Smile Or Die by Barbara Ehrenreich

Smile Or Die

In Smile Or Die, author Barbara Ehrenreich documents her personal agonizing encounter with an ideological force –one that she asserts encourages us to deny reality and submit cheerfully to misfortune, and blame only ourselves for our fate.

After a routine mammogram picked up her cancer cells, Ehrenreich promptly discovered the dearth of choices when it came to the management of the dreaded disease. Her diagnosis duly documented, she was on the predictable and well - trodden treadmill; one that would lead to a mutilating mastectomy or to a simple lumpectomy, inevitably followed by radiation or chemotherapy.

As her breast cancer career progressed, to her utmost surprise, Ehrenreich found that many women did not view the disease with the horror and dread that supposedly accompanies the malady. Instead the attitude towards the deadly affliction was upbeat and even eagerly acquisitive. Ehrenreich documents the fact that there are between 2 and 3 million American women in various stages of breast cancer treatment making up a market for all things breast cancer: pink breast cancer t- shirts, assortments of pyjamas, lingerie, scarves, caps and numerous commodities that brighten the patient's home including cuddly teddy bears, candles, coffee mugs, and the list goes on.

In Smile Or Die, this approach to the disease is described as an ultra feminine theme of breast cancer…an infantilizing trope with Ehrenreich asserting that she doubt that men with prostate cancer would receive matchbox cars. As her quest for information about the disease, its course and treatments progressed, her isolation grew - for few sufferers shared her sense of outrage over the disease itself, its causation and its pitiful ways of addressing the progress.

Her rage focussed on the lack of attention given to the causes of the now decades old breast cancer epidemic. There were a number of factors thought to be involved such as overly-processed diets, modern lifestyles, genetic factors and toxic environments, just to name a few. The author of Smile Or Die, asserts that amongst the breast cancer community there is scant attention given, nor enough anger expressed, over the painful and inadequate treatments that form the bulk of available therapies. In the place of justified anger there is countless pity and passivity: the victim becomes a survivor and those who die become our lost sisters.

Ehrenreich describes the cheerfulness of the breast cancer culture and how there those in the community who regard the disease as a gift, a rite of passage. As a breast cancer patient, Ehrenreich was encouraged to think positively and embrace cancer with a smile. Her analysis of such sugar-coating is that this comes at a great cost which is the denial of one's true feelings of fear and anger.

This author’s anger is with the cancer industry along with the medical and pharmaceutical institutions for her breast cancer was iatrogenic - she had been taking HRT or hormone replacement therapy for just under 8 years. The Women’s Health Initiative trial in 2002 found that the popular hormone therapy caused increases in the cases of breast cancer and in 2008, The Medical Journal of Australia, reported that the reduction in breast cancer among women over 50 years is mostly due to the decrease in the use of HRT, the drug which was given to post menopausal women for relief of hot flushes and to ensure they stayed forever young.

Smile Or Die by Barbara Ehrenreich will stimulate the public conversation that has not taken place – what causes the disease and why there is such a lack of outrage amongst breast cancer sufferers and the community itself. Where is the anger?

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of many books including Nickle and Dimmed and Global women: nannies, maids and sex workers.

The ABC takes a long summer break!

I was barely awake, but even so I recall the unmistakable voice of the local ABC summer breakfast presenter mouthing polite platitudes of sympathy for the thousands of Haitians killed in the massive earthquake which hit the capital, Port-au-Prince on the 13th January. The journalistic imperatives of what, where, and who were barely mentioned, with the crucial how and why, the object of neglect. In their place, the early morning summer listeners were urged to partake in an aural orgy detailing their own most frightening life event.

Such was the state of current affairs over the summer break. If ABC news and analysis is so crucial and demanding of our listenership during the year then how is it that our loyalty is so badly rewarded over summer? The case of Haiti and the resultant pitiful media response stands as a poignant example of the neglectful state of our ABC and in particular its practice over the summer break.

Take the TV coverage of the Haiti earthquake as an example: the reports from the ABC’s correspondent, stationed in the capital Port-au-Prince show many miraculous images of grateful people, bravely rescued after spending numerous days under rubble and carnage emerging seemingly lifeless, but alive. There are frightening visuals, of gangs of looters being gunned down, and starving and begging survivors fighting to get their hands on the token food aid. But are we really to believe that the devastation inflicted on the Haitians is just the natural outcome of an earthquake and not the result of unbridled exploitation that placed profit above all else?
There is scant reference to the history of this poverty-stricken country which has endured centuries of colonialism, slavery, violence and patriarchy. The ABC is failing its charter which dictates that it educates its audience and therefore has a duty to relate the history of US-Haiti relations which bear direct responsibility for present crisis confronting the Haitian people. Such an omission risks the United States being seen as the saviour coming to the aid of the Haitians in the form of rescue teams, money and most of all food.

To her surprise, Associate Professor Bronwyn Winter, from the Department of French Studies at The University of Sydney found herself being asked to provide expert commentary on Haiti, after one interstate media outlet failed to unearth any other academic commentator with suitable expertise. The Adelaide Advertiser learned of Winter’s interest in the country and its history, about which she has lectured, and which she visited on a research trip in 2000. Winter says that the Advertiser’s difficulty in finding an academic able to comment reminds her sadly of the scale of neglect of Haiti, that is entirely the circumstance of the poverty stricken Caribbean island nation even in normal times. Bronwyn Winter’s article leaves no room for doubt over the past and present predicament of Haiti: “a little over two centuries ago, Haiti was the Jewel of the Antilles, largely thanks to the colonial trade in sugar and indigo. It is now the region's poorest country.” Yet she also comments that at the end of the eighteenth century, this nation of slaves was the first in the world to rise up against western colonialism: an independence for which it has continued to pay dearly ever since.

It may be too late to expect that the ABC’s current affairs programs will take up the challenge with Chris Masters, the former producer of the ABC’s Four Corners program telling the audience at The Friends of the ABC, that by the time he left the program, he had no assistance for the investigative research, that was needed to be undertaken in order to produce the former high quality program. Masters left the ABC 12 months ago, after working for the national broadcaster for over 40 years. He spoke of his time as producer of Four Corners with its hallmark of original research and confrontation on the difficult subjects. He laments the past and says that these days ‘the news industry is about being first and fast – not thorough and accurate.’ Rather than doing investigative research these days, news he says is about the least possible amount of investigative research. He urged his audience to find some way to pay for thorough research and said that ‘ all journalism should be investigative.’

Just this week the Managing Director of the ABC, Mark Scott, announced a 24-hour rolling news channel that would feature continuous news coverage. Jason Wilson from New Matilda.com asserts that the new channel will cater for the ‘political junkies’. However, he asks if it can assist in the restoration of ABC current affairs which are currently inadequate. His assessment is that it will be watched by ‘a niche market which is already well-catered for.’ We need to ask should the ABC be spending money on this new 24 hour channel or could the money be better spent on improving what we already have in the way of current affairs programs. Wilson outlines the dismal state of television current affairs and calls local radio to task for its underperformance.

Dr. Joseph Toscano, the convener of The Anarchist Media Institute is not surprised at the state of news and analysis at the ABC. The AMI was established in 1986 to counteract the celebrity driven media and the self censoring which excludes any alternative view. “I don’t blame the presenters for the current state of programming because there are set editorial guidelines”. Before each program they have certain guidelines set along with directives on what the presenter will be able to say in regard to the breadth of the subject. The presenter is a presenter.” Toscano explains that this has much to do with the type of middle management appointed during the Howard years to gut the ABC of ideas.

Although ideas as well as information have been absent on our ABC this summer, I was not left uninformed and the best analysis of the Haiti situation came from Dr Ralph Newmark who is one of the presenters on the Latin American Update program on community radio 3CR. Newmark clearly loves the Haitian culture which he describes as extraordinary and in between tracks of Haitian music he explains that centuries of colonization, dispossession, genocide, and slavery resulted in turning Haiti into the poorest country in the Americas: one where buildings were so poorly built as to crumble in the wake of mother nature, and so devoid of the necessary infrastructure that aid to the victims was not possible. Newmark concluded his discussion by declaring that “the world is at least reminded, if it didn't know before, that the conditions in this country are an absolute disgrace to humanity, and historically the west should feel utterly ashamed of how this country has turned out.”

Now that the ABC has concluded its summer break and the regular presenters and producers are back behind their desks and microphones, I wonder if I will be informed and stimulated by ideas, or merely titillated and entertained by talk back callers with mundane details about their western, privileged existences.

Unnecessary CT scans are giving people cancer!

You’ve been complaining about the pain in your abdomen that just won’t go away and your doctor lines you up for a cat scan. You lie on the narrow table that slides in and out of the overhead tunnel, whilst x-ray beams rotate and produce sliced images of your very interior.

Such commonplace imaging should not be taken lightly or performed as often as it does, with recent research revealing that radiation from CT scans can cause cancer decades after patient exposure. The research, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine states that the doses delivered by the CT scanners were higher than previously thought, and were in fact extremely variable lacking the rigors of standardization across the industry.

This is of increasing concern due to the escalating use of computed tomography both in symptomatic patients and more recently in the screening of asymptomatic patients. The popularity of this diagnostic procedure has increased over the past few decades, with the number of annual CT procedures performed in the United States rising from 3 million in 1980, to approximately 70 million in 2007.

Computed tomography, commonly referred to as a CT scan, plays a vital part in modern medicine, transforming medical imaging by providing three-dimensional views of the body. However, it does so by delivering extremely large doses of radiation with a CT scan of the chest bombarding the body with more than 100 times the radiation than a routine chest x-ray. Delivering even more radiation, is the CT coronary angiogram which is capable of submitting the patient to the equivalent of 309 chest X-rays leading to the conclusion that one 40-year-old woman out of 270 who underwent a CT scan of coronary arteries would develop cancer as a result of the test.

The authors of the study criticize the increasing use of CT screening for healthy patients and suggest that the risk of carcinogenesis outweighs any diagnostic value. The risks of CT scanning are greatest for the young because they are naturally more radiosensitive, and because they have more remaining years of life during which a radiation-induced cancer could develop.

The increase in CT scanning is driven by many factors, including the ever growing availability of the scanners, and the technology’s expanding detection qualities. Also contributing to the increase in CT usage is the rise in defensive medicine, resulting in physicians ordering unnecessary imaging to avoid expensive lawsuits.

It is estimated that about one-third of all CT scans are not needed. The authors of the study into the risks associated with CT scanning, claim that there is growing consensus that the risks to patients from radiation via cat scans need to be reduced. They argue for the levels of radiation to be standardized across the industry and for a reduction in the number of scans performed. Another method of curtailing the abuse would be the introduction of an electronic tracking system to record the radiation dosage of individual cat scans.

The CT imaging of your abdomen is now over. You are relieved and glad that it was quick and painless. You are soon on your way, ready to carry on your day’s activities.

Let’s hope the risk was worth it!

Swine Flu Vaccine for Babies

“Australians should shed their no-worries attitude and make sure their families are vaccinated against swine flu,” said the Australian federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon on the 3rd December
And within two weeks the swine flu vaccine will be available free for all children between six months and nine years, after the Therapeutic Goods Administration approved Panvax Junior for young children on Thursday.

I hope she vaccinates her own child first before submitting the masses to this vaccine for which there is no need,
Minister for health Roxon continued insisting that :
Children under nine years will need two doses for the vaccine to work fully. The first dose provides good protection, and the second dose taken 28 days later will boost the initial shot.
The ministers plea for parents to vaccinate their babies with swine flu vaccine wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the swine flu vaccine has been available for months, but only five million doses have been administered from the stock of 21 million doses.’
Well there are all those little babies out there …..

Nicola Roxon said that “We are in a global battle against this pandemic,"
Battle she says…well no more than any other flu battle
The swine flu itself has killed about 2/3000 people total. The regular flu kills 40 000 plus per year – so why are we freaking out about swine flu, and not normal flu?
Does that make sense? no.
Nicola Roxon hopes that the Australian way of being too laid back will not interefere with the need to protect ourselves against this trumped up battle.

George Mamouzellos is a Pharmacist from the University of South Australia
He says that several swine flu vaccine manufacturers have asked governments to give them an exemption from lawsuits, in case the vaccine caused harm in people. He asks …..If you made a vaccine that you knew worked, then why would you need a legal exemption in case it hurt people? He calls this action a Massive warning sign.

The swine flu vaccine manufacturers themselves don't believe its safe.If the regular flu kills 40 000 plus per year, and the swine flu only killed 2/3 000 – then why are governments buying it in advance, giving it to us for free, and giving drug manufacturers immunity to legal cases against them? Does that make sense? no.

The swine flu vaccine contains 2 horribly dangerous compounds – one is called thimerosol. It is made 50% of mercury. It binds to receptors in your brain, and basically causes brain damage. Is it smart to be injected with thimerosol, and get brain damage, dropping 10 IQ points and going dumb, in order to avoid getting a flu that kills 95% less people than regular flu? no.The other horrible in gredient is called squalene. Squalene accidentally tricks your immune system into killing your own cells, which creates autoimmune diseases like asthma, multiple scelerosis, diabetes, and a bunch of other diseases.

Is it smart to inject yourself with that stuff, in order to avoid a relatively mild flu, like the swine flu? no.If you're a pregnant mother about to take Panvax, ask yourself this – why would you take Panvax, when it contains Neomycin and Polymyxin B Sulfate – both of which exhibit positive risk to unborn children – so as to avoid what? A mild flu, that kills 95% fewer people than the regular flu?

George Mamouzellos the Pharmacist finishes his rant…. if someone came up to me with a syringe full of swine flu vaccine, or came near my family with one – I would take the needle off them and poke them with it myself – followed by several very hard punches. This stuff is poison. Don't take it. Dont let your friends take it. Don't let your family take it. If some idiot in a lab coat asks you if you want it, ask them about thimerosol, squalene, and why the company making it wants legal exemption from being sued.

And it may soon become impossible to avoid these vaccines as the news from south australia would suggest:

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26375106-2682,00.html

HEALTH authorities want the power to detain people for up to three months if they refuse testing or treatment for infectious diseases.
Under draft legislation proposed by the State Government, someone with swine flu, measles or meningococcal disease could be forcibly held, examined and treated.
It is one of several wide-ranging powers sought to protect the public.

The Public Health Bill also would, for the first time, give authorities the power to override parents who refused treatment for their children with infectious conditions.
Other diseases that could be controlled include AIDS, polio, rabies, salmonella and cholera.
The tougher enforcement powers would come with a substantial increase in fines - up from $60,000 to $1 million and 10 years' jail - and relate to any serious risk caused to public health.

SA Health public health director Kevin Buckett said the new legislation would give authorities wider powers to act more quickly.
"There's nowhere on Earth that is more than 36 hours from anywhere else and where people go, bugs can go," he said yesterday.
"We have to have legislation that can respond in that sort of time.

"The idea would be that we get them out of circulation, where they can't infect other people." Dr Buckett said there were many reasons people refused treatment, including mental health issues, language barriers and even malicious behaviour.
Non-communicable diseases, such as cancer and diabetes, could also be declared, allowing the Government to introduce codes of practice for certain industries or the community. Opposition health spokesman Duncan McFetridge said he supported powers to protect the public from infectious diseases but feared parts of the Bill - to be debated next year - would allow the Government to control people with chronic conditions.

"It's bordering on nanny-state legislation," he said. "It's understandable but how far do we go?"
Australian Medical Associat- ion state president Andrew Lavender said he welcomed most of the changes as important to protect the public.

There is no doubt that these regulators are quite mad!

I once watched a surgeon slice off a woman’s breast, and coldly drop it into a dish, where it slid and slithered before arriving for its final mutilation, confirming its carcinogenicity.

Contemporary women live with the fear of finding breast lumps detected either by manual palpation or mammography. From a very early age, my sisters and I became overly concerned that our mother would develop the disease; her own mother’s untimely death at the age of forty seven being due to breast cancer. Our formative years were accompanied by an ever present unease that the cancer was inevitable in mum or in one of us; the familial angst further heightened by the growing numbers of health campaigners preaching eternal vigilance over our troublesome breasts.

The degree to which we should be concerned about becoming a victim to breast cancer, needs to be discussed in light of the findings of a recent NSW-based study, that looked into the introduction of routine breast screening for older women. The study found that around one quarter of Australian women now undergoing breast cancer treatment are doing so because of tumours that are slowly growing and could have been safely ignored. This is because women are being screened with overly sensitive equipment, capable of detecting very small and non progressive tumours.

The author of the NSW based study, Dr. Stephen Morrell, told The Age, on the 13th November, that before screening for breast cancer was introduced, the cancer incidence among Australian women aged 50 to 69 years was about 150 cases per 100,000 in the population. With the advent of screening, the incidence has jumped to almost 300 cancer diagnoses per 100,000 women.
That of all breast cancers now diagnosed in New South Wales, 23 to 29 per cent were "over-diagnosed" and could be ignored is shocking news. To understand how we have arrived at this point a brief look at the history of breast cancer needs to be undertaken.

One of the earliest mentions of the disease was found in an Egyptian papyrus written between 3000-1500 BC with the early treatment for removal of tumors performed with an instrument known as “the fire drill.” The surgical treatment of breast cancer with radical mastectomy began in the 19th century, removing the affected breast, the underlying chest wall muscle, and the nearby lymph nodes, and continued to be the mainstay of breast cancer treatment until the 1960s.

Breast cancer became a political issue in the 1970s, with women embracing breast- conserving surgery rather than the mutilating radical mastectomies of the past. Around this time breast cancer awareness took on a level of heightened urgency across the world, encouraged by the stories of celebrities who became victims then survivors of the disease. The emphasis was on early detection being the best prevention which could to be achieved through breast self examination or increasingly by way of mammography.

In 1990 funding for the National Program for the early detection of breast cancer was announced providing free screening mammograms at two-yearly intervals for Australian women aged 50-69. The cancer council of Victoria define a mammogram as an X-ray of the breast using low doses of radiation. However Dr Samuel Epstein, author of Danger and Unreliability of Mammography, says that the radiation a woman receives from mammography puts her at risk of initiating and promoting breast cancer. He explains that whilst we have been assured that radiation exposure from mammography is low and similar to that received from a chest X-ray, the standard routine of taking four films for each breast results in some 1,000-fold greater exposure.

Opinions vary as to the benefits of mammography with Dr Stephen Morrell, author of the NSW study regarding mammography as ‘a net benefit’, in that mortality has declined. Professor Ian Olver, the chief executive of The Cancer Council of Australia agrees that mammography has resulted in a decline in mortality amounting to 35 percent. However in 2001, researchers from the Nordic Cochrane Center in Sweden found that screening was likely to reduce the relative mortality risk of breast cancer by 15%, not the 30% that most groups quote. Their conclusion: “For every 2,000 women [age 50-69] invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged. In addition, 10 healthy women who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm.” Professor Alex Barrett, Co- Author of the NSW study, which found that as many as a third of women diagnosed with breast cancer may not need treatment, has said that the results show that over-diagnosis of cancer happens, and is an important downside of cancer screening.

For decades now, women have been encouraged to front up and have regular x-rays of their breasts. The incidences of over-diagnoses are tragic, and have resulted in unnecessary mutilating surgery and toxic drug treatments. Surely a better way is to prevent this cancer by giving due attention to our diets and lifestyles; simple measures such as getting enough vitamin D, avoiding transfats, eating organic as much as possible, and omitting the regular mammograms.

The incidence of breast cancer increased by 18% from 1995 to 2005, and it is estimated that one in 11 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer before the age of 75. I wonder just how many of these incidences of breast cancer could have been left undiagnosed and untreated. My sisters and I have avoided becoming statistics in the current breast cancer epidemic, and hope to remain untouched. We will not have our breasts squashed between two plates of steel and irradiated. We will take our chances.

Where is the apology for those mutilated?


That of all breast cancers now diagnosed in New South Wales, 23 to 29 per cent were "over-diagnosed" and could be ignored is shocking news.

The Age, reported on 13th November, that around one quarter of Australian women now undergoing breast cancer treatment are doing so because of tumours that are slowly growing and could have been safely ignored.

This is because women are being screened with overly sensitive equipment, capable of detecting very small and non progressive tumours. The author of a study into the introduction of routine breast screening for older women, Dr. Stephen Morrell, told The Age, that before screening for breast cancer was introduced, the cancer incidence among Australian women aged 50 to 69 years was about 150 cases per 100,000 in the population. With the advent of screening the incidence has jumped to almost 300 cancer diagnoses per 100,000 women.

This over-diagnosis is tragic, and results in unnecessary mutilating surgery and toxic drug treaments. Surely it is time for us to stop worrying about cancer and take our chances. Forget about feeling, prodding and probing, and just live as well as we can. Why look for trouble when it isn't there?