in

> > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast

cancer risk.

> > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides,

fuels,

> > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco

smoke,

> > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care

products

> > including sunscreens. "

> >

> > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to

claim is safe

> > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important

to note

> > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like

the Komen

> > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink

line of

> > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find

a cure for

> > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have

said way too

> > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be

helping

> > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part

of the

> > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until

we do

> > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts

and kills

> > women.

> >

> > =====

> >

> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

> > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

interest in

> > receiving the included information for research and educational

purposes.

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

From society?! )

I don't understand where women get the idea that they need bras.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Ingrid Blank <enb1@...> wrote:

Define society?!

I don't give a rat's behind about society's perception of me. If they don't like boobs swinging in the wind, tell them to go suck on a genetically modified tree.

Ingrid (braless for ages)

ROFL are you kidding?!Society is not ready for women to walk around without bras??????Well, society is not ready to hear that the government and pharmaceutical industries are working in cohesion to kill us. So I'm just going to keep vaccinating and medicating my children.You have to be friggen kidding me....

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM, cafefanatik <cafefanatik@...> wrote:

I have had personal experience with lymphatic system congestion.. I do wear a bra... I kinda have to.... I am a big size.. It would be a societal disgrace to walk around with these big boulders without something to at least keep them tastefully hidden...I am all about detoxing and letting the lymph nodes do their job..as you said to help rid the body of toxins..but I dont think that society is ready to see women walking around with big fat bouncy boobs..I think there might be some validity to what you are saying about the constriction of blood flow in that particular area where the bra gets strapped on..BUT I dont think that is that big of a contributing factor to breast cancer..In my ongoing research and detox program, I have learned that there is more that factors in to what causes it..I have loads of info on that on my website if you are interested.. R> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]> > *October 30th, 2008*> > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>> > ***> >> > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the> > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the month of> > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast cancer. No> > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail> > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less absurd this year> > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just that even> > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be expected to> > buy.> > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's women's mags> > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic in talking> > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a young pretty> > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.> >> > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing> > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.> >> > She points out that,> > "Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has gone> > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About 80,000> > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and their number> > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them have been> > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in the> > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent review by> > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources> > cause breast cancer in animals.> > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors in> > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally believed to> > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been closely> > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene, which is in> > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air pollution from> > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is> > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in> > paint strippers and glues.> > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural estrogens> > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is important to> > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer development. Many> > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds - chemicals that> > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in> > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast cancer risk.> > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels,> > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke,> > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care products> > including sunscreens."> >> > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to claim is safe> > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important to note> > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like the Komen> > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink line of> > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find a cure for> > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have said way too> > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be helping> > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part of the> > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until we do> > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts and kills> > women.> >> > =====> >> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is> > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in> > receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

Is anyone familiar with the " Spanx " brand bra? They are very natural and

comfortable (not at all binding or restrictive). The result is natural but

you still feel " presentable " . Joyce

Re: Re: OT - National Breast Cancer

Awareness Month Wrap-Up

> Please look up and read " Dressed to Kill " a book all about the

> relationship between bras and breast cancer.

>

> You'll never wear a bra again - I swore off of them 20 years ago, and

> I still get stairs at my sagging obviously unfettered boobs, but it's

> worth it!

>

> t

>

>

> On Nov 1, 2008, at 10:17 PM, healthseeker888 wrote:

>

>> I would like to add my own observations regarding possible causes of

>> breast cancer, if I may. I noticed many years ago that the slight

>> pains I would get almost daily in my breasts and underarms would

>> disappear when I removed my bra for extended periods of time (like

>> over a weekend, when I was just staying around the house, or when I

>> was in bed with a cold or a flu for a few days). This discovery, along

>> with hearing and reading about how people who discovered lumps in

>> their breasts were immediately sent to get their lymph nodes from

>> under their arms biopsied, caused me to read up a bit more about lymph

>> nodes and their actual (known) functions at the time.

>>

>> I discovered that one of the main functions of the lymph nodes is to

>> act as a blood filtering/purifying system. And the lymph nodes under

>> our arm pits, in particular, act in such a way to keep the blood going

>> to our breasts pure and clean.

>>

>> This set me to thinking about the restrictive qualities of bras, not

>> so much on the breasts themselves, but the part that goes around the

>> upper abdomen and attaches in the back. This part is usually quite

>> snug (it needs to be, to provide the proper solid base for the rest of

>> the garment, otherwise it would slide around and there would be

>> spillage all the time) and, as such, it must restrict blood flow to

>> some degree. And where would this restriction occur, but right under

>> the underarm lymph nodes.

>>

>> So what are these bras doing to us then? They restrict the flow of

>> blood to the lymph nodes, which in turn need that blood flowing freely

>> in order to perform their purifying functions properly. Just think how

>> the impurities must be clogging things up in there without sufficient

>> blood flow to carry oxygen, nutrients and all the necessary cleansing

>> agents used by the lymph nodes to perform their intended functions

>> properly.

>>

>> I tested out my theory on myself over and over again. I wore my bra

>> for long stretches and noted the little pains that kept coming and

>> going in my underarms and breasts and how my underarm lymph nodes

>> seemed somewhat swollen when these pains occurred. Then I would stop

>> wearing my bra for weeks and months at a time and realize that these

>> pains absolutely ceased to manifest themselves when I did this. Also,

>> my lymph nodes never felt enlarged either during these times. Just to

>> be sure I was not in the land of " coincidences " , I repeated this

>> experiment many times, at differing time intervals over several years,

>> until I finally convinced myself, that what I was experiencing was not

>> due to any " coincidences " , but purely physiological, cause and effect

>> reactions.

>>

>> Well, after becoming sure of this, beyond the shadow of a doubt, I

>> stopped wearing my bra almost completely. I only wear it very rarely

>> in the summertime when I need to wear light clothing in public. Then,

>> as soon as I get back home, I remove the bra immediately and massage

>> my underarm lymph nodes for about 5-10 minutes on each side. This has

>> been going on for well over 15 years now. I have not had a single

>> recurrence of pains in my breasts or under my arms in all this time!

>>

>> It also occurs to me that the allopathic doctors (as usual), tend to

>> be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, when they carefully

>> remove all the lymph nodes from under the armpits when they are

>> treating someone for breast cancer. Seems to me they are effectively

>> removing the filtration system that keeps those breasts supplied with

>> clean, life-giving blood. When the trap in the sink gets clogged, you

>> don't throw out the trap, you clean it and make sure it can resume

>> performing its given function again. Why can't these learned men

>> (women) figure this out and stop aggravating the situation by removing

>> women's defense systems (the lymph nodes), instead of finding ways to

>> rectify the damage (eliminate the cause of the obstruction) and

>> improving the situation?

>>

>> I guess the reason might be because Big Pharma wouldn't make much

>> money on discarded undergarments... And, since Big Pharma calls the

>> shots on what to teach doctors, being that they are heavily involved

>> in funding universities and the " peer-reviewed " , " reliable " ,

>> " scientific " studies that are sponsored by them (Big Pharma), there is

>> really not much chance of information like this getting out on a grand

>> scale, is there? The nets are closed.

>>

>> Healthseeker

>>

>>

>> >

>> > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]

>> > October 30th, 2008

>> > National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up

>> >

>> > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the

>> hyper-

>> > commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the month of

>> > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast

>> > cancer. No doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any

>> > retail establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less

>> > absurd this year than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the

>> > election or just that even for a a good cause there is so much pepto

>> > pink schtuff we can be expected to buy.

>> > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's women's

>> > mags were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic

>> > in talking about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer

>> > as a young pretty white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend

>> > continues.

>> >

>> > I was also pleased to see Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston Globe

>> > discussing the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.

>> >

>> > She points out that,

>> > " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has

>> > gone hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer.

>> > About 80,000 synthetic chemicals are used today in the United

>> States,

>> > and their number increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7

>> > percent of them have been screened for their health effects. These

>> > chemicals can persist in the environment and accumulate in our

>> > bodies. According to a recent review by the Silent Spring Institute

>> > in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources cause breast cancer

>> in

>> > animals.

>> > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors

>> in

>> > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally

>> > believed to indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few

>> have

>> > been closely studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about

>> > benzene, which is in gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,

>> > which are in air pollution from vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and

>> > charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is widely used in medical

>> > settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in paint

>> strippers

>> > and glues.

>> > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural

>> > estrogens in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is

>> > important to consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast

>> > cancer development. Many other chemicals, especially endocrine-

>> > disrupting compounds - chemicals that affect hormones, such as the

>> > ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in plastic bottles and cans -

>> > are also thought to raise breast cancer risk. Endocrine-disrupting

>> > compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels, plastics, air

>> > pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke,

>> > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care

>> > products including sunscreens. "

>> >

>> > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to claim

>> is

>> > safe while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also

>> > important to note that automotive companies are big donors to

>> > organizations like the Komen Foundation and Ford has created a

>> cause-

>> > branding Warriors in Pink line of clothing while this year BMW was

>> > offering to donate money to find a cure for test driving their toxic

>> > exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have said way too many times before,

>> > as long as the organizations that claim to be helping fight this

>> > disease take money from those whose products are part of the

>> problem,

>> > we will not be able to fully address the cause and until we do that,

>> > the `cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts and kills

>> > women.

>> >

>> > =====

>> >

>> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

>> > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

>> > interest in receiving the included information for research and

>> > educational purposes.

>> >

>>

>>

>>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

We are born naked. Does that mean we are not to wear clothes of any kind? There are bras (like the "Spanx" brand I previously mentioned) which do not constrict. In my opinion a bra is just as important as panties. (Please don't tell me you don't wear them either).

Re: Re: OT - National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up

Exactly.Who says you have to wear a bra because your breasts are big? If you were supposed to wear a bra, wouldn't you have been born with it? I don't understand where women get the idea that they need bras.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Ingrid Blank <enb1telkomsa (DOT) net> wrote:

Define society?!

I don't give a rat's behind about society's perception of me. If they don't like boobs swinging in the wind, tell them to go suck on a genetically modified tree.

Ingrid (braless for ages)

ROFL are you kidding?!Society is not ready for women to walk around without bras??????Well, society is not ready to hear that the government and pharmaceutical industries are working in cohesion to kill us. So I'm just going to keep vaccinating and medicating my children.You have to be friggen kidding me....

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM, cafefanatik <cafefanatik > wrote:

I have had personal experience with lymphatic system congestion.. I do wear a bra... I kinda have to.... I am a big size.. It would be a societal disgrace to walk around with these big boulders without something to at least keep them tastefully hidden...I am all about detoxing and letting the lymph nodes do their job..as you said to help rid the body of toxins..but I dont think that society is ready to see women walking around with big fat bouncy boobs..I think there might be some validity to what you are saying about the constriction of blood flow in that particular area where the bra gets strapped on..BUT I dont think that is that big of a contributing factor to breast cancer..In my ongoing research and detox program, I have learned that there is more that factors in to what causes it..I have loads of info on that on my website if you are interested.. R> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]> > *October 30th, 2008*> > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>> > ***> >> > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the> > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the month of> > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast cancer. No> > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail> > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less absurd this year> > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just that even> > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be expected to> > buy.> > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's women's mags> > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic in talking> > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a young pretty> > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.> >> > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing> > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.> >> > She points out that,> > "Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has gone> > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About 80,000> > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and their number> > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them have been> > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in the> > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent review by> > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources> > cause breast cancer in animals.> > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors in> > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally believed to> > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been closely> > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene, which is in> > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air pollution from> > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is> > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in> > paint strippers and glues.> > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural estrogens> > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is important to> > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer development. Many> > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds - chemicals that> > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in> > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast cancer risk.> > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels,> > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke,> > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care products> > including sunscreens."> >> > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to claim is safe> > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important to note> > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like the Komen> > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink line of> > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find a cure for> > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have said way too> > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be helping> > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part of the> > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until we do> > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts and kills> > women.> >> > =====> >> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is> > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in> > receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

We are born naked. Does that mean we are not to wear clothes of any kind? There are bras (like the "Spanx" brand I previously mentioned) which do not constrict. In my opinion a bra is just as important as panties. (Please don't tell me you don't wear them either).

Re: Re: OT - National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up

Exactly.Who says you have to wear a bra because your breasts are big? If you were supposed to wear a bra, wouldn't you have been born with it? I don't understand where women get the idea that they need bras.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Ingrid Blank <enb1telkomsa (DOT) net> wrote:

Define society?!

I don't give a rat's behind about society's perception of me. If they don't like boobs swinging in the wind, tell them to go suck on a genetically modified tree.

Ingrid (braless for ages)

ROFL are you kidding?!Society is not ready for women to walk around without bras??????Well, society is not ready to hear that the government and pharmaceutical industries are working in cohesion to kill us. So I'm just going to keep vaccinating and medicating my children.You have to be friggen kidding me....

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM, cafefanatik <cafefanatik > wrote:

I have had personal experience with lymphatic system congestion.. I do wear a bra... I kinda have to.... I am a big size.. It would be a societal disgrace to walk around with these big boulders without something to at least keep them tastefully hidden...I am all about detoxing and letting the lymph nodes do their job..as you said to help rid the body of toxins..but I dont think that society is ready to see women walking around with big fat bouncy boobs..I think there might be some validity to what you are saying about the constriction of blood flow in that particular area where the bra gets strapped on..BUT I dont think that is that big of a contributing factor to breast cancer..In my ongoing research and detox program, I have learned that there is more that factors in to what causes it..I have loads of info on that on my website if you are interested.. R> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]> > *October 30th, 2008*> > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>> > ***> >> > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the> > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the month of> > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast cancer. No> > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail> > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less absurd this year> > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just that even> > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be expected to> > buy.> > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's women's mags> > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic in talking> > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a young pretty> > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.> >> > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing> > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.> >> > She points out that,> > "Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has gone> > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About 80,000> > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and their number> > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them have been> > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in the> > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent review by> > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources> > cause breast cancer in animals.> > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors in> > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally believed to> > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been closely> > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene, which is in> > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air pollution from> > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is> > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in> > paint strippers and glues.> > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural estrogens> > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is important to> > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer development. Many> > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds - chemicals that> > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in> > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast cancer risk.> > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels,> > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke,> > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care products> > including sunscreens."> >> > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to claim is safe> > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important to note> > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like the Komen> > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink line of> > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find a cure for> > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have said way too> > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be helping> > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part of the> > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until we do> > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts and kills> > women.> >> > =====> >> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is> > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in> > receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

I agree - I have always had big breasts, but I chose not to wear a bra

more than 20 years ago. However, I have occasionally met women who

had bigger busts than I did - very rarely quite a bit bigger. Most of

them did not wear bras (I live in a very progressive community). I

know one woman who felt she needed the bra to help her because the

size of her breasts was an impediment to the health of her spine, but

over time, she lost weight, and this became a non issue.

t

On Nov 2, 2008, at 3:31 AM, Monika Reign B. wrote:

> Exactly.

>

> Who says you have to wear a bra because your breasts are big? If

> you were supposed to wear a bra, wouldn't you have been born with

> it? I don't understand where women get the idea that they need bras.

>

>

>

> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Ingrid Blank <enb1@...>

> wrote:

>

> Define society?!

> I don't give a rat's behind about society's perception of me. If

> they don't like boobs swinging in the wind, tell them to go suck on

> a genetically modified tree.

>

> Ingrid (braless for ages)

>

>

> ROFL are you kidding?!

> Society is not ready for women to walk around without bras??????

>

> Well, society is not ready to hear that the government and

> pharmaceutical industries are working in cohesion to kill us. So

> I'm just going to keep vaccinating and medicating my children.

>

>

> You have to be friggen kidding me....

>

>

>

>

> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM, cafefanatik

> <cafefanatik@...>wrote:

> I have had personal experience with lymphatic system congestion.. I

> do wear a bra... I kinda have to.... I am a big size.. It would be a

> societal disgrace to walk around with these big boulders without

> something to at least keep them tastefully hidden...

>

> I am all about detoxing and letting the lymph nodes do their job..as

> you said to help rid the body of toxins..but I dont think that

> society is ready to see women walking around with big fat bouncy

> boobs..

>

> I think there might be some validity to what you are saying about the

> constriction of blood flow in that particular area where the bra gets

> strapped on..BUT I dont think that is that big of a contributing

> factor to breast cancer..

>

> In my ongoing research and detox program, I have learned that there

> is more that factors in to what causes it..

>

> I have loads of info on that on my website if you are interested..

>

> R

>

>

> >

> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]

> > > *October 30th, 2008*

> > > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-

> Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-

> cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>

> > > ***

> > >

> > > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the

> > > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the

> month of

> > > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast

> cancer. No

> > > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail

> > > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less

> absurd this year

> > > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just

> that even

> > > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be

> expected to

> > > buy.

> > > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's

> women's mags

> > > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic

> in talking

> > > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a

> young pretty

> > > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.

> > >

> > > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston

> Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articl

> es/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing

> > > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.

> > >

> > > She points out that,

> > > " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has

> gone

> > > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About

> 80,000

> > > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and

> their number

> > > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them

> have been

> > > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in

> the

> > > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent

> review by

> > > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and

> radiation sources

> > > cause breast cancer in animals.

> > > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause

> tumors in

> > > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally

> believed to

> > > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been

> closely

> > > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene,

> which is in

> > > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air

> pollution from

> > > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene

> oxide, which is

> > > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common

> solvent in

> > > paint strippers and glues.

> > > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural

> estrogens

> > > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is

> important to

> > > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer

> development. Many

> > > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds -

> chemicals that

> > > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is

> found in

> > > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast

> cancer risk.

> > > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides,

> fuels,

> > > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco

> smoke,

> > > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care

> products

> > > including sunscreens. "

> > >

> > > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to

> claim is safe

> > > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important

> to note

> > > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like

> the Komen

> > > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink

> line of

> > > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find

> a cure for

> > > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have

> said way too

> > > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be

> helping

> > > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part

> of the

> > > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until

> we do

> > > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts

> and kills

> > > women.

> > >

> > > =====

> > >

> > > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

> > > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

> interest in

> > > receiving the included information for research and educational

> purposes.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Monika, I am waiting with bated breath for your answer

In the meantime, read this hilarious "advice"

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1867.html

To those having expressed their "concern" in private mails that I am neglecting my moderator duties by allowing this OT discussion to continue - lighten up, folks. It's Sunday and we all deserve a break from the "heavy stuff" once in a while.

Ingrid

We are born naked. Does that mean we are not to wear clothes of any kind? There are bras (like the "Spanx" brand I previously mentioned) which do not constrict. In my opinion a bra is just as important as panties. (Please don't tell me you don't wear them either).

Re: Re: OT - National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up

Exactly.Who says you have to wear a bra because your breasts are big? If you were supposed to wear a bra, wouldn't you have been born with it? I don't understand where women get the idea that they need bras.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Ingrid Blank <enb1telkomsa (DOT) net> wrote:

Define society?!

I don't give a rat's behind about society's perception of me. If they don't like boobs swinging in the wind, tell them to go suck on a genetically modified tree.

Ingrid (braless for ages)

ROFL are you kidding?!Society is not ready for women to walk around without bras??????Well, society is not ready to hear that the government and pharmaceutical industries are working in cohesion to kill us. So I'm just going to keep vaccinating and medicating my children.You have to be friggen kidding me....

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM, cafefanatik <cafefanatik > wrote:

I have had personal experience with lymphatic system congestion.. I do wear a bra... I kinda have to.... I am a big size.. It would be a societal disgrace to walk around with these big boulders without something to at least keep them tastefully hidden...I am all about detoxing and letting the lymph nodes do their job..as you said to help rid the body of toxins..but I dont think that society is ready to see women walking around with big fat bouncy boobs..I think there might be some validity to what you are saying about the constriction of blood flow in that particular area where the bra gets strapped on..BUT I dont think that is that big of a contributing factor to breast cancer..In my ongoing research and detox program, I have learned that there is more that factors in to what causes it..I have loads of info on that on my website if you are interested.. R> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]> > *October 30th, 2008*> > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>> > ***> >> > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the> > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the month of> > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast cancer. No> > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail> > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less absurd this year> > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just that even> > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be expected to> > buy.> > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's women's mags> > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic in talking> > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a young pretty> > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.> >> > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing> > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.> >> > She points out that,> > "Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has gone> > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About 80,000> > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and their number> > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them have been> > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in the> > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent review by> > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources> > cause breast cancer in animals.> > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors in> > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally believed to> > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been closely> > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene, which is in> > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air pollution from> > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is> > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in> > paint strippers and glues.> > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural estrogens> > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is important to> > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer development. Many> > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds - chemicals that> > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in> > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast cancer risk.> > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels,> > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke,> > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care products> > including sunscreens."> >> > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to claim is safe> > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important to note> > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like the Komen> > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink line of> > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find a cure for> > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have said way too> > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be helping> > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part of the> > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until we do> > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts and kills> > women.> >> > =====> >> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is> > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in> > receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

re: Ot on breasts and suffocation of them

thank you ingrid and ladies, i applaud you!!!!!

point is i have issues with big breasts 35c and i am size 6

and tell those people that complain, this is off topic they are wrong

i had mercury poisonisng plus 4 other heavy metals, and while i was sick had lumps in breasts (later told 95% normal in premenopausal women and those of age to have babies/ get lumps always 1 time or another) ~~~the doctors made me get mammograms 3 x per year due to those lumps (ugggh)

glad to say after having offensive fillings (amalgams ) removed and replaced with white fillings, 1.5 years of chelation and refusal to have flu shots; guess what ? no more lumps or big fat pendulous breasts. and i lost 30 lbs weeeeeeeeeee.

and btw spanx or sports bras are good, no commercial

just chooose bras preferably not underwire or all those petroleum based fabrics ( polyesters etc), cotton is nice

thank you again all, happy sunday hugs

debora

Re: Re: OT - National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up

Exactly.Who says you have to wear a bra because your breasts are big? If you were supposed to wear a bra, wouldn't you have been born with it? I don't understand where women get the idea that they need bras.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Ingrid Blank <enb1telkomsa (DOT) net> wrote:

Define society?!

I don't give a rat's behind about society's perception of me. If they don't like boobs swinging in the wind, tell them to go suck on a genetically modified tree.

Ingrid (braless for ages)

ROFL are you kidding?!Society is not ready for women to walk around without bras??????Well, society is not ready to hear that the government and pharmaceutical industries are working in cohesion to kill us. So I'm just going to keep vaccinating and medicating my children.You have to be friggen kidding me....

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM, cafefanatik <cafefanatik > wrote:

I have had personal experience with lymphatic system congestion.. I do wear a bra... I kinda have to.... I am a big size.. It would be a societal disgrace to walk around with these big boulders without something to at least keep them tastefully hidden...I am all about detoxing and letting the lymph nodes do their job..as you said to help rid the body of toxins..but I dont think that society is ready to see women walking around with big fat bouncy boobs..I think there might be some validity to what you are saying about the constriction of blood flow in that particular area where the bra gets strapped on..BUT I dont think that is that big of a contributing factor to breast cancer..In my ongoing research and detox program, I have learned that there is more that factors in to what causes it..I have loads of info on that on my website if you are interested.. R> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]> > *October 30th, 2008*> > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>> > ***> >> > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the> > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the month of> > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast cancer. No> > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail> > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less absurd this year> > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just that even> > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be expected to> > buy.> > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's women's mags> > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic in talking> > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a young pretty> > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.> >> > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing> > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.> >> > She points out that,> > "Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has gone> > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About 80,000> > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and their number> > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them have been> > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in the> > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent review by> > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources> > cause breast cancer in animals.> > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors in> > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally believed to> > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been closely> > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene, which is in> > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air pollution from> > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is> > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in> > paint strippers and glues.> > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural estrogens> > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is important to> > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer development. Many> > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds - chemicals that> > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in> > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast cancer risk.> > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels,> > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke,> > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care products> > including sunscreens."> >> > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to claim is safe> > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important to note> > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like the Komen> > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink line of> > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find a cure for> > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have said way too> > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be helping> > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part of the> > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until we do> > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts and kills> > women.> >> > =====> >> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is> > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in> > receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

re: Ot on breasts and suffocation of them

thank you ingrid and ladies, i applaud you!!!!!

point is i have issues with big breasts 35c and i am size 6

and tell those people that complain, this is off topic they are wrong

i had mercury poisonisng plus 4 other heavy metals, and while i was sick had lumps in breasts (later told 95% normal in premenopausal women and those of age to have babies/ get lumps always 1 time or another) ~~~the doctors made me get mammograms 3 x per year due to those lumps (ugggh)

glad to say after having offensive fillings (amalgams ) removed and replaced with white fillings, 1.5 years of chelation and refusal to have flu shots; guess what ? no more lumps or big fat pendulous breasts. and i lost 30 lbs weeeeeeeeeee.

and btw spanx or sports bras are good, no commercial

just chooose bras preferably not underwire or all those petroleum based fabrics ( polyesters etc), cotton is nice

thank you again all, happy sunday hugs

debora

Re: Re: OT - National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up

Exactly.Who says you have to wear a bra because your breasts are big? If you were supposed to wear a bra, wouldn't you have been born with it? I don't understand where women get the idea that they need bras.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Ingrid Blank <enb1telkomsa (DOT) net> wrote:

Define society?!

I don't give a rat's behind about society's perception of me. If they don't like boobs swinging in the wind, tell them to go suck on a genetically modified tree.

Ingrid (braless for ages)

ROFL are you kidding?!Society is not ready for women to walk around without bras??????Well, society is not ready to hear that the government and pharmaceutical industries are working in cohesion to kill us. So I'm just going to keep vaccinating and medicating my children.You have to be friggen kidding me....

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM, cafefanatik <cafefanatik > wrote:

I have had personal experience with lymphatic system congestion.. I do wear a bra... I kinda have to.... I am a big size.. It would be a societal disgrace to walk around with these big boulders without something to at least keep them tastefully hidden...I am all about detoxing and letting the lymph nodes do their job..as you said to help rid the body of toxins..but I dont think that society is ready to see women walking around with big fat bouncy boobs..I think there might be some validity to what you are saying about the constriction of blood flow in that particular area where the bra gets strapped on..BUT I dont think that is that big of a contributing factor to breast cancer..In my ongoing research and detox program, I have learned that there is more that factors in to what causes it..I have loads of info on that on my website if you are interested.. R> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]> > *October 30th, 2008*> > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>> > ***> >> > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the> > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the month of> > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast cancer. No> > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail> > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less absurd this year> > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just that even> > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be expected to> > buy.> > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's women's mags> > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic in talking> > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a young pretty> > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.> >> > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing> > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.> >> > She points out that,> > "Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has gone> > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About 80,000> > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and their number> > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them have been> > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in the> > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent review by> > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources> > cause breast cancer in animals.> > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors in> > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally believed to> > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been closely> > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene, which is in> > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air pollution from> > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is> > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in> > paint strippers and glues.> > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural estrogens> > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is important to> > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer development. Many> > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds - chemicals that> > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in> > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast cancer risk.> > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels,> > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke,> > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care products> > including sunscreens."> >> > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to claim is safe> > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important to note> > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like the Komen> > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink line of> > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find a cure for> > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have said way too> > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be helping> > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part of the> > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until we do> > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts and kills> > women.> >> > =====> >> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is> > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in> > receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

lolWell to continue the OT discussion, and at the risk of offending some more people I will answer.I wear panties during the day because I do not like the feel of the seams in my pants rubbing against my feminine parts. While I am at home, I wear pyjamas and no I do not wear panties (GASP!) and definitely never wear them while I sleep. Ever taken a swim at a beach without panties? Probably not if you're still insisiting that we must wear undergarments. Especially as a female, it is important to let your genitals get some " fresh air " and if you're constantly wearing panties all the time, it's definitely not allowing for that to happen. Just like deep breathing is important for health and longevity, your skin needs to be exposed as much as possible so yeah, panties are not very healthy either. Wearing clothing all the time and having your very important " private parts " always in some constricting fabric is not good for you.

ROFL! Just read the article. lol.This is pretty sad, IMO, to see people not realizing that they are contradicting themselves.... talking about society and vaccinations and how people are so brainwashed, but then don't realize that it's the exact same with so many other things and then defending the bull****.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Ingrid Blank <enb1@...> wrote:

Monika, I am waiting with bated breath for your answer

In the meantime, read this hilarious " advice "

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1867.html

To those having expressed their " concern " in private mails that I am neglecting my moderator duties by allowing this OT discussion to continue - lighten up, folks. It's Sunday and we all deserve a break from the " heavy stuff " once in a while.

Ingrid

We are born naked. Does that mean we are not to wear clothes of any kind? There are bras (like the " Spanx " brand I previously mentioned) which do not constrict. In my opinion a bra is just as important as panties. (Please don't tell me you don't wear them either).

Re: Re: OT - National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up

Exactly.Who says you have to wear a bra because your breasts are big? If you were supposed to wear a bra, wouldn't you have been born with it? I don't understand where women get the idea that they need bras.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Ingrid Blank <enb1@...> wrote:

Define society?!

I don't give a rat's behind about society's perception of me. If they don't like boobs swinging in the wind, tell them to go suck on a genetically modified tree.

Ingrid (braless for ages)

ROFL are you kidding?!Society is not ready for women to walk around without bras??????Well, society is not ready to hear that the government and pharmaceutical industries are working in cohesion to kill us. So I'm just going to keep vaccinating and medicating my children.You have to be friggen kidding me....

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM, cafefanatik <cafefanatik@...> wrote:

I have had personal experience with lymphatic system congestion.. I do wear a bra... I kinda have to.... I am a big size.. It would be a societal disgrace to walk around with these big boulders without something to at least keep them tastefully hidden...I am all about detoxing and letting the lymph nodes do their job..as you said to help rid the body of toxins..but I dont think that society is ready to see women walking around with big fat bouncy boobs..I think there might be some validity to what you are saying about the constriction of blood flow in that particular area where the bra gets strapped on..BUT I dont think that is that big of a contributing factor to breast cancer..In my ongoing research and detox program, I have learned that there is more that factors in to what causes it..I have loads of info on that on my website if you are interested.. R> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]> > *October 30th, 2008*> > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>

> > ***> >> > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the> > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the month of> > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast cancer. No> > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail> > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less absurd this year> > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just that even> > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be expected to> > buy.> > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's women's mags> > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic in talking> > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a young pretty> > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.> >> > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articl

es/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing> > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.> >> > She points out that,> > " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has gone> > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About 80,000> > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and their number> > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them have been> > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in the> > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent review by> > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources> > cause breast cancer in animals.> > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors in> > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally believed to> > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been closely> > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene, which is in> > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air pollution from> > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is> > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in> > paint strippers and glues.> > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural estrogens> > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is important to> > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer development. Many> > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds - chemicals that> > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in> > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast cancer risk.> > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels,> > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke,> > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care products> > including sunscreens. " > >> > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to claim is safe> > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important to note> > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like the Komen> > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink line of> > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find a cure for> > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have said way too> > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be helping> > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part of the> > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until we do> > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts and kills> > women.> >> > =====> >> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is> > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in> > receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

I heard it's the bras with underwires that cause the most damage. It's possible to find bras without underwires.

Sharon (braless in the 60's)

no-forced-vaccination From: enb1@...Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 10:11:48 +0200Subject: RE: Re: OT - National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up

Define society?!

I don't give a rat's behind about society's perception of me. If they don't like boobs swinging in the wind, tell them to go suck on a genetically modified tree.

Ingrid (braless for ages)

ROFL are you kidding?!Society is not ready for women to walk around without bras??????Well, society is not ready to hear that the government and pharmaceutical industries are working in cohesion to kill us. So I'm just going to keep vaccinating and medicating my children.You have to be friggen kidding me....

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM, cafefanatik <cafefanatik > wrote:

I have had personal experience with lymphatic system congestion.. I do wear a bra... I kinda have to.... I am a big size.. It would be a societal disgrace to walk around with these big boulders without something to at least keep them tastefully hidden...I am all about detoxing and letting the lymph nodes do their job..as you said to help rid the body of toxins..but I dont think that society is ready to see women walking around with big fat bouncy boobs..I think there might be some validity to what you are saying about the constriction of blood flow in that particular area where the bra gets strapped on..BUT I dont think that is that big of a contributing factor to breast cancer..In my ongoing research and detox program, I have learned that there is more that factors in to what causes it..I have loads of info on that on my website if you are interested.. R> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]> > *October 30th, 2008*> > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>> > ***> >> > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the> > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the month of> > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast cancer. No> > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail> > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less absurd this year> > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just that even> > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be expected to> > buy.> > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's women's mags> > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic in talking> > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a young pretty> > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.> >> > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing> > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.> >> > She points out that,> > "Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has gone> > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About 80,000> > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and their number> > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them have been> > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in the> > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent review by> > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources> > cause breast cancer in animals.> > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors in> > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally believed to> > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been closely> > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene, which is in> > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air pollution from> > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is> > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in> > paint strippers and glues.> > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural estrogens> > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is important to> > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer development. Many> > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds - chemicals that> > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in> > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast cancer risk.> > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels,> > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke,> > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care products> > including sunscreens."> >> > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to claim is safe> > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important to note> > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like the Komen> > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink line of> > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find a cure for> > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have said way too> > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be helping> > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part of the> > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until we do> > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts and kills> > women.> >> > =====> >> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is> > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in> > receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

I heard it's the bras with underwires that cause the most damage. It's possible to find bras without underwires.

Sharon (braless in the 60's)

no-forced-vaccination From: enb1@...Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 10:11:48 +0200Subject: RE: Re: OT - National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up

Define society?!

I don't give a rat's behind about society's perception of me. If they don't like boobs swinging in the wind, tell them to go suck on a genetically modified tree.

Ingrid (braless for ages)

ROFL are you kidding?!Society is not ready for women to walk around without bras??????Well, society is not ready to hear that the government and pharmaceutical industries are working in cohesion to kill us. So I'm just going to keep vaccinating and medicating my children.You have to be friggen kidding me....

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM, cafefanatik <cafefanatik > wrote:

I have had personal experience with lymphatic system congestion.. I do wear a bra... I kinda have to.... I am a big size.. It would be a societal disgrace to walk around with these big boulders without something to at least keep them tastefully hidden...I am all about detoxing and letting the lymph nodes do their job..as you said to help rid the body of toxins..but I dont think that society is ready to see women walking around with big fat bouncy boobs..I think there might be some validity to what you are saying about the constriction of blood flow in that particular area where the bra gets strapped on..BUT I dont think that is that big of a contributing factor to breast cancer..In my ongoing research and detox program, I have learned that there is more that factors in to what causes it..I have loads of info on that on my website if you are interested.. R> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]> > *October 30th, 2008*> > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>> > ***> >> > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the> > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the month of> > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast cancer. No> > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail> > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less absurd this year> > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just that even> > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be expected to> > buy.> > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's women's mags> > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic in talking> > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a young pretty> > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.> >> > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing> > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.> >> > She points out that,> > "Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has gone> > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About 80,000> > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and their number> > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them have been> > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in the> > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent review by> > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources> > cause breast cancer in animals.> > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors in> > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally believed to> > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been closely> > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene, which is in> > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air pollution from> > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is> > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in> > paint strippers and glues.> > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural estrogens> > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is important to> > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer development. Many> > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds - chemicals that> > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in> > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast cancer risk.> > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels,> > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke,> > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care products> > including sunscreens."> >> > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to claim is safe> > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important to note> > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like the Komen> > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink line of> > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find a cure for> > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have said way too> > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be helping> > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part of the> > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until we do> > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts and kills> > women.> >> > =====> >> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is> > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in> > receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

Oh yes and to add, no we are really not supposed to be wearing clothing. It's not healthy for our cells. They need to be exposed to air, not constantly covered up by clothing. Obviously in colder weather climates, this isn't always possible, but if you're living in a home and have some sort of heating device, it's best to wear as little clothing as possible.

There's a great book called " Can we live 150 years " . You should read it.On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Monika Reign B. <nature.mum@...> wrote:

lolWell to continue the OT discussion, and at the risk of offending some more people I will answer.

I wear panties during the day because I do not like the feel of the seams in my pants rubbing against my feminine parts. While I am at home, I wear pyjamas and no I do not wear panties (GASP!) and definitely never wear them while I sleep. Ever taken a swim at a beach without panties? Probably not if you're still insisiting that we must wear undergarments. Especially as a female, it is important to let your genitals get some " fresh air " and if you're constantly wearing panties all the time, it's definitely not allowing for that to happen. Just like deep breathing is important for health and longevity, your skin needs to be exposed as much as possible so yeah, panties are not very healthy either. Wearing clothing all the time and having your very important " private parts " always in some constricting fabric is not good for you.

ROFL! Just read the article. lol.This is pretty sad, IMO, to see people not realizing that they are contradicting themselves.... talking about society and vaccinations and how people are so brainwashed, but then don't realize that it's the exact same with so many other things and then defending the bull****.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Ingrid Blank <enb1@...> wrote:

Monika, I am waiting with bated breath for your answer

In the meantime, read this hilarious " advice "

http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1867.html

To those having expressed their " concern " in private mails that I am neglecting my moderator duties by allowing this OT discussion to continue - lighten up, folks. It's Sunday and we all deserve a break from the " heavy stuff " once in a while.

Ingrid

We are born naked. Does that mean we are not to wear clothes of any kind? There are bras (like the " Spanx " brand I previously mentioned) which do not constrict. In my opinion a bra is just as important as panties. (Please don't tell me you don't wear them either).

Re: Re: OT - National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up

Exactly.Who says you have to wear a bra because your breasts are big? If you were supposed to wear a bra, wouldn't you have been born with it? I don't understand where women get the idea that they need bras.

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Ingrid Blank <enb1@...> wrote:

Define society?!

I don't give a rat's behind about society's perception of me. If they don't like boobs swinging in the wind, tell them to go suck on a genetically modified tree.

Ingrid (braless for ages)

ROFL are you kidding?!Society is not ready for women to walk around without bras??????Well, society is not ready to hear that the government and pharmaceutical industries are working in cohesion to kill us. So I'm just going to keep vaccinating and medicating my children.You have to be friggen kidding me....

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM, cafefanatik <cafefanatik@...> wrote:

I have had personal experience with lymphatic system congestion.. I do wear a bra... I kinda have to.... I am a big size.. It would be a societal disgrace to walk around with these big boulders without something to at least keep them tastefully hidden...I am all about detoxing and letting the lymph nodes do their job..as you said to help rid the body of toxins..but I dont think that society is ready to see women walking around with big fat bouncy boobs..I think there might be some validity to what you are saying about the constriction of blood flow in that particular area where the bra gets strapped on..BUT I dont think that is that big of a contributing factor to breast cancer..In my ongoing research and detox program, I have learned that there is more that factors in to what causes it..I have loads of info on that on my website if you are interested.. R> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]> > *October 30th, 2008*> > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>

> > ***> >> > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the> > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the month of> > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast cancer. No> > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail> > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less absurd this year> > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just that even> > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be expected to> > buy.> > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's women's mags> > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic in talking> > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a young pretty> > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.> >> > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articl

es/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing> > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.> >> > She points out that,> > " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has gone> > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About 80,000> > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and their number> > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them have been> > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in the> > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent review by> > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources> > cause breast cancer in animals.> > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors in> > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally believed to> > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been closely> > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene, which is in> > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air pollution from> > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is> > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in> > paint strippers and glues.> > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural estrogens> > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is important to> > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer development. Many> > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds - chemicals that> > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in> > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast cancer risk.> > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels,> > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke,> > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care products> > including sunscreens. " > >> > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to claim is safe> > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important to note> > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like the Komen> > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink line of> > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find a cure for> > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have said way too> > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be helping> > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part of the> > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until we do> > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts and kills> > women.> >> > =====> >> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is> > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in> > receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.> >> > > >>

[Guest guest]

Thanks for allowing this OT and as you said, taking a break from the

heavy matters. Breast cancer is a heavy matter that the drift to bras

and society connect to. I like the spanx idea - have always had same

issue as Theresa no matter my weight, and a small back - the lingerie

specialty stores I needed for gowns, etc. were always amazed. I felt

looked at quite enough in that area (not freakish but prominant) and

sure don't need lack of support to add to the show.

That's right, we are not born with clothes, so there are options for

those who don't want to abandon the supportive idea altogether.

I find caring for myself with superior healthcare methods altogether

is most important, and fine using regular bras during day, off at

night (so about 1/2 of the time).

Even more insidious causes are underarm deoderants with aluminum,

underwire bras, toxicity overall in the environment, soaps, foods,

water with lack of detoxification. I have also treated some women

with breast cancer that was clearly due to suppressed emotional issues

and got to the bottom of that.

This PINK thing has been bothering me as well, regarding the original

post. How are they coming up with a 'cure'? It's like an awareness

show - and the 'research' is all in the allopathic realm. There are

no cures there, only some survivals - after being brutilized one may

live longer as the same physically/emotionally traumatized

person...they are brainwashed. Natural answers are already out there

and being obviously ignored....and bra thing is a nice addition to

that wisdom to consider

Liz

> >

> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]

> > > *October 30th, 2008*

> > > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-

>

Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-

> cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>

> > > ***

> > >

> > > For the last several years, I have been spouting off

about the

> > > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has

pinkified

> the

> month of

> > > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for

breast

> cancer. No

> > > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any

> retail

> > > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit

less

> absurd this year

> > > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the

election or

> just

> that even

> > > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff

we can

> be

> expected to

> > > buy.

> > > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this

year's

> women's mags

> > > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more

> realistic

> in talking

> > > about causes and there was less framing of breast

cancer as a

> young pretty

> > > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.

> > >

> > > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the

Boston

>

> Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articl

> es/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing

> > > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.

> > >

> > > She points out that,

> > > " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic

chemicals

> has

> gone

> > > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast

cancer.

> About

> 80,000

> > > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United

States, and

> their number

> > > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7

percent of

> them

> have been

> > > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can

persist

> in

> the

> > > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a

> recent

> review by

> > > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and

> radiation sources

> > > cause breast cancer in animals.

> > > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most

cause

> tumors in

> > > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are

> generally

> believed to

> > > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few

have been

> closely

> > > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about

benzene,

> which is in

> > > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are

in air

> pollution from

> > > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods;

ethylene

> oxide, which is

> > > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a

> common

> solvent in

> > > paint strippers and glues.

> > > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to

> natural

> estrogens

> > > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is

> important to

> > > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer

> development. Many

> > > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting

compounds -

> chemicals that

> > > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A,

which is

> found in

> > > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise

breast

> cancer risk.

> > > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many

pesticides,

> fuels,

> > > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents,

> tobacco

> smoke,

> > > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and

personal-care

> products

> > > including sunscreens. "

> > >

> > > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA

continues to

> claim is safe

> > > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also

> important

> to note

> > > that automotive companies are big donors to

organizations like

> the Komen

> > > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding

Warriors in

> Pink

> line of

> > > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate

money to

> find

> a cure for

> > > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As

I have

> said way too

> > > many times before, as long as the organizations that

claim to

> be

> helping

> > > fight this disease take money from those whose

products are

> part

> of the

> > > problem, we will not be able to fully address the

cause and

> until

> we do

> > > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that

> bankrupts

> and kills

> > > women.

> > >

> > > =====

> > >

> > > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this

material

> is

> > > distributed without profit to those who have expressed

a prior

> interest in

> > > receiving the included information for research and

> educational

> purposes.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dr. Howenstine sums it up nicely

http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james42.htm

Also read Mammography Madness by william s

http://www.westonaprice.org/women/mammography.html

Ingrid

This PINK thing has been bothering me as well, regarding the original

post. How are they coming up with a 'cure'? It's like an awareness

show - and the 'research' is all in the allopathic realm. There are

no cures there, only some survivals - after being brutilized one may

live longer as the same physically/emotionally traumatized

person...they are brainwashed. Natural answers are already out there

and being obviously ignored....and bra thing is a nice addition to

that wisdom to consider

Liz

>

> Monika, I am waiting with bated breath for your answer

> In the meantime, read this hilarious " advice "

> http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1867.html

>

> To those having expressed their " concern " in private mails that I am

> neglecting my moderator duties by allowing this OT discussion to

continue -

> lighten up, folks. It's Sunday and we all deserve a break from the

" heavy

> stuff " once in a while.

>

> Ingrid

>

[Guest guest]

Dr. Howenstine sums it up nicely

http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james42.htm

Also read Mammography Madness by william s

http://www.westonaprice.org/women/mammography.html

Ingrid

This PINK thing has been bothering me as well, regarding the original

post. How are they coming up with a 'cure'? It's like an awareness

show - and the 'research' is all in the allopathic realm. There are

no cures there, only some survivals - after being brutilized one may

live longer as the same physically/emotionally traumatized

person...they are brainwashed. Natural answers are already out there

and being obviously ignored....and bra thing is a nice addition to

that wisdom to consider

Liz

>

> Monika, I am waiting with bated breath for your answer

> In the meantime, read this hilarious " advice "

> http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1867.html

>

> To those having expressed their " concern " in private mails that I am

> neglecting my moderator duties by allowing this OT discussion to

continue -

> lighten up, folks. It's Sunday and we all deserve a break from the

" heavy

> stuff " once in a while.

>

> Ingrid

>

[Guest guest]

Just curious.... for the women with large breasts who complain of back problems, do you exercise? Do you workout your back? Back exercises? Just curious...

[Guest guest]

Ok - with all hesitation cast aside, I just have to join this

discussion again - I don't wear any forms of undergarments unless I'm

in my moon phase - any time of year - or unless I'm skiing.

In the summers, I almost always swim where bathing suits are not

required, and if I do, then I go with the convention of wearing the

suit - but that is the exception.

This is so personal, but I have to share that having cast off

underwear about 7 or 8 years ago - I've found immensely healthier

female parts to be a boon.

Weird discussion, but I think more folks should be willing to talk

about it - and why the heck does our modern culture see fit to enslave

people with so much and such restraining clothing.

I wear jumpers most of the time, and conventional underwear, wool long

johns, hand knit socks and jumpers or turtlenecks in the winter for

outdoor activities.

One more note - my kids are 21, 18, 15 and 10. They roll their eyes

at my " freedom, " but they also prefer to swim naked and are much more

liberated than any of their friends.

My 22 cents - again.

Theresa

On Nov 2, 2008, at 11:59 AM, Monika Reign B. wrote:

> lol

> Well to continue the OT discussion, and at the risk of offending

> some more people I will answer.

> I wear panties during the day because I do not like the feel of the

> seams in my pants rubbing against my feminine parts. While I am at

> home, I wear pyjamas and no I do not wear panties (GASP!) and

> definitely never wear them while I sleep. Ever taken a swim at a

> beach without panties? Probably not if you're still insisiting that

> we must wear undergarments. Especially as a female, it is important

> to let your genitals get some " fresh air " and if you're constantly

> wearing panties all the time, it's definitely not allowing for that

> to happen. Just like deep breathing is important for health and

> longevity, your skin needs to be exposed as much as possible so

> yeah, panties are not very healthy either. Wearing clothing all the

> time and having your very important " private parts " always in some

> constricting fabric is not good for you.

>

> ROFL! Just read the article. lol.

>

>

> This is pretty sad, IMO, to see people not realizing that they are

> contradicting themselves.... talking about society and vaccinations

> and how people are so brainwashed, but then don't realize that it's

> the exact same with so many other things and then defending the

> bull****.

>

>

>

> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Ingrid Blank <enb1@...>

> wrote:

>

> Monika, I am waiting with bated breath for your answer

> In the meantime, read this hilarious " advice "

> http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1867.html

>

> To those having expressed their " concern " in private mails that I am

> neglecting my moderator duties by allowing this OT discussion to

> continue - lighten up, folks. It's Sunday and we all deserve a break

> from the " heavy stuff " once in a while.

>

> Ingrid

>

>

> We are born naked. Does that mean we are not to wear clothes of any

> kind? There are bras (like the " Spanx " brand I previously

> mentioned) which do not constrict. In my opinion a bra is just as

> important as panties. (Please don't tell me you don't wear them

> either).

> Re: Re: OT - National Breast Cancer

> Awareness Month Wrap-Up

>

> Exactly.

>

> Who says you have to wear a bra because your breasts are big? If

> you were supposed to wear a bra, wouldn't you have been born with

> it? I don't understand where women get the idea that they need bras.

>

>

>

> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Ingrid Blank <enb1@...>

> wrote:

>

> Define society?!

> I don't give a rat's behind about society's perception of me. If

> they don't like boobs swinging in the wind, tell them to go suck on

> a genetically modified tree.

>

> Ingrid (braless for ages)

>

>

> ROFL are you kidding?!

> Society is not ready for women to walk around without bras??????

>

> Well, society is not ready to hear that the government and

> pharmaceutical industries are working in cohesion to kill us. So

> I'm just going to keep vaccinating and medicating my children.

>

>

> You have to be friggen kidding me....

>

>

>

>

> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM, cafefanatik

> <cafefanatik@...>wrote:

> I have had personal experience with lymphatic system congestion.. I

> do wear a bra... I kinda have to.... I am a big size.. It would be a

> societal disgrace to walk around with these big boulders without

> something to at least keep them tastefully hidden...

>

> I am all about detoxing and letting the lymph nodes do their job..as

> you said to help rid the body of toxins..but I dont think that

> society is ready to see women walking around with big fat bouncy

> boobs..

>

> I think there might be some validity to what you are saying about the

> constriction of blood flow in that particular area where the bra gets

> strapped on..BUT I dont think that is that big of a contributing

> factor to breast cancer..

>

> In my ongoing research and detox program, I have learned that there

> is more that factors in to what causes it..

>

> I have loads of info on that on my website if you are interested..

>

> R

>

>

> >

> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]

> > > *October 30th, 2008*

> > > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-

> Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-

> cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>

> > > ***

> > >

> > > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the

> > > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the

> month of

> > > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast

> cancer. No

> > > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail

> > > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less

> absurd this year

> > > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just

> that even

> > > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be

> expected to

> > > buy.

> > > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's

> women's mags

> > > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic

> in talking

> > > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a

> young pretty

> > > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.

> > >

> > > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston

> Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articl

> es/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing

> > > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.

> > >

> > > She points out that,

> > > " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has

> gone

> > > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About

> 80,000

> > > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and

> their number

> > > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them

> have been

> > > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in

> the

> > > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent

> review by

> > > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and

> radiation sources

> > > cause breast cancer in animals.

> > > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause

> tumors in

> > > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally

> believed to

> > > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been

> closely

> > > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene,

> which is in

> > > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air

> pollution from

> > > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene

> oxide, which is

> > > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common

> solvent in

> > > paint strippers and glues.

> > > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural

> estrogens

> > > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is

> important to

> > > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer

> development. Many

> > > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds -

> chemicals that

> > > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is

> found in

> > > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast

> cancer risk.

> > > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides,

> fuels,

> > > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco

> smoke,

> > > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care

> products

> > > including sunscreens. "

> > >

> > > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to

> claim is safe

> > > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important

> to note

> > > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like

> the Komen

> > > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink

> line of

> > > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find

> a cure for

> > > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have

> said way too

> > > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be

> helping

> > > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part

> of the

> > > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until

> we do

> > > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts

> and kills

> > > women.

> > >

> > > =====

> > >

> > > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

> > > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

> interest in

> > > receiving the included information for research and educational

> purposes.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

lol, I love it.On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Theresa <tgeorge1@...> wrote:

Ok - with all hesitation cast aside, I just have to join this

discussion again - I don't wear any forms of undergarments unless I'm

in my moon phase - any time of year - or unless I'm skiing.

In the summers, I almost always swim where bathing suits are not

required, and if I do, then I go with the convention of wearing the

suit - but that is the exception.

This is so personal, but I have to share that having cast off

underwear about 7 or 8 years ago - I've found immensely healthier

female parts to be a boon.

Weird discussion, but I think more folks should be willing to talk

about it - and why the heck does our modern culture see fit to enslave

people with so much and such restraining clothing.

I wear jumpers most of the time, and conventional underwear, wool long

johns, hand knit socks and jumpers or turtlenecks in the winter for

outdoor activities.

One more note - my kids are 21, 18, 15 and 10. They roll their eyes

at my " freedom, " but they also prefer to swim naked and are much more

liberated than any of their friends.

My 22 cents - again.

Theresa

On Nov 2, 2008, at 11:59 AM, Monika Reign B. wrote:

> lol

> Well to continue the OT discussion, and at the risk of offending

> some more people I will answer.

> I wear panties during the day because I do not like the feel of the

> seams in my pants rubbing against my feminine parts. While I am at

> home, I wear pyjamas and no I do not wear panties (GASP!) and

> definitely never wear them while I sleep. Ever taken a swim at a

> beach without panties? Probably not if you're still insisiting that

> we must wear undergarments. Especially as a female, it is important

> to let your genitals get some " fresh air " and if you're constantly

> wearing panties all the time, it's definitely not allowing for that

> to happen. Just like deep breathing is important for health and

> longevity, your skin needs to be exposed as much as possible so

> yeah, panties are not very healthy either. Wearing clothing all the

> time and having your very important " private parts " always in some

> constricting fabric is not good for you.

>

> ROFL! Just read the article. lol.

>

>

> This is pretty sad, IMO, to see people not realizing that they are

> contradicting themselves.... talking about society and vaccinations

> and how people are so brainwashed, but then don't realize that it's

> the exact same with so many other things and then defending the

> bull****.

>

>

>

> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Ingrid Blank <enb1@...>

> wrote:

>

> Monika, I am waiting with bated breath for your answer

> In the meantime, read this hilarious " advice "

> http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1867.html

>

> To those having expressed their " concern " in private mails that I am

> neglecting my moderator duties by allowing this OT discussion to

> continue - lighten up, folks. It's Sunday and we all deserve a break

> from the " heavy stuff " once in a while.

>

> Ingrid

>

>

> We are born naked. Does that mean we are not to wear clothes of any

> kind? There are bras (like the " Spanx " brand I previously

> mentioned) which do not constrict. In my opinion a bra is just as

> important as panties. (Please don't tell me you don't wear them

> either).

> Re: Re: OT - National Breast Cancer

> Awareness Month Wrap-Up

>

> Exactly.

>

> Who says you have to wear a bra because your breasts are big? If

> you were supposed to wear a bra, wouldn't you have been born with

> it? I don't understand where women get the idea that they need bras.

>

>

>

> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:11 AM, Ingrid Blank <enb1@...>

> wrote:

>

> Define society?!

> I don't give a rat's behind about society's perception of me. If

> they don't like boobs swinging in the wind, tell them to go suck on

> a genetically modified tree.

>

> Ingrid (braless for ages)

>

>

> ROFL are you kidding?!

> Society is not ready for women to walk around without bras??????

>

> Well, society is not ready to hear that the government and

> pharmaceutical industries are working in cohesion to kill us. So

> I'm just going to keep vaccinating and medicating my children.

>

>

> You have to be friggen kidding me....

>

>

>

>

> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM, cafefanatik

> <cafefanatik@...>wrote:

> I have had personal experience with lymphatic system congestion.. I

> do wear a bra... I kinda have to.... I am a big size.. It would be a

> societal disgrace to walk around with these big boulders without

> something to at least keep them tastefully hidden...

>

> I am all about detoxing and letting the lymph nodes do their job..as

> you said to help rid the body of toxins..but I dont think that

> society is ready to see women walking around with big fat bouncy

> boobs..

>

> I think there might be some validity to what you are saying about the

> constriction of blood flow in that particular area where the bra gets

> strapped on..BUT I dont think that is that big of a contributing

> factor to breast cancer..

>

> In my ongoing research and detox program, I have learned that there

> is more that factors in to what causes it..

>

> I have loads of info on that on my website if you are interested..

>

> R

>

>

> >

> > > http://snipurl.com/4w9gx [www_feministpeacenetwork_org]

> > > *October 30th, 2008*

> > > *National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Wrap-

> Up<http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2008/10/30/national-breast-

> cancer-awareness-month-wrap-up/>

> > > ***

> > >

> > > For the last several years, I have been spouting off about the

> > > hyper-commercialism and crass profiteering that has pinkified the

> month of

> > > October for the supposed purpose of finding a cure for breast

> cancer. No

> > > doubt about it, pink products galore are available at any retail

> > > establishment but it seems that things have been a bit less

> absurd this year

> > > than in the past. Maybe it's the economy or the election or just

> that even

> > > for a a good cause there is so much pepto pink schtuff we can be

> expected to

> > > buy.

> > > While I haven't had a chance to write about it, this year's

> women's mags

> > > were far more temperate in their coverage, a bit more realistic

> in talking

> > > about causes and there was less framing of breast cancer as a

> young pretty

> > > white girl's disease. Here's hoping that trend continues.

> > >

> > > I was also pleased to see *Rita Arditti's piece in the Boston

> Globe*<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articl

> es/2008/10/27/why_cancers_gaining_on_us/> discussing

> > > the relationship between chemicals and breast cancer.

> > >

> > > She points out that,

> > > " Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has

> gone

> > > hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About

> 80,000

> > > synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and

> their number

> > > increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them

> have been

> > > screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in

> the

> > > environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent

> review by

> > > the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and

> radiation sources

> > > cause breast cancer in animals.

> > > Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause

> tumors in

> > > multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally

> believed to

> > > indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been

> closely

> > > studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene,

> which is in

> > > gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air

> pollution from

> > > vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene

> oxide, which is

> > > widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common

> solvent in

> > > paint strippers and glues.

> > > There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural

> estrogens

> > > in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is

> important to

> > > consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer

> development. Many

> > > other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds -

> chemicals that

> > > affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is

> found in

> > > plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast

> cancer risk.

> > > Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides,

> fuels,

> > > plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco

> smoke,

> > > prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care

> products

> > > including sunscreens. "

> > >

> > > Bisphenol A or BPA is the chemical that the EPA continues to

> claim is safe

> > > while other countries are moving to ban it. It is also important

> to note

> > > that automotive companies are big donors to organizations like

> the Komen

> > > Foundation and Ford has created a cause-branding Warriors in Pink

> line of

> > > clothing while this year BMW was offering to donate money to find

> a cure for

> > > test driving their toxic exhaust spewing vehicles. As I have

> said way too

> > > many times before, as long as the organizations that claim to be

> helping

> > > fight this disease take money from those whose products are part

> of the

> > > problem, we will not be able to fully address the cause and until

> we do

> > > that, the 'cure' will just be a profitable farce that bankrupts

> and kills

> > > women.

> > >

> > > =====

> > >

> > > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

> > > distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

> interest in

> > > receiving the included information for research and educational

> purposes.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

------------------------------------