report scams here at dont get scammed Scams and Scammers - Expose hypocrisy and spread respect ! Don't get ripped off! REGISTER
Go Back   scams > Scam Message Board > Business Scams
Register FAQ Register To Post Member List Promote Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Thread Tools
Old 01-25-2008, 01:08 PM
I am new at
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1
National Breast Cancer Research Center

Has anyone received requests for donations to this? I did, but when I checked on the internet, I could not find any such organization.

Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2008, 01:45 PM
borisf96's Avatar
borisf96 borisf96 is offline
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,156
Re: National Breast Cancer Research Center

I found mention of them here

Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2008, 07:38 PM
dr poormouth's Avatar
dr poormouth dr poormouth is offline
Platinum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Planet Gong
Posts: 1,083
Re: National Breast Cancer Research Center

Searching " National Breast Cancer Research Center" on CharityNavigator
brings up the Walker Research Center Boris cites.
Is that the outfit soliciting you, Dstanghellini ?

Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2008, 12:00 PM
julesinmissouri julesinmissouri is offline
I am new at
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1
Re: National Breast Cancer Research Center

I think this is a scam as well and almost sent them money - shame on me! I should know that I should only sponsor somehting that give a web address on a phone number and not a flimsy and cheap donor request

Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2008, 07:07 AM
holygrail holygrail is offline
Newbie Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Coffs Harbour, Australia
Posts: 12
Re: National Breast Cancer Research Center

Dangers and Unreliability of Mammography: Breast Examination is a Safe, Effective, and Practical Alternative

Mammography screening is a profit-driven technology posing risks compounded by unreliability. In striking contrast, annual clinical breast examination (CBE) by a trained health professional, together with monthly breast self-examination (BSE), is safe, at least as effective, and low in cost. International programs for training nurses how to perform CBE and teach BSE are critical and overdue.

Contrary to popular belief and assurances by the U. S. media and the cancer establishment- the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and American Cancer Society (ACS)- mammography is not a technique for early diagnosis. In fact, a breast cancer has usually been present for about eight years before it can finally be detected. Furthermore, screening should be recognized as damage control, rather than misleadingly as "secondary prevention."

Mammography poses a wide range of risks of which women worldwide still remain uninformed.

Radiation Risks
Radiation from routine mammography poses significant cumulative risks of initiating and promoting breast cancer. Contrary to conventional assurances that radiation exposure from mammography is trivial- and similar to that from a chest X-ray or spending one week in Denver, about 1/ 1,000 of a rad (radiation-absorbed dose)- the routine practice of taking four films for each breast results in some 1,000-fold greater exposure, 1 rad, focused on each breast rather than the entire chest. Thus, premenopausal women undergoing annual screening over a ten-year period are exposed to a total of about 10 rads for each breast. As emphasized some three decades ago, the premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each rad of exposure increasing breast cancer risk by 1 percent, resulting in a cumulative 10 percent increased risk over ten years of premenopausal screening, usually from ages 40 to 50; risks are even greater for "baseline" screening at younger ages, for which there is no evidence of any future relevance. Furthermore, breast cancer risks from mammography are up to fourfold higher for the 1 to 2 percent of women who are silent carriers of the A-T (ataxia-telangiectasia) gene and thus highly sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of radiation; by some estimates this accounts for up to 20 percent of all breast cancers annually in the United States.

Cancer Risks from Breast Compression
As early as 1928, physicians were warned to handle "cancerous breasts with care- for fear of accidentally disseminating cells" and spreading cancer. Nevertheless, mammography entails tight and often painful compression of the breast, particularly in premenopausal women. This may lead to distant and lethal spread of malignant cells by rupturing small blood vessels in or around small, as yet undetected breast cancers.

Delays in Diagnostic Mammography
As increasing numbers of premenopausal women are responding to the ACS's aggressively promoted screening, imaging centers are becoming flooded and overwhelmed. Resultingly, patients referred for diagnostic mammography are now experiencing potentially dangerous delays, up to several months, before they can be examined.

Falsely Negative Mammograms
Missed cancers are particularly common in premenopausal women owing to the dense and highly glandular structure of their breasts and increased proliferation late in their menstrual cycle. Missed cancers are also common in post-menopausal women on estrogen replacement therapy, as about 20 percent develop breast densities that make their mammograms as difficult to read as those of premenopausal women.

Interval Cancers
About one-third of all cancers- and more still of premenopausal cancers, which are aggressive, even to the extent of doubling in size in one month, and more likely to metastasize- are diagnosed in the interval between successive annual mammograms. Premenopausal women, particularly, can thus be lulled into a false sense of security by a supposedly negative result on an annual mammogram and fail to seek medical advice.

Falsely Positive Mammogram
Mistakenly diagnosed cancers are particularly common in premenopausal women, and also in postmenopausal women on estrogen replacement therapy, resulting in needless anxiety, more mammograms, and unnecessary biopsies. For women with multiple high-risk factors, including a strong family history, prolonged use of the contraceptive pill, early menarche, and nulliparity- just those groups that are most strongly urged to have annual mammograms- the cumulative risk of false positives increases to "as high as 100 percent" over a decade's screening.

Overdiagnosis and subsequent overtreatment are among the major risks of mammography. The widespread and virtually unchallenged acceptance of screening has resulted in a dramatic increase in the diagnosis of ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS), a pre-invasive cancer, with a current estimated incidence of about 40,000 annually. DCIS is usually recognized as micro-calcifications and generally treated by lumpectomy plus radiation or even mastectomy and chemotherapy. However, some 80 percent of all DCIS never become invasive even if left untreated. Furthermore, the breast cancer mortality from DCIS is the same- about 1 percent- both for women diagnosed and treated early and for those diagnosed later following the development of invasive cancer. That early detection of DCIS does not reduce mortality is further confirmed by the 13-year follow-up results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study. Nevertheless, as recently stressed, "the public is much less informed about over-diagnosis than false positive results. In a recent nationwide survey of women, 99 percent of respondents were aware of the possibility of false positive results from mammography, but only 6 percent were aware of either DCIS by name or the fact that mammography could detect a form of 'cancer' that often doesn't progress".

Quality Control
In 1992 Congress passed the National Mammography Standards Quality Assurance Act requiring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure that screening centers review their results and performance: collect data on biopsy outcomes and match them with the original radiologist's interpretation of the films. However, the centers do not release these data because the Act does not require them to do so. It is essential that this information now be made fully public so that concerns about the reliability of mammography can be further evaluated. Activist breast cancer groups would most likely strongly support, if not help to initiate, such overdue action by the FDA.

Despite the long-standing claims, the evidence that routine mammography screening allows early detection and treatment of breast cancer, thereby reducing mortality, is at best highly questionable. In fact, "the overwhelming majority of breast cancers are unaffected by early detection, either because they are aggressive or slow growing". There is supportive evidence that the major variable predicting survival is "biological determinism- a combination of the virulence of the individual tumor plus the host's immune response," rather than just early detection.

Claims for the benefit of screening mammography in reducing breast cancer mortality are based on eight international controlled trials involving about 500,000 women. However, recent meta-analysis of these trials revealed that only two, based on 66,000 postmenopausal women, were adequately randomized to allow statistically valid conclusions. Based on these two trials, the authors concluded that "there is no reliable evidence that screening decreases breast cancer mortality- not even a tendency towards an effect." Accordingly, the authors concluded that there is no longer any justification for screening mammography; further evidence for this conclusion will be detailed at the May 6, 2001, annual meeting of the National Breast Cancer Coalition in Washington, D. C., and published in the July report of the Nordic Cochrane Centre.

Even assuming that high quality screening of a population of women between the ages of 50 and 69 would reduce breast cancer mortality by up to 25 percent, yielding a reduced relative risk of 0.75, the chances of any individual woman benefiting are remote. For women in this age group, about 4 percent are likely to develop breast cancer annually, about one in four of whom, or 1 percent overall, will die from this disease. Thus, the 0.75 relative risk applies to this 1 percent, so 99.75 percent of the women screened are unlikely to benefit.

No nation other than the United States routinely screens premenopausal women by mammography. In this context, it may be noted that the January 1997 National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference recommended against premenopausal screening, a decision that the NCI, but not the ACS, accepted . However, under pressure from Congress and the ACS, the NCI reversed its decision some three months later in favor of premenopausal screening.

The U. S. overkill extends to the standard practice of taking two or more mammograms per breast annually in postmenopausal women. This contrasts with the more restrained European practice of a single view every two to three years.

That most breast cancers are first recognized by women themselves was admitted in 1985 by the ACS, an aggressive advocate of routine mammography for all women over the age of 40: "We must keep in mind the fact that at least 90 percent of the women who develop breast carcinoma discover the tumors themselves". Furthermore, as previously shown, "training increases reported breast self-examination frequency, confidence, and the number of small tumors found".

A pooled analysis of several 1993 studies showed that women who regularly performed BSE detected their cancers much earlier and with fewer positives nodes and smaller tumors than women failing to examine themselves; BSE would also enhance earlier detection of missed or interval cancers, especially in pre-menopausal women. There is a strong consensus that the effectiveness of BSE critically depends on careful training by skilled professionals, and that confidence in BSE is enhanced with annual CBEs by an experienced professional using structured individual training. The tactile sensitivity of BSE can be increased by the use of Mammacare techniques to enhance lump detection skills, and by the use of FDA-approved and nonprescription thin and pliable lubricant-filled sensor pads.

In a joint U. S. and Chinese large-scale trial based on 520 Chinese factories, women in half the factories were trained in and practiced BSE, while the other group of women served as controls. The five-year follow up results reported no reduction in breast cancer mortality in women in the BSE group. However, these findings are of little, if any, significance in view of the minimum of a 10-to 13-year period required before the efficacy of mammography is claimed to occur in premenopausal women, especially as some of the trial's participants were in their thirties.

The critical importance and reliability of CBE has been strikingly confirmed by the recent Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Study. This reported the results of a unique individually randomized controlled trial on some 40,000 women, aged 50 to 59 on entry, followed by record linkage for nine to 13 years, with active follow-up of cancer patients for an additional three years. Half the women performed monthly BSE, following instruction by trained nurses, had annual CBEs (taking approximately ten minutes) by trained nurses, and had annual mammograms, while the other half practiced BSE and had annual CBEs but no mammograms. It should be noted that the CBE performance by trained nurses had been shown to be as good as, if not better than, that of the study surgeons, a finding of particular interest in view of the growing perception among women that professional women are more sensitive than men to women's health issues. The results of this study provide clear evidence on the reliability of CBE, in association with BSE: "In women age 50- 59 years, the addition of annual mammography screening to physical examination has no impact on breast cancer mortality." In other words, the mammographic detection of nonpalpable cancers failed to improve survival rates, as "the majority of the small cancers detected by mammography represent pseudo-disease or overdiagnosis"; confirmation of this explanation awaits a trial, a protocol of which is available, comparing mammography alone with physical examination alone. It should further be noted that the mammogram group had a three-fold increase in the number of false positives compared with the CBE and BSE group, resulting in unnecessary biopsies.

The effectiveness of CBE is further supported by the results of a new Japanese mass screening study. Breast cancer mortality was compared in municipalities with or without "high coverage" by CBE. The age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 1986- 1990 and 1991- 1995 was reduced by over 40 percent in "high coverage" municipalities, in contrast to only 3 percent in controls. In spite of such evidence, the ACS and radiologists persist in their dismissiveness of CBE and BSE, particularly as "a substitute for screening practices that have a 'proven' benefit such as mammograms". The NCI no longer prints a BSE guide in its breast cancer booklet, claiming that "no studies have clearly shown a benefit of using BSE"; similarly, the ACS no longer distributes information on BSE, such as shower-hanger cards.

There are immediate needs for a large-scale crash program for training nurses in how to perform annual CBE and how to teach BSE. This need is critical for underinsured and uninsured low-socioeconomic and ethnic women in the United States, and even more so for developing countries. Once well trained, women of all social and cultural classes could perform monthly BSE, at no cost or risk apart from false positives, which decrease with increasing practice, along with annual CBE screening. Clinics offering CBE and training in BSE could be established nationwide, and eventually worldwide, in a network of clinics, community hospitals, churches, synagogues, and mosques. These clinics could also act as a comprehensive source of reliable information on how to reduce the risks of breast cancer, about which women still remain largely uninformed by the cancer establishment. Besides lifestyle and reproductive risk factors, emphasis should be directed to the massive overprescription of carcinogenic hormonal drugs and the avoidable and involuntary exposures to petrochemical and radionuclear carcinogens in the totality of the environment.


The dangers and unreliability of mammography screening are compounded by its growing and inflationary costs; Medicare and insurance average costs are $70 and $125, respectively. Inadequate Medicare reimbursement rates are now prompting fewer hospitals and clinics to offer mammograms, and deterring young doctors from becoming radiologists. Accordingly, Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) are introducing legislation to raise Medicare reimbursement to $100.

If all U. S. premenopausal women, about 20 million according to the Census Bureau, submitted to annual mammograms, minimal annual costs would be $2.5 billion. These costs would be increased to $10 billion, about 5 percent of the $200 billion 2001 Medicare budget, if all postmenopausal women were also screened annually, or about 14 percent of the estimated Medicare spending on prescription drugs. Such costs will further increase some fourfold if the industry, enthusiastically supported by radiologists, succeeds in its efforts to replace film machines, costing about $100,000, with the latest high-tech digital machines, approved by the FDA in November 2000, costing about $400,000. Screening mammography thus poses major threats to the financially strained Medicare system. Inflationary costs apart, there is no evidence of the greater effectiveness of digital than film mammography, as confirmed by a study reported at the November 2000 annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. In fact, digital mammography is likely to result in the increased diagnosis of DCIS.

The comparative cost of CBE and mammography in the 1992 Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Study was reported to be 1 to 3. However, this ratio ignores the high costs of capital items including buildings, equipment, and mobile vans, let alone the much greater hidden costs of unnecessary biopsies, specialized staff training, and programs for quality control and professional accreditation. This ratio could be even more favorable for CBE and BSE instruction if both were conducted by trained nurses. The excessive costs of mammography screening should be diverted away from industry to breast cancer prevention and other women's health programs.


The ACS has close connections to the mammography industry. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents, and in its every move, the ACS promotes the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and films, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, and Piker. The mammography industry also conducts research for the ACS and its grantees, serves on advisory boards, and donates considerable funds. DuPont also: is a substantial backer of the ACS Breast Health Awareness Program; sponsors television shows and other media productions touting mammography; produces advertising, promotional, and information literature for hospitals, clinics, medical organizations, and doctors; produces educational films; and, of course, lobbies Congress for legislation promoting availability of mammography services. In virtually all its important actions, the ACS has been and remains strongly linked with the mammography industry, while ignoring or attacking the development of viable alternatives.

ACS promotion continues to lure women of all ages into mammography centers, leading them to believe that mammography is their best hope against breast cancer. A leading Massachusetts newspaper featured a photograph of two women in their twenties in an ACS advertisement that promised early detection results in a cure "nearly 100 percent of the time." An ACS communications director, questioned by journalist Kate Dempsey, admitted in an article published by the Massachusetts Women's Community's journal Cancer, "The ad isn't based on a study. When you make an advertisement, you just say what you can to get women in the door. You exaggerate a point. . . . Mammography today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business".


Mammography is a striking paradigm of the capture of unsuspecting women by run-away powerful technological and pharmaceutical global industries, with the complicity of the cancer establishment, particularly the ACS, and the rollover mainstream media. Promotion of the multibillion dollar mammography screening industry has also become a diversionary flag around which legislators and women's product corporations can rally, protesting how much they care about women, while studiously avoiding any reference to avoidable risk factors of breast cancer, let alone other cancers.

Screening mammography should be phased out in favor of annual CBE and monthly BSE, as an effective, safe, and low-cost alternative, with diagnostic mammography available when so indicated. Such action is all the more critical and overdue in view of the still poorly recognized evidence that screening mammography does not lead to decreased breast cancer mortality.

Networks of CBE and BSE clinics, staffed by trained nurses, should be established internationally, including in developing nations. These low-cost clinics would further empower women by providing them with scientific evidence on breast cancer risk factors and prevention, information of particular importance in view of the continued high incidence of breast cancers, with an estimated 192,200 new U. S. cases predicted for 2001, exceeding the number for any previous years. The multibillion dollar U. S. insurance and Medicare costs of mammography, besides those in other nations, should be diverted to outreach and research on prevention of breast and other cancers and on other women's health programs.

Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2008, 03:23 PM
swanee swanee is offline
I am new at
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: West Haven Ct
Posts: 1
Re: National Breast Cancer Research Center

Just got a mailing from the NBCRC and thought I would look it up before determing if it was legit or not. Apparently it's not! Thank you!

Originally Posted by DSTANGHELLINI View Post
Has anyone received requests for donations to this? I did, but when I checked on the internet, I could not find any such organization.

Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2008, 05:35 PM
nomaxim's Avatar
nomaxim nomaxim is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Stow, OH SOL III
Posts: 2,517
Re: National Breast Cancer Research Center

BBB report,
Charity Contact Information
Name: Walker Cancer Research Institute
Address:18 North Law Street
Aberdeen, MD 21001
Phone: 410-272-0775
Web Address:
also known as: National Cancer Research Center
also known as: National Breast Cancer Research Center

Better Business Bureau Comments
Year, State Incorporated: 1981, Maryland

Despite written BBB Wise Giving Alliance requests in the past year, this organization either has not responded to Alliance requests for information or has declined to be evaluated in relation to the Alliance’s Standards for Charity Accountability. While participation in the Alliance’s charity review efforts is voluntary, the Alliance believes that failure to participate may demonstrate a lack of commitment to transparency. Without the requested information, Alliance cannot determine if this charity adheres to the Standards for Charity Accountability. A charity's willing disclosure of information beyond that typically included in its financial statements and government filings is, in the Alliance's view, an expression of openness that strengthens public trust in the charitable sector.

The BBB Wise Giving Alliance reports on national charities and determines if they meet 20 voluntary standards on matters such as charity finances, appeals and governance. The Alliance does not evaluate the worthiness of the charitable program.

Tax Status
This organization is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is eligible to receive contributions deductible as charitable donations for federal income tax purposes.

An organization may change its practices at any time without notice. A copy of this report has been shared with the organization prior to publication. It is not intended to recommend or deprecate, and is furnished solely to assist you in exercising your own judgment. The name Better Business Bureau is a registered service mark of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.

This report reflects the results of an evaluation of informational materials provided voluntarily by the organization. A copy of this report has been shared with the organization prior to publication. It is not intended to recommend or deprecate, and is furnished solely to assist you in exercising your own judgement. The name Better Business Bureau is a registered service mark of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.

This report is not to be used for fund raising or promotional purposes.

Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2008, 12:01 AM
holygrail holygrail is offline
Newbie Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Coffs Harbour, Australia
Posts: 12
Re: National Breast Cancer Research Center

Informed Consent?
More Problems with Chemo and Radiotherapy
by Phillip Day

Cancer, the second leading killer in most Western industrialised nations, is a disease which has crept from an incidence rate of around 1 in 500 in 1900 to between 1 in 2 to 3 today. Over 600,000 people are expected to die from cancer in America in 2004, and yet, in spite of supposedly the brightest and the best walking the corridors of our leading cancer research institutions, armed with the latest technology and limitless budgets, the incidence rates for cancer continue to rise.

Breast cancer serves as a poignant yardstick. This type of malignancy is now the leading cause of death in women between the ages of 35 and 54. In 1971, a woman's lifetime risk of contracting breast cancer was 1 in 14. Today it is 1 in 8. Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly, No. 571 reports: "More American women have died of breast cancer in the past two decades than all the Americans killed in World War 1, World War 2, the Korean War and Vietnam War combined."

The amazing thing is, most physicians in the world today have absolutely no idea what cancer is, or even how it is contracted. Some believe cancer is virus-related. Others believe the cause is parasites. Others yet examine the environmental causal link.
Let's look at what society generally knows about cancer and see how it stacks up with the truth. Most believe that:

Cancer is a serious disease that kills those suffering from the life-threatening variants, such as lung, breast, bone, colorectal and liver.

Cancer can only be treated with chemotherapy, radiation treatments and radical surgeries to poison or break up tumours, or physically remove them altogether.

These cancer treatments sometimes work and sometimes don't. No one can be sure who will survive and who won't.

Cancer is caused by genetics, smoking, and other less well understood or known environmental causes.

We still don't have the cure for cancer.

The cancer charities and famous pop and TV stars are doing a superb job raising money to help with the drug research to combat and defeat cancer.

Cancer appears to be a complex disturbance of cells in our bodies which mutate and then begin an uncontrollable proliferation. No one really knows what cancer is at the moment.

During the twelve years that I and my fellow researchers conducted our investigation into the cancer industry, what we found dispelled any illusions that cancer medicine was working in any way for the benefit of humanity. Here is what we found:

The proof behind what cancer actually is and how to combat it effectively has been known for almost a century.

Cancer is a healing process that hasn't terminated upon completion of its task.

Cancer cells are pre-embryonic stem cells that have been stimulated by estrogen in our bodies to form trophoblast healing cells. It is these trophoblast cells that may progress to form 'cancer' cells if the trophoblastic multiplication of these cells (the healing process) is not halted.

These rogue healing processes are started when our bodies become damaged in various ways. For instance, smoking damages the back of the throat and the lungs, resulting in site-specific healing processes that may or may not stop. Viruses, bacteria, mobile phones, physical blows, a toxic environment and chemical causations can all initiate healing processes in our bodies. In the event that a healing process is not terminated, healing trophoblast cells continue to proliferate to form a tumour.

All cancers can be traced to ENVIRONMENTAL- OR LIFESTYLE-RELATED CAUSATIONS that damage our bodies, initiating a healing process that may not stop. We can say 'ALL' because there are at least 18 different peoples on Earth today who do not suffer from cancer. Many of these cannot record even one victim of the disease in their entire culture. By this definition, cancer can be deemed preventable.

The reasons why these peoples do not contract cancer are entirely known, yet this information, and the top researchers who discovered it, have been deliberately vilified by the mainstream science establishment.

Orthodox medicine has waged an effective and relentless war against this life-saving knowledge to prevent its widespread dissemination and thus forestall an attack on the highly profitable cancer industry. There are more people today making a living out of cancer than are dying from it. The cancer industry turns over in excess of $200 billion annually.

Cancer charities are fund-raising institutions for the pharmaceutical combines whose livelihoods depend on the continuance of cancer. Thus we see all efforts made to wage the war on cancer, not win it. In the event that cancer were vanquished, millions around the world would need to retrain. Cancer charities have no interest in knowing the truth about cancer - my organisation can vouch for that. Their job is to raise as much money as possible through the emotional showcasing of the heart-rending consequences of cancer, thereby stimulating the public to give more money.

There is no evidence that chemotherapy and radiation treatments extend life in the major epithelial cancers, which are the majority of the cancers striking us today, although these two treatments can and do sometimes effect a reduction in tumour size. In a small minority of cases, as with some testicular and childhood cancers, efficacy with these treatments may be shown. Radiation and chemotherapy on the other hand have long been known to compromise the body's immune system, leading to the progressive degradation of the patient's health.

Chemotherapy drugs are cytotoxic, meaning that they indiscriminately poison the cells in our body that multiply the most rapidly (cancer cells). However, certain immune system cells, such as our T and B lymphocytes, are also targeted, as these multiply rapidly too, contributing to our body's inability to fight opportunistic diseases that may come upon us as a result of the treatment.

Radiations treatments harm the body, often leading to the production of more healing trophoblast. Radiation has been recognised to foster aggressive cell lines and in certain cases actually accelerate tumour growth.

Cancer is a chronic, metabolic deficiency disease that is exacerbated by a) poor immunity, b) fungal infestations, and c) general mineral depletion in the food chain, including the missing B17-nitriloside dietary element. Cultures, whose diets are rich in essential nutrients and the nitrilosides, suffer no cancer in their peoples, provided they are living in toxin-free environments.


Let's review some startling comments made by insiders to illustrate the point that the shameful corporate story surrounding cancer has long been known and written about by honest physicians who see major mischief afoot. Also included in this section is the compelling truth that conventional cancer treatments are not extending life in the major cancers striking us.

One such leading critic of the cancer industry has been Dr Samuel S Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and a world-renowned toxicologist and Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois Medical Center in Chicago. Epstein's relentless attacks against corporate vested interests in the chemical and medical industries concerning the avoidable causes of cancer have led to the public gaining a far wider knowledge of these issues. Epstein has no hesitation in indicting 'Cancer Inc.', comprising the American Medical Association, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society (ACS), the cancer charities and the pharmaceutical industry, as well as other cancer administrative bodies elsewhere in the world, for losing the winnable war against cancer. Epstein contends:

"We are not winning the war against cancer, we are losing the war. The number of Americans getting cancer each year has escalated over recent decades, while our ability to treat and cure most common cancers has remained virtually unchanged.

The National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society have misled and confused the public and Congress by repeated false claims that we are winning the war against cancer - claims made to create public and Congressional support for massive increases in budgetary allocations."

Quentin D Young, MD, president of the American Public Health Association, agrees with Epstein and highlights the chief environmental causes of cancer, which must be addressed if we are to turn the tide on the disease:

"Billions of public dollars are being misspent in an ill-conceived 'war on cancer' - a war we are losing because we are not addressing the increasingly carcinogenic environment that man has created. We have introduced these creations into our water and air, our food chain, our habitation, our workplace, and into the products produced there. In failing to allocate these resources for prevention, we are fighting the wrong war."

John Cairns, professor of microbiology at Harvard University, recorded in his scathing 1985 critique in Scientific American: "Aside from certain rare cancers, it is not possible to detect any sudden changes in the death rates for any of the major cancers that could be credited to chemotherapy. Whether any of the common cancers can be cured by chemotherapy has yet to be established."

Making the point that chemotherapy is not curative, and actually has very little effect on the major cancers, Dr Martin F Shapiro stated in the Los Angeles Times that "...while some oncologists inform their patients of the lack of evidence that treatments work... others may well be misled by scientific papers that express unwarranted optimism about chemotherapy. Still others respond to an economic incentive. Physicians can earn much more money running active chemotherapy practices than they can providing solace and relief... to dying patients and their families."

Alan C Nixon, PhD, erstwhile president of the American Chemical Society, declares that " a chemist trained to interpret data, it is ancomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good."

Oncologist Albert Braverman MD told the world in 1991 that " disseminated neoplasm (cancer) incurable in 1975 is curable today... Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure."

Christian Brothers, a retail organisation forcefully shut down by the American Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000 and its CEO jailed, states: "In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than 3/4 of them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. 64 of the 79 respondents would not consent to be in a trial containing cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug. Fifty-eight found all the trials unacceptable. Their reason? The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity."

Dr Ralph Moss was the Assistant Director of Public Affairs at probably America's most famous cancer research institution, Memorial Sloan Kettering in Manhattan. He states: "In the end, there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between shrinking a tumor and extending the life of a patient."

Walter Last, writing in The Ecologist, reports: "After analysing cancer survival statistics for several decades, Dr Hardin Jones, Professor at the University of California, concluded in 1975 that "...patients are as well, or better off untreated." Jones' disturbing assessment has never been refuted. What's more, three studies by other researchers have upheld his theory."

Professor Charles Mathe, French cancer specialist, makes this astonishing declaration: "If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance."

From another angle, Dr John Gofman's mammoth research attacks 'preventative' measures, such as routine mammograms, for causing the very illness they are designed to prevent:

"Breast cancer is a largely PREVENTABLE disease, and we reach that good news because of our finding that a large share of recent and current breast cancer in the United States is CERTAINLY due to past medical irradiation of the breasts with x-rays - at all ages, including infancy and childhood. Much of today's radiation dosage is preventable, without any interference with necessary diagnostic radiology, and hence many future breast cancers need not occur."

Epstein concurs with the risks mammograms and x-rays in general pose for the unknowing patient:

"X-rays are carcinogenic. The more X-rays you submit to and the greater the dose, the greater is your risk of cancer… Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially if you are pre-menopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of getting cancer…. Very few circumstances, if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are pregnant. The future risks of leukaemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it."

Breast cancer patients are certainly at risk of developing lung cancer after radiation. In one study of 31 patients who had received radiotherapy for breast cancer, 19 went on to develop a lung cancer, on average, seventeen years later, mostly in the lung located on the same side as the breast that had been irradiated. Some oncologists believe that the lung is especially sensitive to radiation damage, either scar tissue or inflammation - which would tend to argue against high-dose radiotherapy for lung cancer. For Hodgkin's Disease, radiotherapy also poses a risk of breast cancer years later. In rectal cancer, animal studies have demonstrated the descending colon may be especially susceptible to cancer caused by radiation, particularly after surgery, where blood vessels are joined up. The current trend for health departments to promote routine and regular mammograms for early detection of breast cancers is also dangerous nonsense, given the evidence.

The patent failure of modern medicine to halt cancer is now becoming obvious, as the strategies Big Cancer uses to cover up a disaster of its own making are unmasked and exposed for the sham they have become. For instance, in August 1998, the huge MD Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center in Houston was sued for making the unsubstantiated claim that it cures "well over 50% of people with cancer." Leaflets were deposited in mailboxes throughout the Houston area by MD Anderson in an effort to solicit funds to continue their 'war against cancer.' Misrepresentations and conflicts of interests abound within the cancer industry. For example, the wretched performance of the world's largest 'non-profit' institution, the American Cancer Society (ACS), is examined in the appendix section entitled Conflicts of Interest.

Environmental causations are repeatedly downplayed by Big Cancer, which invariably follows a 'blame the patient' course in explaining the rising causes of cancer. It also partially explains the rise in cancer incidence by alleging that earlier and more accurate detection has inflated the numbers of cancer incidence that were in fact already existing. Another strategy is to state that more people are contracting cancer because they are living longer and therefore stand a statistically higher risk of contracting the disease. Both these allegations are completely false. If age were a factor in cancer, then certainly the Hunzas and other long-lived cultures would be riddled with the disease. Clearly they are not. These strategies serve only to highlight clearly Cancer Inc's extreme reluctance to finger its cousins, Big Industry and Big Food, as the leading cancer felons worldwide today.

Cancer Inc. spares no effort in vilifying and pillorying alternative and non-toxic treatments which have shown a clinical track record of efficacy. Proponents of these treatments have been consistently harassed and defamed, and in certain cases jailed for the stand they have taken on this issue. The unpatentable treatment for cancer we will examine in a moment is not popular with an establishment that has shown itself eminently determined to keep its drug gravy train firmly on the rails.

Last edited by holygrail : 08-18-2008 at 12:21 AM.
Reply With Quote

Old 08-18-2008, 12:23 AM
borisf96's Avatar
borisf96 borisf96 is offline
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,156
Re: National Breast Cancer Research Center

Yes. Do not listen to the doctors. Just drink Kakadu Juice. Hillarious.

Reply With Quote

Old 08-20-2008, 10:27 AM
Helmut Schreiber Helmut Schreiber is offline
I am new at
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2
Re: National Breast Cancer Research Center

As a retired surgeon, I have treated many breast cancer patients. I am simply apalled by the audacity of the NATIONAL BREAST CANCER RESEARCH CENTER (with a bogus P.O. box #) Any legitimate cancer research center would have a legitimate and a major office address. (suite 1012 just won't do it for me.)

Besides the vast majority of their 9.57 million dollar income is paid to a proffesional fund raising org. and "public education" which is nothing more than a list of warning signs and symtoms of breast cancer printed on the back of the donation form and which can easily be obtained in any library or the internet. This is a disservice to cancer patients and these vulchers are feeding off public sympathy for cancer patients and getting away with it. If you have been scammed by the NBCRC, you may ask for your money back.

Reply With Quote

Old 08-21-2008, 04:39 PM
JerseyGirl JerseyGirl is offline
I am new at
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2
Re: National Breast Cancer Research Center

My sister-in-law gets begging letters from this group. I would not let her send any money to them...they are not a legitimate group. As said, they do business under different names (and they'll all send you requests for $$.)
Help someone who has breast cancer and you'll be doing much more with your time and money and they will be eternally grateful for your help.

Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2008, 02:30 AM
holygrail holygrail is offline
Newbie Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Coffs Harbour, Australia
Posts: 12
Re: National Breast Cancer Research Center

borisf96, get back to the "SUBJECT"

When x-rays were discovered, no one knew the long-term effects of ionizing radiation. In the 1950s, monthly fluoroscopic exams at the doctor's office were routine, and you could even walk into most shoe stores and see x-rays of your foot bones. We still do not know the ultimate outcome of our initial fascination with x-rays.

In those days, it was common practice to x-ray pregnant women to measure their pelvises and make a diagnosis of twins. Finally, a study of 700,000 children born between 1947 and 1964 in 37 major maternity hospitals compared the children of mothers who had received pelvic x-rays during pregnancy to those of mothers who did not. It found that cancer mortality was 40% higher among children whose mothers had been x-rayed.

In present-day medicine, coronary angiography is an invasive surgical procedure that involves snaking a tube through a blood vessel in the groin up to the heart. To obtain useful information, X-rays are taken almost continuously, with minimum dosages ranging from 460 to 1,580 mrem. The minimum radiation from a routine chest x-ray is 2 mrem. X-ray radiation accumulates in the body, and ionizing radiation used in X-ray procedures has been shown to cause gene mutation. The health impact of this high level of radiation is unknown, and often obscured in statistical jargon such as, “The risk for lifetime fatal cancer due to radiation exposure is estimated to be 4 in one million per 1,000 mrem.”

Dr. John Gofman has studied the effects of radiation on human health for 45 years. A medical doctor with a PhD in nuclear and physical chemistry, Gofman worked on the Manhattan Project, discovered uranium-233, and was the first person to isolate plutonium. In five scientifically documented books, Gofman provides strong evidence that medical technology—specifically x-rays, CT scans, and mammography and fluoroscopy devices—are a contributing factor to 75% of new cancers. In a nearly 700-page report updated in 2000, “Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease: Dose-Response Studies with Physicians per 100,000 Population,”(90) Gofman shows that as the number of physicians increases in a geographical area along with an increase in the number of x-ray diagnostic tests performed, the rate of cancer and ischemic heart disease also increases. Gofman elaborates that it is not x-rays alone that cause the damage but a combination of health risk factors that include poor diet, smoking, abortions, and the use of birth control pills. Dr. Gofman predicts that ionizing radiation will be responsible for 100 million premature deaths over the next decade.

In his book, “Preventing Breast Cancer,” Dr. Gofman notes that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of 44 and 55. Because breast tissue is highly sensitive to radiation, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened other factors including a woman's genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance.

Even x-rays for back pain can lead someone into crippling surgery. Dr. John E. Sarno, a well-known New York orthopedic surgeon, found that there is not necessarily any association between back pain and spinal x-ray abnormality. He cites studies of normal people without a trace of back pain whose x-rays indicate spinal abnormalities and of people with back pain whose spines appear to be normal on x-ray. People who happen to have back pain and show an abnormality on x-ray may be treated surgically, sometimes with no change in back pain, worsening of back pain, or even permanent disability. Moreover, doctors often order x-rays as protection against malpractice claims, to give the impression of leaving no stone unturned. It appears that doctors are putting their own fears before the interests of their patients.

Hillarious, don`t you think borisf96

Reply With Quote

Old 10-21-2008, 03:48 PM
Bluegill62 Bluegill62 is offline
I am new at
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1
Re: National Breast Cancer Research Center

Must be a scam.
Walker Cancer Research Institute (WCRI)
reports 51.68% goes to fund raising, 1.5%
to administration, 5.65% to research program services, and 41.17 to public education in conjunction to fund raising appeals. They are not affiliated any of the major cancer research services. I think you are throwing your money away if you send it to them.

Reply With Quote

Old 11-27-2008, 03:11 PM
scaldwell012 scaldwell012 is offline
I am new at
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1
Re: National Breast Cancer Research Center

I received a solicitation from this organization recently in the mail. Like many of you, I tried to research it online and couldn't find anything. I went to Charity Navigator and found it listed under Walker Cancer Research Institute. This organization received only 1 of 5 stars. It appears very little of the money donated goes to actual cancer research. Here's the link if you want to read it yourself:

Reply With Quote

Old 12-01-2008, 03:18 PM
holygrail holygrail is offline
Newbie Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Coffs Harbour, Australia
Posts: 12
Re: National Breast Cancer Research Center

8 crucial factors every woman must know about breast cancer. Part I

'More women are dying of ignorance than Breast cancer'.


We have just finished Breast Cancer awareness month in the UK. Britain was awash with pink ribbons and models in T-shirts raising awareness and money to find the miracle 'cure' for breast cancer. Their efforts are admirable. Unfortunately, while wild claims are made that somehow we are 'beating breast cancer already', and statistics are presented urging you to have regular screening mammograms because they save lives, the truth is that more people die from the disease now than 30 years ago. Monies raised by well meaning souls will have little impact on that fact, merely fuelling the drug companies research funds (and thus their profits) and the mammogram machine-purchasing budgets. Just more of the same really. Meanwhile hardly a penny is spent on really understanding or communicating the full spectum of cancer prevention - including the steps you can take, today, to help you beat the disease. As a result, TOO MANY WOMEN ARE DYING OF IGNORANCE. Please don't let one of these be you. Or a friend or relative.

New research shows that older women have little idea that their chances of developing the disease increase with age (up to 80 per cent of breast cancers coming after age 60) and that the lifetime risk has worsened to one in eight women - over 40,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in the UK in the next 12 months! However, according to our own research, there is virtually no knowledge of the causes, or steps that can be taken to increase prevention, and little understanding of the ways a woman, if she does get the disease, can increase her personal odds of survival over the norm. So here is Part I of a two-part 'kiddies guide' on what really matters - 8 crucial 'facts' (all re-written, new and research based) to give every woman you know a better chance of beating this disease. Some of the facts will truly surprise you. PLEASE - DO ALL WOMEN A FAVOUR - PASS THIS ON.

Chris (leaves background)
Chris Woollams

1 Mammograms - part of the solution? Or a critical part of the problem?

The latest research on mammograms reveals the damage

Medical Authorities will tell you that screening means early detection, early detection means greater survival and mammography is the route to follow. A couple of years ago we presented research that exposed the flaws in this argument. Far from being a crucial part of the solution, the annual mammogram could well be part of the problem.

Now, at the end of the six years research, a new Norwegian study confirms your worst nightmare - Women who had two yearly mammograms had significantly more breast cancer diagnoses than those who had just one . Interestingly one of the researcher's theories was that some breast cancers may correct themselves naturally. This, definitive article, is essential reading for all women.

· Screening and mammograms - the Truth

2. Women who take exercise have less breast cancer mortality

And those who have it and exercise daily, survive longer

There have been so many studies linking exercise with lower cancer risks. Indeed, Bristol University summarised 52 such worldwide studies and concluded simply that people who took exercise had less cancers.'Exercise' is a concept that conjures up pictures of slim, fit young girls 'going for the burn'. Jane Fonda did a generation of women a dis-service. But the fact is that all the latest research shows that exercise need not be strenuous - but it should be daily. Indeed daily, light exercise has been shown in several US studies to halve breast cancer mortality rates in women with the disease! Exercise increases the oxygen in your blood stream (cancer cells hate oxygen) and helps move your lymph and, therefore, the toxins away from your poisoned cells. There are many forms of exercise that will benefit you and they don't have to be strenuous.

So: Develop your own programme. Maybe a long walk some days, a swim others, a yoga class and meditation, or pilates as another option. Ring the changes, make new friends, and have fun. 30 minutes a day, every day. Read our article on exercise, then check out your options from our list below. Exercise doesn't have to kill you! In fact it will almost certainly keep you alive longer!

· Exercise

· Chosing a Complementary Therapy

3. Sleep well

And avoid EMF's

IARC, the International Agency on Cancer in Lyon, is about to declare 'lack of sleep' to be a carcinogen. The evidence is clear. Night shift workers, long haul air- hostesses, even women who party 'til late three times a week, all have higher rates of breast cancer. The reason is that disrupted sleep results in your brain producing less melatonin; but this hormone is known to limit and control excesses of the danger hormones IGF-1 and Oestrogen. Case proven.

But there is a problem. If IARC take this step, they will be confirming what we cancer experts all know - but the Governments and cancer bodies dare not admit - that Electromagnetic Forces, from phone masts, aerials, power cables and natural hazards are also carcinogenic. Because we know that they deplete melatonin levels too. Meanwhile, I know two top, but ageing, breast cancer Professors who take melatonin every night one hour before they sleep. You see, melatonin levels decline in us all as we age. All women over 50 should consider topping up their melatonin levels too.

· EMF's - and their link to cancer

· Living Proof - How EMF's caused my cancer

· Melatonin

· Natural Melatonin - Asphalia

4. Don't let your home cause a breast cancer!

A brand new report - The evidence is growing!

I get increasingly 'fed up' with reading that my 'lifestyle, diet, lack of exercise' will cause a cancer. '50 per cent of cancers are your own fault' ran the headline in the Daily Mail. Even if I believed that, let's be clear, then. 50 per cent are not! And the unanswered question is : Where do these other risks come from?

Again, cancer experts know what Governments and orthodox cancer bodies avoid mentioning. For example, one area of great concern is the rapid and uncontrolled expansion of Toxic chemicals - certain chemical ingredients in pesticides and herbicides are a clear cause according to the EU, which is moving to ban them. But there are many others in everyday use in your own home. Women who stay home and clean have 40 per cent more toxins in their blood that their sisters who go out to work - after all, there are laws about toxin levels in factories. One US estimate said that the air in Times Square in New York was 12 times less polluted than that in the average home!!! Who makes these chemicals and why are most cancer charities so quiet about them? Look no further than the companies that may provide the funds for drug research and you will understand. Read our brand new updated report 'Safe as Houses' and vote with your wallet. Your home doesn't have to poison you.

· Safe As Houses - new report

· Chemistry Test

icon magazine

Past issues to be downloadable

Yes, CANCERactive is finally joing the 21st Century. A great number of people request past magazines. Unfortunately, we have exhausted our supplies of some issues. So, over the next few weeks we are going to attempt to load up pdf's of past magazines. Then you will be able to down load them - wherever you are in the world. The quality will not be quite as good as the printed version, but at least you will be able to see the articles you want in the UK's unique magazine Integrated Cancer and Oncology News.

Of course, if you are in the UK you can always make a monthly donation to our charity. If you donate £3 or over, we will send you all copies of icon the second they are published. If you donate over £5 a month we will also give you 10 per cent off phone orders on Products of Choice - books, supplements and so on. How many other cancer charities give practical help like this?

· Donate and receive icon now!!!!

Do You want to receive information like this regularly?

Sign up NOW - it's FREE!!!!

This e newsletter is completely FREE. It comes out every few weeks or so, and keeps over 50,000 people up to date with the latest research and information on health and specifically cancer, from all over the world. Many items simply do not make the national press, and many important facts and discoveries do not even appear on your doctor's radar. But they could be vitally important to you, or someone like you. And - DON'T FORGET - Part II of this e mail on Breast Cancer comes out next week. You must know someone who would benefit!?

Every month I receive research notes from top US Hospitals like MD Anderson and Harvard, European centres like the Karolinska, or from Concord, Sydney, Tokyo, and Singapore. And about 80 others! So, I promise, if I know about it you will too, pretty soon afterwards via this e newsletter. Why not click the link and sign up, or sign up 5 friends you think could benefit? NO ONE SHOULD DIE OF IGNORANCE.


· CANCERactive Homepage


phone: +44(0)1280 821 211



Reply With Quote

Old 12-02-2008, 04:57 PM
Jakob Jakob is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 33
Re: National Breast Cancer Research Center

That is sad when people use 'fake' charities to solicit money. It only makes people think twice about sending money then to the legitimate charities. It is sad what level some people will stoop to.

Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2008, 11:21 AM
lizziebell lizziebell is offline
I am new at
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1
Re: National Breast Cancer Research Center

As a breast cancer survivor, I was surprised to receive a large kit in the mail recently THANKING me for agreeing to collect money for this group in my neighborhood. The list was quite professionally prepared and included the names of my neighbors, envelopes for donations, etc. I knew that I had never agreed to collect money for any group, so I googled them and discovered that they were a bogus charity. How did they get my name? I was really upset by this scam and just threw the material away.

Just today, my father (also a cancer survivor) received a phone call THANKING HIM for agreeing to collect money for the National Cancer Research Institute (apparently the same group minus Breast). This fraudulent non-profit should be stopped!!! Any ideas anyone???

Reply With Quote

Old 11-25-2009, 04:48 PM
anne Goff anne Goff is offline
I am new at
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tampa FL
Posts: 1
Re: National Breast Cancer Research Center

I also just received a solicitation for a donation. I am suspicious of this organization because I have worked in the cancer field (administrator) for 20+ years in Florida and had never heard of this foundation or the Walker Cancer Research Institute. I checked out their rating with Charity Navigator, an objective source, and they had a one out of 5 stars for rating -- they spend 50% of their donated funds on fundraising. Please give your money to an NCI designated cancer center, the American Cancer Society or the Susan G. Komen Foundation. They are all nationally recognized.

Reply With Quote


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
breast cancer treatment... sherryjennifer Medical Scams 1 12-07-2011 12:19 AM
Axcess Research Center- Scam amski Business Scams 3 03-25-2009 02:13 PM
Oregon National Research Center Investigated hello1122 Political Chat 2 11-21-2007 11:41 AM
Please sign the petition to pass the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2007 sojustask Political Chat 4 07-24-2007 06:37 AM
Optimal Radition Therapy Improves Breast Cancer Survival war_man Political Chat 1 01-12-2006 08:12 AM

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the User’s own risk. Neither nor its affiliates, nor any of their respective agents, employees, information providers or content providers, shall be liable to any User or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, alteration of or use of any content herein, or for its timeliness or completeness, nor shall they be liable for any failure of performance, computer virus or communication line failure, regardless of cause, or for any damages resulting therefrom. Just because a business, person, or entity is listed on does not necessarily constitute they are scammers. This is a free open forum where people can debate the merits from the consumer's or business owner's perspective. Registration and participation is always FREE.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:41 PM. Is Proudly Hosted By Rackco and Protected By CloudFlare

Scams Message Board - Copyright 2004-2013 , All Rights Reserved.