.jpg)
Check this out: The LA Times is pinkwashing their entire website masthead with a pink ribbon set behind the word "Angeles," which of course means "angels." See it for yourself in this Fair Use screen shot:
If that's not enough pinkwashing, the LA Times website also has a pro-vaccine stance that may surprise you. Its "news briefs" section isn't named "News Briefs" or "News Updates." Instead, it's called "booster shots." I'm not kidding. They actually call it "booster shots," which is of course a phrase used to refer to vaccine injections.
Check it out in this screen shot (it's the title of the center column):
Just to blow your mind even more -- get ready for this one -- the LA Times also ran an article entitled The puzzle of why more women don't take preventive drugs. This article -- and I'm not making this up -- actually claims that the way to prevent breast cancer is to take chemotherapy drugs as prevention even when you don't have breast cancer!
The writer of this article, a reporter named Melissa Healy, never even mentions nutrients as prevention measures. The entire article is expressing puzzlement over why millions of women don't sign up to start taking toxic chemotherapy drugs even though they don't have cancer!
And the logic goes like this: (here are a few paragraphs straight out of the story for purposes of commentary and public education)
"The millions of Americans who take a pill each day to drive down their cholesterol or blood pressure do not generally think of themselves as "sick." They believe that they are treating one thing -- high cholesterol or blood pressure -- and helping to prevent something worse: a heart attack or stroke.
For women who worry about becoming the oft-quoted "1 in 8" who will develop breast cancer in her lifetime, two well-established drugs can do for breast cancer what statins and blood pressure drugs do for heart attacks and strokes: drive down their odds of happening.
Cardiovascular medications are aggressively advertised, widely prescribed and talked about freely among friends and co-workers. [But] breast cancer prevention drugs are virtually invisible on the American pharmaceutical landscape."
The article goes on to suggest that more women should be taking tamoxifen and raloxifene as preventive drugs that will somehow keep them healthy.
The article then goes on to quote poison-peddling doctors with quotes like this one: "These medications have been underutilized to this point by anyone's standards..."
And then there's this quote which expresses bewilderment at why patients wouldn't trust drug companies to tell the truth: "The hatred and mistrust of the pharmaceutical companies was just astounding."
Gee, really? You mean after all the lies about HRT drugs, statin drugs and antidepressant drugs were exposed? You mean after all the fraud, the bribery, the faked clinical trials and the massive chemical toxicity experienced by people on Big Pharma's drugs, that people don't trust the drug companies anymore? Naw... how could that be?
The entire article, by the way, makes absolutely no mention of vitamin D (which prevents 77 percent of all cancers) , selenium, green tea or other nutrients that reduce breast cancer risk far more effectively and safely than any pharmaceutical that has ever been concocted in a lab.
It sort of makes you wonder if the LA Times is actually trying to inform people or just repeat the same propaganda that Big Pharma dishes out on a daily basis. To write about breast cancer today without even referncing the mountain of research on vitamin D is highly irresponsible and in my mind, it brings into question the journalistic credibility of the writer who penned this particular story (Melissa Healy).
I'm not linking to the original story in the LA Times, by the way, because I don't want to give them any link popularity points, but you can easily find it by searching for the article title on Google.
These are the illustrated ads that say things like "shrink your belly using this one weird tip."
This whole acai berry operation is run by an offshore company engaged in dubious e-commerce transactions, and it has generated an avalanche of consumer complaints. Why would the LA Times continue to run ads for scammy weight loss schemes that are so deceptive? As a courtesy, by the way, I emailed the LA Times myself to let them know about this, just in case they haven't noticed all the complaints. Maybe they'll do the right thing and ban the ads.
I suppose if you want the pro-pharmaceutical version of breast cancer lies, read the LA Times. If you want the truth, however, read NaturalNews. Better yet, read my free special report which reveals even more lies about the breast cancer industry:
Also, read these 10 facts about the breast cancer industry you're not supposed to know:
By the way, I'm sure the LA Times editorial staff will probably be forwarded this article, so here's a message to all of you who work there: If you really want to cover a huge story about breast cancer, there's probably a Pulitzer prize waiting for any determined journalist willing to dig up the real truth about pinkwashing scams and where the money is actually going that's raised from all these pink ribbon events and products.
Follow the money, my friends, and you will uncover a wildly different story from the one you've been reporting. If you need some leads and tips, contact me through NaturalNews and I'll be happy to get you started on the real story behind the cancer industry scams.
If you wish to contact me through back channels, I will assure your privacy and promise to keep your identity a secret until such time as you give me permission to make it publicly known (such as when you publish an article or a book that you want to make public).
There's a huge story here, folks. And it's not the story line that Big Pharma is feeding you. The real story is that the cancer industry non-profits are pulling off the biggest money laundering scam of the century, and they are operating with absolutely no accountability because no one is asking the obvious questions such as "Where is this money really going and how is that supposed to find a cure for cancer?"
Or the really big question, "If you find a cure for cancer, will you give it away for free? Will you make that pledge right now?"
You see, there are huge questions about the breast cancer non-profit industry that no one seems to be asking in the mainstream media. And then there are the questions about why no one in the MSM is even asking these questions in the first place. That's why more and more people are turning to websites like NaturalNews.com because they know they can find honest, skeptical reporting without the usual layer of corporate B.S. that seems to dominate the newsrooms of the top newspapers (and news websites) in America today.
In any case, I harbor no ill will against the LA Times. I just hope they wake up and realize they're being hoodwinked by the pinkwashing arm of the cancer industry so that they can change course and start reporting the truth about breast cancer.
Because the truth, it turns out, is the biggest story of all.
If that's not enough pinkwashing, the LA Times website also has a pro-vaccine stance that may surprise you. Its "news briefs" section isn't named "News Briefs" or "News Updates." Instead, it's called "booster shots." I'm not kidding. They actually call it "booster shots," which is of course a phrase used to refer to vaccine injections.
Check it out in this screen shot (it's the title of the center column):
Just to blow your mind even more -- get ready for this one -- the LA Times also ran an article entitled The puzzle of why more women don't take preventive drugs. This article -- and I'm not making this up -- actually claims that the way to prevent breast cancer is to take chemotherapy drugs as prevention even when you don't have breast cancer!
The writer of this article, a reporter named Melissa Healy, never even mentions nutrients as prevention measures. The entire article is expressing puzzlement over why millions of women don't sign up to start taking toxic chemotherapy drugs even though they don't have cancer!
And the logic goes like this: (here are a few paragraphs straight out of the story for purposes of commentary and public education)
"The millions of Americans who take a pill each day to drive down their cholesterol or blood pressure do not generally think of themselves as "sick." They believe that they are treating one thing -- high cholesterol or blood pressure -- and helping to prevent something worse: a heart attack or stroke.
For women who worry about becoming the oft-quoted "1 in 8" who will develop breast cancer in her lifetime, two well-established drugs can do for breast cancer what statins and blood pressure drugs do for heart attacks and strokes: drive down their odds of happening.
Cardiovascular medications are aggressively advertised, widely prescribed and talked about freely among friends and co-workers. [But] breast cancer prevention drugs are virtually invisible on the American pharmaceutical landscape."
The article goes on to suggest that more women should be taking tamoxifen and raloxifene as preventive drugs that will somehow keep them healthy.
The article then goes on to quote poison-peddling doctors with quotes like this one: "These medications have been underutilized to this point by anyone's standards..."
And then there's this quote which expresses bewilderment at why patients wouldn't trust drug companies to tell the truth: "The hatred and mistrust of the pharmaceutical companies was just astounding."
Gee, really? You mean after all the lies about HRT drugs, statin drugs and antidepressant drugs were exposed? You mean after all the fraud, the bribery, the faked clinical trials and the massive chemical toxicity experienced by people on Big Pharma's drugs, that people don't trust the drug companies anymore? Naw... how could that be?
The entire article, by the way, makes absolutely no mention of vitamin D (which prevents 77 percent of all cancers) , selenium, green tea or other nutrients that reduce breast cancer risk far more effectively and safely than any pharmaceutical that has ever been concocted in a lab.
It sort of makes you wonder if the LA Times is actually trying to inform people or just repeat the same propaganda that Big Pharma dishes out on a daily basis. To write about breast cancer today without even referncing the mountain of research on vitamin D is highly irresponsible and in my mind, it brings into question the journalistic credibility of the writer who penned this particular story (Melissa Healy).
I'm not linking to the original story in the LA Times, by the way, because I don't want to give them any link popularity points, but you can easily find it by searching for the article title on Google.
Scammy "tiny belly" acai weight loss ads
Oh, and it gets even better. For months, the LA Times has been running ads promoting a scammy acai berry weight loss company that uses fake news websites to trick people into turning over their credit card details. These credit cards then get charged a "membership fee" (which is non-refundable after 7 days) for the privilege of being charged every month for a shipment of non-remarkable acai berry tablets.These are the illustrated ads that say things like "shrink your belly using this one weird tip."
This whole acai berry operation is run by an offshore company engaged in dubious e-commerce transactions, and it has generated an avalanche of consumer complaints. Why would the LA Times continue to run ads for scammy weight loss schemes that are so deceptive? As a courtesy, by the way, I emailed the LA Times myself to let them know about this, just in case they haven't noticed all the complaints. Maybe they'll do the right thing and ban the ads.
Will the LA Times pursue the real story here?
In any case, the LA Times is clearly a paper that appears to be strongly aligned with breast cancer pinkwashing -- not just in terms of promoting pink ribbon propaganda but also with highly questionable editorial coverage that almost reads like it was written by the drug companies themselves and then repackaged as an LA Times article.I suppose if you want the pro-pharmaceutical version of breast cancer lies, read the LA Times. If you want the truth, however, read NaturalNews. Better yet, read my free special report which reveals even more lies about the breast cancer industry:
Also, read these 10 facts about the breast cancer industry you're not supposed to know:
By the way, I'm sure the LA Times editorial staff will probably be forwarded this article, so here's a message to all of you who work there: If you really want to cover a huge story about breast cancer, there's probably a Pulitzer prize waiting for any determined journalist willing to dig up the real truth about pinkwashing scams and where the money is actually going that's raised from all these pink ribbon events and products.
Follow the money, my friends, and you will uncover a wildly different story from the one you've been reporting. If you need some leads and tips, contact me through NaturalNews and I'll be happy to get you started on the real story behind the cancer industry scams.
If you wish to contact me through back channels, I will assure your privacy and promise to keep your identity a secret until such time as you give me permission to make it publicly known (such as when you publish an article or a book that you want to make public).
There's a huge story here, folks. And it's not the story line that Big Pharma is feeding you. The real story is that the cancer industry non-profits are pulling off the biggest money laundering scam of the century, and they are operating with absolutely no accountability because no one is asking the obvious questions such as "Where is this money really going and how is that supposed to find a cure for cancer?"
Or the really big question, "If you find a cure for cancer, will you give it away for free? Will you make that pledge right now?"
You see, there are huge questions about the breast cancer non-profit industry that no one seems to be asking in the mainstream media. And then there are the questions about why no one in the MSM is even asking these questions in the first place. That's why more and more people are turning to websites like NaturalNews.com because they know they can find honest, skeptical reporting without the usual layer of corporate B.S. that seems to dominate the newsrooms of the top newspapers (and news websites) in America today.
In any case, I harbor no ill will against the LA Times. I just hope they wake up and realize they're being hoodwinked by the pinkwashing arm of the cancer industry so that they can change course and start reporting the truth about breast cancer.
Because the truth, it turns out, is the biggest story of all.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
