1

SOME BREAST CANCER CASES LIKELY INTENTIONALLY-CAUSED

by: Andrew Kaprusiak (Revised September 28, 2020)

There is an epidemic in the West of breast cancer. Breast cancer rates for women in the
West are 2 to 4 times higher than those in nations in which breast cancer has a low
incidence. (“The Cancer Atlas”) The American Cancer Society in its report: Trends in
Female Breast Cancer reports that 1 in 8 women in the United States will contract
breast cancer in their lifetime. (2017) Furthermore, white/non-Hispanic women have the
highest incidence of breast cancer by race in the United States. So if we include this
information into the 1 in 8 women statistic, breast cancer will likely affect 1 in 7 white/
non-Hispanic women in the United States. With the exception of prostate cancer —that
has the chance of affecting 1 in 9 men— no other cancer comes close in terms of breast
cancer’s high incidence rate. Lung cancer, next on the list for incidence level, has a 1 in
16 chance of afflicting individuals. Other Western countries have similarly high breast
cancer incidence rates for women. (“The Cancer Atlas”) Compounding the problem,
statistics on cancer rates over time only began after the discovery of radiation so we do
not know how much intentional radiation poisoning is a part of the overall cancer
statistics. Nevertheless, in a nascent cancer prevalence study (Strong, 1921) there was
shown to be a 25% increase in cancer rates in the West shortly after the discovery of
radiation. The astronomical rate of breast cancer suggests that malicious and intentional
exposure to radioactivity or carcinogenic substances is likely behind a high proportion of
breast cancer in the West. Furthermore, looking at the incidence of breast cancer charts
in the United States the overall trend appears to be towards ever-increasing breast
cancer incidence rates (especially for black women). (see chart on page 9)

There are massive public awareness campaigns that seek to raise awareness of the
epidemic of breast cancer affecting women —such as the October pink ribbon
campaign— but there is little discussion in terms of whether some of the incidence of
breast cancer is intentionally-caused by surreptitiously administering carcinogenic
chemicals to women. Although this is a discouraging allegation, it is —as I will
demonstrate— a very possible one. I decided to read some of the scientific research on
whether it was possible to intentionally-cause breast cancer in women. I typed the
provocative search terms into Google Scholar: “How to induce mammary tumors in rats”
and the result was several research articles outlining several ways and several
 2

chemicals that would cause mammary tumors in rats. That these chemicals and
procedures produce tumors in rats (some at an 100% effectiveness rate) suggests that
women could similarly be given breast tumors using the same chemicals and
procedures.

THE CHEMICAL WHICH CAUSES MAMMARY TUMOURS AT A 100% RATE OF

EFFECTIVENESS
One of the most significant research papers that I found in terms of women being
potentially given intentional breast cancer stated that a single dose of 7,12-
dimethylbenz[a]anthracene —a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)— readily
available from chemical companies such as Sigma Aldrich administered on a single
occasion could induce mammary tumors in rats at a 97% level of effectiveness. (Sinha,
Pazik, & Dao, 1983) In fact this product is produced for scientific researchers who are
studying cancer and this chemical —due to its cancer-causing properties— allows
researchers to induce cancer in rodents quickly and efficiently in order to carry-out
cancer experiments. “The chemical, 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene (DMBA) can
induce mammary tumors in rats at a rate of 85-97% with a single injection of the
chemical at the amount of 3 mg/100 g body weight.”  One of the chemical companies
that manufactures DMBA, Sigma-Aldrich, describes it on its website as such: “7,12-
Dimethylbenz-[a]anthracene is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon. It is used in cancer
research…7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene has been used to induce skin cancer in
mice, buccal pouch carcinogenesis in syrian golden hamsters and breast cancer in
rats…It is most commonly used to induce skin or mammary tumors in animals, though it
also can induce leukemias and tumors at other sites.” (7,12-
Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene) It is likely, therefore that a single injection of DMBA at the
amount of 3 mg/100 g body weight could induce tumors in womens’ breasts at a rate of
85-95% effectiveness.

However, it is not necessary to inject a woman intravenously with DMBA to have these
devastating cancer-causing effects occur. As the next research article demonstrates it is
only necessary to have rats consume 7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene orally on a
single occasion in order for them to contract mammary tumors at the rate of 100%.
(Huggins & Yang, 1962) “A single feeding of any of a number of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons evokes tumors predominantly of the breast in the albino rat. Under
conditions which have been defined, cancer arises invariably, rapidly, and selectively in
 3

the mammary gland. This is a spectacular phenomenon.” The article continues: “A

single dose of an appropriate hydrocarbon accelerates this process and induces tumors
of the mammary gland in every animal. A single meal introduces the cancer problem.”

If it is so simple to induce mammary tumors in rats, it should be just as simple to induce

breast cancer in women. Furthermore, a large amount of research confirms that PAHs
are linked to breast cancer in humans. Korsh et al. reviewed the literature on the link
between PAHs and breast cancer and found: “…established risk factors only account for
approximately 41% of the breast cancer cases in the USA, researchers have sought to
uncover environmental factors involved in breast cancer development. The breasts are
particularly susceptible to aromatic carcinogenesis…Evidence suggests that exposure
to PAHs has a causational effect on breast cancer in humans…” (2015) In terms of the
ease with which it is possible to cause breast cancer in women with PAHs, all it would
take would be a single amount of 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene administered in a
woman’s drink or food. The minuscule amount of DMBA necessary to induce breast
cancer —3 mg/100 g body weight— would make the chemical virtually odourless and
tasteless in food or drinks. So a woman’s food or drink could easily be adulterated with
DMBA in order to cause breast cancer development in her. 

TO PREVENT DMBA POISONING TAKE PERIODIC HAIR SAMPLES

In terms of preventing this malevolent crime from occurring, a brief look at the research
(Grova et al., 2018) suggests that DMBA is excreted partially through the hair so, as I
have suggested for other toxic poisonings, hair samples should be taken every few days
(as close to the scalp as possible), bagged and labelled with the date taken on the
bags. If a woman is administered DMBA it will show up in her hair. Breast cancer could
occur a couple of months after being administered DMBA so if hair samples are taken
periodically it would be easier to narrow down when the poisoning occurred. These
steps should help to discourage individuals from trying to administer DMBA or other
carcinogenic toxins to women.

WHY ARE WOMEN NOT AWARE OF THE THREAT THAT DMBA POSES?
Also, surprisingly the latter article in these regards by Huggins & Yang was written in
1962 and the former article by Sinha et al. was written in 1983. Why have women not
been made more aware of this serious threat to their health? It has been at least 60
years that researchers have been aware of the ability to cause breast cancer in women
 4

at a 100% rate of effectiveness with a single dose of a virtually tasteless and odourless
chemical that is readily available. Why is this danger not on the radar screens of women
in the West? We never hear about the possibility that women may be intentionally-
administered DMBA to cause breast cancer in them. Furthermore, also supportive of the
fact that DMBA is likely being used to intentionally-cause breast cancer in women, these
journal articles on DMBA were produced just before, or around the time, that breast
cancer rates spiked in the United States. Between 1982 and 1987 breast cancer
incidence for white/non-Hispanic women rose by approximately 40%. Over the same
time period breast cancer incidence increased by about 35% in black women. (see chart
on page 9) It may have been that malevolent individuals took notice of the this type of
research on DMBA and shortly thereafter began putting it to use to cause a massive
increase in breast cancer in women.

To speculate in these regards I would have to say that organized crime is likely behind
this wall of silence around the danger that DMBA poses. Organized crime and their
pedophile overlords quash any discussion about scientific research that could expose
one of the many crimes-against-humanity that they carry out. As well, the fact that it is
“right under our noses” —that it is quite easy to intentionally-cause breast cancer in
women and that this may account for the epidemic of breast cancer in the West— yet
no one appears to be discussing this matter suggests that there is a conspiracy of
silence surrounding this research. Why is this danger not being presented in the mass-
media? Why do women seem to be completely unaware that they can be given breast
cancer, as the researcher stated earlier with “a single meal”? As the old saying goes,
“the silence is deafening”. The lack of discussion surrounding such ground-breaking
research into the relation between easily-administered carcinogenic chemicals and the
epidemic of breast cancer in the West is very conspicuous. The only individuals who
would have the power to silence the mass-media and the public over this issue are
organized crime groups and the pedophiles who lead these organizations. Why,
however, are pedophiles and organized criminals involved in worsening breast cancer
rates in women? The answer to this is simple enough: Pedophiles are causing breast
cancer in women of the West as retribution for womens’ activities in increasing the
proscription of pedophilia and for increasingly alienating pedophiles from society.

WESTERN WOMEN, ESPECIALLY FEMINISTS, HAVE HISTORICALLY

SPEARHEADED ACTIONS TO INTERDICT PEDOPHILIA IN WESTERN SOCIETY
 5

It started with Elizabeth I enacting stringent rape and child-rape laws in Renaissance
England (as cited in Parker, 1983). Then feminists such as Josephine Butler
successfully worked to increase age-of-consent laws in Victorian Britain by showing
how easy it was to “purchase” a girl in order to turn them into a sexual slave. (The Eliza
Armstrong Case n.d.) Next, 19th century psychoanalysts found that women were
confessing many episodes of sexual abuse that they had had as girls at the hands of
adult men (peculiarly men were very reticent about discussing their childhood sexual
abuse to the psychoanalysts) and the psychoanalysts linked this sexual abuse to a host
of neurotic symptoms. (Freud’s Seduction Theory n.d.) The seeds of pedophilia being
considered a disease of the mind were now planted in society. (Krafft-Ebing, 1906) Also
19th century American feminists immediately used their newly-acquired ability to vote to
push for increasing the age-of-consent laws. As well they ushered in tougher legal
punishments for rape. American feminists were very successful in these regards.
(Hamelin, 2020) Our modern conception of child/adult sexual relations —that children
are unable to consent to sexual relations with adults— is largely influenced by feminist
ideas about power that arose in the second half of the 20th century. (Herman, 2000) ;
(Angelides, 2004) As well, women have become increasingly more remonstrative over
the years in regards to pedophiles —as they have the support of a clear majority in
society. Also, womens’ realization that pedophiles are so powerful in society —through
pedophile control of organized crime groups— suggests that womens’ frustration is
partially behind their increasing recriminations towards pedophiles. Furthermore,
pedophiles’ hideous crimes do not seem to be abating either. The outpouring of
revulsion that civilized citizens feel when some of these crimes occur often results in
legislative changes, but sometimes these crimes evoke violent responses from
otherwise civilized citizenry.

Such was the case with the abduction and murder of 8-year-old Sarah Payne from West
Sussex, UK. Sarah was murdered by a pedophile repeat offender in July of 2000.
Sarah’s death resulted in an extraordinary outpouring of public grief in the UK. Part of
the reason for this grief was that a UK newspaper, News of the World led by a female
editor Rebekah Wade, decided to use the journal to induce public sympathy for Sarah
and her parents, to vilify pedophiles and to compel the government to make anti-
pedophile legislation that would allow families to have access to sex offender registries.
The subsequent demonization of pedophiles in the News of the World campaign led to
female-instigated riots in the UK along with pedophiles being attacked. (A Paper’s
 6

Controversial Campaign, 2001) The vigilantism was declared undemocratic by many UK

institutions such as government and even other newspapers. The government made
some changes to pedophile laws but these fell short of what the majority of UK citizens
wanted —full access to the UK sex offender registry.

Curiously, the News of the World was shut-down in 2011 after 168 years of publishing.
(News of the World, n.d.) Ostensibly the reason was that the newspaper was found to
be illegally tapping individuals’ phones. As a result, the News of the World announced
that it would voluntarily stop publishing. However, one wonders if high-level pedophiles
in society —especially in the UK government— used their extensive organized crime
influence to tacitly shut the paper down due to its name and shame campaign. The
News of the World itself weighed in on this notion. On the final cover of the last edition
of the News of the World, we see a collage of past front-pages published by the
newspaper. To the left we see the named and shamed campaign front-page following
the murder of Sarah Payne. That the News of the World would put this cover in such a
conspicuous place on their final front-page indicates News of the World staff believe that
powerful and influential organized crime pedophiles in the government tacitly had the
newspaper shut-down as a result of the paper’s anti-pedophile campaign. The overall
message sent out then to news media outlets was that if any other news organization
incited mass violence and mass hysteria towards pedophiles, they too would be shut-
down. Therefore, the significance of the News of the World shut-down after a campaign
directed at vilifying pedophiles, spearheaded by a female editor, effectively
demonstrates how pedophiles use their tools of coercion and terror to manipulate
individuals and organizations into submission to their agenda, in this case shutting-
down an anti-pedophile newspaper. Once again, it appears that pedophiles used their
hegemony of organized crime power in society to thwart what the majority of the public
wanted in regards to proscribing pedophilia. Furthermore, the Paulston estate riots in
the UK appear to have a subtext in them of escalating public frustration in regards to
powerful and malevolent pedophile hegemony in UK society. It is the kind of frustration
that results when a small group in a democratic society have undue power because of
their use of coercion, terror and violence. Nevertheless, the Paulston estate riots were
also a watershed in terms of pedophiles’ relations with civilized society. These riots
demonstrated that the public’s frustration with this minority of thoroughly undemocratic
murderous and criminal perverts who exercise undue power and control in society will
only heighten in the future; only more vigilantism and civil disobedience can be
 7

expected due to groundless, unwarranted pedophile hegemony, murder and corruption

in society. Furthermore, the Paulston estate riots demonstrated —by having the public
identifying, attacking and terrifying pedophiles— that the public have come to believe
further legislation simply cannot address the fundamental problem of destructive
pedophiles and their pervasive hegemony in society. For all the efforts made by
individuals over the centuries to interdict pedophilia, child sexual abuse in society and
pedophile hegemony —backed-up with organized crime muscle— are both still endemic
 8

in society. The only way to effectively alleviate the frustration and anger that the public
have towards pedophiles is to segregate pedophiles from society.

Regardless, although the Paulston estate riots were a watershed in terms violence and
vilification directed at pedophiles and their hegemony in society, many females’ efforts
these days in regards to pedophiles seems to revolve around facilitating letting the
public have access to sex offender registries, publicly naming convicted pedophiles
(Megan’s Law, n.d.) and finding out if dangerous pedophiles live in their
neighbourhoods. (What is Sarah’s Law?, n.d.) It is evident that over the years females
have become increasingly remonstrative towards pedophiles. As well, it is evident from
my research that Western women in particular have been most active in proscribing and
demonizing pedophilia and as such, it is conspicuous that Western womens’ breast
cancer rates are so high.

As a result of societies’ and especially womens’ efforts to interdict pedophilia over time,
pedophiles have gone from simply not being talked about through most of humanities’
past to being demonized as monsters in contemporary society. Pedophile punishments
in the past —if given out at all— were usually small fines. (Pistono, 1989) Today
pedophiles can receive lengthy prison terms and are often attacked in prison.
Pedophiles know all-to-well that it was primarily due to the efforts of women that this
situation was brought about. Therefore, it would be completely naive to think that
pedophiles are not retaliating towards women for ostracizing them, for demonizing them
and for facilitating incarcerating them. Women, simply put, have been poking the bear
for centuries and in the 19th and 20th centuries they started beating the bear with a
stick. It would be very unrealistic to think that pedophiles have not been retaliating
towards women such as causing breast cancer in them for their increasing alienation in
society.

BREAST CANCER RATES ROSE IN TANDEM WITH WOMENS’ INCREASING

PARTICIPATION IN THE WORKFORCE
Another factor linking pedophiles with womens’ epidemic levels of breast cancer is that
increasing breast cancer incidence levels seem to echo a subsequent rise in womens’
participation in the workforce. I have reproduced two charts showing this relationship
9
 10

below. (Trends in Breast Cancer Incidence, 2020) ; (Female Labor Force Participation,
n.d.) Womens’ breast cancer rates began to increase substantially around about 1980
and this was about the time that women made large forays into the workforce. As I recall
in the 1960s and 70s it was rare to see women police officers or women doctors.
Womens’ career prospects in the past were generally that of teacher, nurse or secretary.
Women were simply not represented equally in all areas of the workforce. This situation
changed in the 1970s and 1980s where we now see more equal representation of
women in all sectors of the workforce. From about 1950 to 1980 in Canada womens’
participation in the workforce more than doubled. Womens’ participation in the
workforce in Canada went from 15% in 1910 to more than 60% today. Doubtlessly,
pedophiles are uncomfortable with the fact that women have been witnessing the
uncomfortable reality that organized criminals and their pedophile overlords tacitly
control our workplaces. They use their terror and violence to override managers’ control
over workplaces just as they do in most areas of society. But the fact remains that the
more women have penetrated the workplace, the higher their incidence of breast cancer
becomes. As well, the trend is that womens’ breast cancer incidence rates are going to
increase even further. So pedophiles are likely not only punishing women by
intentionally-giving them breast cancer for alienating and demonizing them from society,
they are also punishing women for entering the workplace in greater numbers. All-in-all
pedophiles appear to be seriously threatened by womens’ increasing political power, by
their increasing workplace power and by their increasing economic power.

PEDOPHILE PROPAGANDA PROOF THAT PEDOPHILES ARE INTENTIONALLY

GIVING BREAST CANCER TO WOMEN
Nevertheless, in all of my evidence presented so far in terms of pedophiles’ and
womens’ ongoing conflict in society I have demonstrated womens’ grievances and
actions directed at pedophiles. I have also alleged that pedophiles are retaliating
towards women in several ways such as by murdering women in violent ways and by
having these murders appear as spontaneous acts or accidents. (Five Young Women
Murdered, 2020) ; (Jewish Mafia Murdered Wilma Andersson, 2020) However, I have
not presented any evidence so far that proves that pedophiles are singling women out
for retribution such as intentionally-caused breast cancer. Nevertheless, as I have often
pointed out in my previous articles, individuals making ultimatums or demands on other
groups of individuals often use the strategy of attacking their rivals surreptitiously. The
aggressors then surreptitiously state who they are that are attacking this group, their
 11

reasons for these attacks and what the persecuted group must do to circumvent future
surreptitious attacks. For example, in my past articles I have stated that China is
surreptitiously attacking the West through causing brain damage in the West’s children,
is causing an opioid epidemic in the West, is downing aircraft in the West and is causing
many other problems in order to get the West to cede the continent of Australia to it.
(China Exacerbating Social Problems in the West, 2018) China clandestinely states that
these attacks on Western society will only diminish once the West cedes Australia to it.
It is evident from my writings that organized crime and China issue propaganda in these
regards, often by co-opting established sources in the mass-media such as books,
films, radio advertisements, and scientific journals for example. When analyzing these
propaganda sources, it is apparent immediately that these media have a double
meaning, one an innocuous ostensible meaning and a second provocative, tacit
propaganda meaning. My point is that groups who are committing surreptitious acts of
violence towards a particular group must make it known on some level that such
persecution is occurring in order that the persecuted group knows that their persecution
is not accidental, but intentional, in order that the persecuted group can do as directed
by their persecutors in order to halt the persecution. These are the fundamental ways by
which one group can come to manipulate or control another through violence and
coercion.

Therefore, there must be a “smoking gun” out there where pedophiles admit —on some
level— that they are intentionally giving women breast cancer. Otherwise women would
think that all their breast cancer is all spontaneously-occurring and would not change
their behaviour to suit their persecutors or try to halt their persecution. In the course of
my internet searches, I did manage to find a journal article from 1998 which,
surreptitiously yet tacitly, indicates that women are being intentionally-given breast
cancer by pedophiles. The article states that this malevolent situation is occurring in
retribution for women threatening pedophile hegemony in society and in retribution for
womens’ forays into most areas of employment throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s,
especially in the judiciary. The article is called: The Social Construction of the Breast
Cancer Epidemic. (Lantz & Booth, 1998) Ostensibly the article is about the rising
incidence, or epidemic, of breast cancer in women in the West from 1980 through to the
1995 and what popular magazine articles attributed this increase to. The broad
conclusion of the article was that “women’s choices” in regards to their health and diet
were cited by magazine articles the most as contributing to higher breast cancer
 12

incidence rates. Yet this was not the only idea put forward in regards to increasing
incidence of breast cancer. There were other hypotheses made so, ultimately, the cause
of the breast cancer increase was inconclusive. Of course the surreptitious, or
propaganda, subtext of the article was quite different. The propaganda subtext of the
article was that “women’s choices” in regards to threatening pedophile hegemony in
society by entering all areas of the workforce was resulting in an increase in
intentionally-caused breast cancer in women. Especially troubling was womens’ entry
into the judiciary because the title of the article “The Social Construction of the Breast
Cancer Epidemic” implies that pedophiles are being made “cons” or prison convicts in
greater numbers due to women in the judiciary.

In fact, in 1998 when this article was written pedophilia conviction rates and pedophilia
prison term lengths had all increased very substantially in recent years lending
credence to the notion that this journal article surreptitiously refers to giving women
intentionally-caused breast cancer in part for making more pedophiles prison convicts.
For example, median prison length terms increased by 100% on average for child
pornography offences between 1994 and 1998 in the United States and have risen even
further since. The number of child pornography suspects involved in matters concluded
by United States attorneys went from 200 individuals in 1994 to 600 individuals in 1998.
The percentage of charged child pornographers receiving prison terms in the United
States went from about 68% in 1994 to close to 90% in 1998 and in 2007 the percent of
charged child pornographers serving prison terms was just under 100%. Child sex
trafficking suspects charged by federal prosecutors increased from about 25% to 60%
between 1994 and 1998. (Faust & Motivans, 2015) Therefore, along with the increase in
the incidence in breast cancer —as a corollary— child sex offences have been more
severely punished by United States authorities. In fact incarcerations, in general, have
steeply increased in the United States. Incarcerations increased from a relatively steady
rate of about 160 per 100,000 of population over time in 1974 to 700 per 100,000 in
1998. (The Growth of Incarceration in the United States, 2014) The increase in the rate
of incarceration can be attributed, in part, to the great increase in crime rates from 1957
to 1993. Both property crime and violent crime more than quintupled over this time
period. (see chart p. 13) Breast cancer incidence spiked in a similar manner to that of
the dramatic increase in pedophile incarceration and incarcerations in general. In
women over the age of 50 breast cancer increased from a relatively steady rate over
time of about 15 cases per 100,000 of population in 1982 (at which point it spiked) to
 13

about 85 cases per 100,000 of population in 1998. (see chart on page 9) So the tacit
meaning of the title of this research article and its fundamental clandestine premise
imply that women are being blamed for causing pedophiles and men, in general, to be
incarcerated at more punitive levels due to their increasing presence in the workforce
(especially in the judiciary) and that, as a result, they are being given breast cancer —
and probably many other forms of serious persecution— as retribution for these
developments.

Regardless, here are some passages from this peculiar piece of pedophile propaganda
that essentially states that women are getting intentionally-caused cancer due to the
threat they represent to pedophile hegemony and the choices they are making to enter
all areas of the workforce. The first quote early on in the research paper suggests that
there is a lot of “social anxiety” around womens’ changing role in society. Furthermore
that womens’ changing role in society is a metaphor for social disorder with breast
cancer being the result. The tacit implication is that pedophiles are upset with women
 14

changing the established social order and will give them breast cancer as retribution for
this threat:

Gender roles and relations, especially changes in women's relative power

and social position, are issues of widespread public (and private) anxiety.
Several recent demographic changes in the United States and other
developed countries involve issues of gender relations and, to a degree,
increases in women's power and autonomy relative to men (i.e. trends toward
decreased fertility, increased age at first marriage, increased rates of marital
dissolution, increased numbers of people who never marry, and increased
education and labor force participation by women)…As a result, cultural
preoccupations about breast cancer are contradictory and serve as extremely
powerful metaphors for social disorder…findings that women who never give
birth or have their first child after age 30 have a slightly higher rate of breast
cancer were translated by the Australian press to mean that women who
have chosen to avoid or delay childbearing (i.e. “career women”) are causing
their own disease and the “epidemic” of breast cancer with their life choices.

Of course the final sentence in this quote is the most provocative: “…’career women’ are
causing their own disease and the ‘epidemic’ of breast cancer with their life choices.”
Although the quote ostensibly refers to decreased womens’ fertility and deferring
childbirth as potential causes for increased womens’ breast cancer rates, the quote
implicitly mentions “increases in women's power” and the “social disorder” in the same
context that: “career women are causing their own disease…” The tacit meaning of this
passage is that womens’ increasing power in society is causing them to have an
increased incidence of breast cancer. This is a classic example of “double-speak” that
allows both a relatively benign social commentary and a vicious threat to be conveyed
simultaneously. Shortly after this assertion the paper states: “…early motherhood,
having numerous children and breastfeeding are suggested to be protective against
breast cancer.” In other words, womens’ traditional place in society in the home —and
not at work threatening pedophile hegemony— will protect them from getting
intentionally-caused breast cancer.

The next passage from The Social Construction of the Breast Cancer Epidemic
specifically identifies women who are more likely at risk of contracting intentionally-
 15

caused breast cancer and furthermore, it makes out feminism and womens’ career
aspirations to be a “disease of civilization”:

In fact, some of the articles explicitly deem breast cancer as a disease of

modern or liberated women, and blame the feminist movement for some or
all of the problem. For example, in an article published in The New York
Times Magazine, a physician wrote: ‘More than lung cancer and coronary
heart disease, breast cancer has deep causes intrinsic to civilization: the
quality of life, the robustness of child growth (which has led to earlier
menarche), adequate infant feeding (in place of breast milk), and women's
search for equality (which has lengthened the time between puberty and first
birth). More irrevocably than others, it is a disease of civilization. Similarly, in
an article published in Science News in 1995, a journalist stated that: In
broad terms, the women who are most likely to get breast cancer (are)
educated, health-conscious, middle-class women who have put off childbirth.’

In other words, womens’ strivings for equality are equated to a disease that deeply
impacts society in a negative manner and are being given a disease in return, especially
educated women. So the surreptitious undertone of this passage is partly to justify
intentionally-causing breast cancer in women. Notice in this article, as well, how
pedophiles try to co-opt males, in general, into supporting their completely retrogressive
thinking in regards to womens’ changing societal roles. They co-opt a male physician
and a male journalist to infer that intelligent men think that career women are a disease
of society. Clearly however, this is not the case as a large number of males have
historically supported womens’ equality and career aspirations.

In the next passage reference is made to pedophiles surreptitiously and how women are
threatening pedophile hegemony in society by entering all areas of the workforce. As
well, the threat is made surreptitiously to amputate womens’ breasts for trying to cut-off
pedophiles from society:

…the message here is that there is a trade-off for the modern, American
woman. She may have come a long way, but there is something unhealthy or
unnatural about her choices as she also has increased her chances of life-
threatening disease, disease that is essentially female and one that strikes a
 16

part of the body that is very much equated with being a woman. In turn, it is
also suggested that these choices and behaviors have led to an epidemic of
breast cancer among women, which suggests that the trade-off is not only
personal but societal as well. By desiring more autonomy and greater
choices in their lives (especially reproductive choice), modern young women
are actually threatening the social order.

The mention of “unnatural choices” is a veiled reference to pedophiles, as their sexual

orientation is often viewed as completely unnatural and this is partly why it evokes so
much revulsion in society. After referring obliquely to pedophiles, the passage refers to
breast cancer “striking” women. The subtext of the mention of these 2 different peoples
is to subtly state that if women continue to cut-off, or alienate pedophiles from society,
that pedophiles’ will work to “cut-off” womens’ breasts. This ominous and surreptitious
threat is repeated further in the passage where it states: “By desiring more autonomy…
modern young women are actually threatening the social order.” It is hinted at tacitly —
through use of the word autonomy— that if women demand more “autonomy”,
pedophiles will demand more “anatomy”. The last sentence in the passage states that
women are threatening the social order with their autonomy. Social order in this case is
a metaphor for pedophile hegemony. Notice how, once again, pedophiles attempt to co-
opt a greater number of individuals into their way of thinking than who would normally
agree with it. Most men in 1998 would not regard women as threatening the social order
with their desire to have a job or career. Far from threatening the social order, women
are in effect threatening pedophile hegemony, as I pointed out earlier, through
influencing the judiciary to imprison more pedophiles and for longer periods of time.
“Social order” in this passage ultimately refers to “Social Construction” in the title of the
article and I pointed out that “Cons” was a surreptitious reference to greater numbers of
pedophiles becoming convicts.

The next passage ominously indicates that the epidemic of breast cancer began around
the same time as did a backlash towards feminism and female economic independence,
suggesting, once again, that the breast cancer epidemic may be manipulated to a
certain extent by malevolent individuals: “Whatever the proximate reasons the social
problem of the breast cancer epidemic emerged when it did, it seems meaningful to us
that it emerged, with its messages, images and metaphors, in the mid 1980s when what
 17

Faludi calls a “backlash” against feminism and female economic and sexual
independence began to spread (Faludi, 1991).”

Finally in the following quote from The Social Construction of the Breast Cancer
Epidemic, women seeking financial independence are ultimately portrayed as greedy
and naive with feminism as particularly meddlesome in pedophiles’ social order. As well,
it is ominously proclaimed, once again, that changing gender relations are a cause of
the breast cancer epidemic:

The backlash message, pervasive in media, books, film, and political

discourse, is that feminism has had some serious negative consequences for
women. Backlash sends the strong signal that the very changes that appear
to have empowered women, improved incomes and educational attainment,
the ability to avoid or delay childbearing, political power, freedom in personal
habits, have also led to unhappiness, frustration and even ill health. The
backlash message is, of course, not the only message that women are
getting from the popular press. In fact, the “liberated” or career woman is
often portrayed quite positively in the media. Nonetheless, questions about
whether women really can “have it all” are pervasive in popular and political
culture. As a prime example of this, popular magazine articles on breast
cancer suggest that one of the negative consequences of attempting to have
it all is an increased risk of breast cancer. Thus, we see much of the popular
discourse about breast cancer getting into a pattern of backlash against
feminism. One of the numerous (and sometimes contradictory) messages
permeating the construction of the breast cancer epidemic is that many of the
behaviors of young, nontraditional women do not come without great
personal and societal payments which, in the end, may not be worth their
price. The presence of such messages emphasizes our premise that issues
related to changes in gender relations and the social control of women are at
the heart of the social construction of the breast cancer epidemic in the
United States.

The last sentence of the previous passage feeds into our worst fears, that some breast
 18

cancer is intentionally-caused as a reactionary response from pedophiles towards

women and their independence. The terms: gender relations, cons…(convicts) and
breast cancer epidemic in the same context lead us to this conclusion.

There are numerous pieces of evidence that this article was tacitly written as a piece of
pedophile propaganda and as a warning to women that they had better “turn back the
clock” on their forays into the workforce, especially in the judiciary, in order to avoid
ever-increasing amounts of intentionally-caused breast cancer. One of the gruesome
themes of the article is that if women continue to alienate (or cut-off) pedophiles from
society by imprisoning them in greater numbers and by continuing to demonize them,
pedophiles will respond in kind by “cutting-off womens’ breasts”. Overall, this is an
extremely retrogressive journal article equating womens’ desire for independence as a
social problem, and womens’ independence as a disease. It is really quite bizarre to see
a modern forward-thinking social-science journal co-opted in this manner into publishing
clandestine threats directed at women and reactionary pedophile clap-trap but
nevertheless, it does. Ultimately, the retrogressive subtexts of the article give it away —
as not a real object of enlightened social science investigation— but as a tacit example
of hate literature directed at women in the form of pedophile propaganda. Furthermore,
the unacceptable ultimatum is given to women to effectively leave the professions,
especially the judiciary if they want breast cancer rates to decrease. To me this article
demonstrates, beyond a doubt, how fundamentally at odds the thinking of pedophiles
are with the rest of society. It is evident that the perspectives of pedophile men that
permeates this article stems from the pre-Enlightenment era. As such, we can safely
assume that many male pedophiles have completely backwards, retrograded thinking
processes and that they seem to pine for the good old days —before the 18th century—
when women were completely subjugated by men and pedophiles were simply not
spoken about. The clock cannot be turned back to those times now and either women
are going to have to face ever-increasing rates of breast cancer, and other atrocities
directed at them, or we segregate pedophiles from society, especially women.
Furthermore, even with all of womens’ and mens’ great efforts over the centuries to
proscribe pedophilia in society, pedophilia is still endemic in society. As well pedophile
hegemony is as strong as ever. Women and men for that matter, simply put cannot win
the battle with pedophiles. To do so society would have to resort to the same tactics of
terror and violence that pedophiles use in society (such as intentionally-causing cancer
in individuals, causing hideous murders etcetera). In effect, we would have to become
 19

them to beat them and this route is unthinkable as well as a threat to democratic
civilization. The only real answer seems to segregate pedophiles. Without a doubt the
vicious retribution faced by women at the hands of pedophiles over the centuries, due to
the efforts of women in proscribing pedophilia and for alienating pedophiles in society, is
likely the longest most on-going crime-against-humanity society has ever witnessed. As
is evident it has been on-going for centuries with a sharp spike in terror and violence
directed at women in the 19th and 20th centuries. However, it is not just an increase in
breast cancer that women have had to face at the hands of pedophiles after entering
the workforce in large numbers in the 1980s, police-reported sexual assault more than
doubled between 1983 and 1993 indicating that women likely faced many increasing
types of persecution at the instigation of pedophiles during the 70s and 80s. (see chart
p. 20) In fact pedophiles appear to be increasingly radicalized in contemporary society.
Here in my home city of London, Ontario I have witnessed recently 2 malevolent acts at
the hands of pedophiles designed to terrorize the city. In the first case a little 4-year-old
girl, Taliyah Roberts-Nicholas, died right at her school during recess on November 12th,
2018. I allege she was murdered by being given some sort of toxic substance at the
instigation of pedophiles working at the school in retribution for the recent sentencing of
a pedophile in London court to 5 years in prison. (Five Young Women Murdered, 2020)
In another example of pedophile-inspired terrorism in London, a woman negligently
drove into a house causing a large gas-main explosion in the city. Luckily no one died
but a firefighter was injured. I allege that pedophiles instigated this explosion partially for
the shutting-down of a child-prostitution marketplace in the area. (Explosion in East
London Caused by Pedophiles, 2019)

All of the previous are good reasons why pedophiles need to be segregated from
ordinary society and especially segregated from women. They are obviously
persecuting women in retaliation for womens’ intransigence towards pedophilia and
womens’ spiteful efforts to alienate and criminalize pedophiles from society. As well,
they appear to be punishing women for penetrating most areas of the workforce —a
prospect pedophiles evidently find disquieting. I think that at a bare minimum this article
signifies that:

—due to the conspicuous silence around the danger of the chemical, 7,12-
dimethylbenz(a)anthracene, as a potent breast cancer threat to women,
 20

—as well as the correlation between increasing cancer prevalence rates and increasing
womens’ participation levels in the workplace,
—as well as the fact that Western women have been the most proactive in proscribing
pedophilia,
—as well as the journal article that tacitly confesses women are being given
intentionally-caused breast cancer due to their career choices, that levels of breast
cancer in the West are definitely being manipulated and increased by malevolent
individuals seeking to inflict serious injury onto women for their activities in regards to
alienating pedophiles from society. Simply put, this is a crime-against-humanity directed
at women —which has been clearly motivated by efforts to increase womens’ equality in
society and which must be halted by segregating pedophiles from society.
 21

REFERENCES

7,12-Dimethylbenz[a]anthracene. (n.d.). Sigma-Aldrich. (https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/

catalog/product/sigma/d3254?lang=en&region=CA)

Angelides, S. (2004). Feminism, Child Sexual Abuse, and the Erasure of Child
Sexuality. A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 10/2(2). (doi:
10.1215/10642684-10-2-141)

A Paper’s Controversial Campaign. (2001). BBC News. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/

uk_news/1709708.stm)

Breast Cancer. (n.d.). The Cancer Atlas. (https://canceratlas.cancer.org/the-burden/

breast-cancer/)

Eliza Armstrong Case. (n.d.). Wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Eliza_Armstrong_case)

Faust, E. & Motivans, M. (2015). Sex Offenders in the Federal Correctional System: The
Consequence of Heightened Attention on Increased Certainty and Severity of
Punishment. Justice Research and Policy. (https://doi.org/
10.1177/1525107115593740)

Grova, N., Hardy, E., Faÿs, F. & Corneliu Duca, R. (2018). Hair Analysis for the
Biomonitoring of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Exposure: Comparison with
Urinary Metabolites and DNA Adducts in a Rat Model. Archives of Toxicology,
92(2). (doi: 10.1007/s00204-018-2298-5)

Hamlin, K. (2020). What Raising the Age of Sexual Consent Taught Women About the
Vote. smithsonianmag.com. (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-
raising-age-sexual-consent-taught-women-about-vote-180975658/)

Herman, J.L. (2000). Father-Daughter Incest. Harvard University Press.

 22

Huggins, C. & Yang, N.C. (1962). Induction and Extinction of Mammary Cancer.
Science, 137(3526). (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1708629?seq=1)

Kaprusiak, A. (2020). 5 Young Women Allegedly Murdered by Jewish Mafia. Issuu.

(https://issuu.com/akaprusiak2/docs/
5_young_women_allegedly_murdered_by_jewish_mafia)

Kaprusiak, A. (2020). BBC and Swede Niklas Eksted Alleging Jewish Mafia Instigated
the Murder of Swedish Schoolgirl Wilma Andersson. Issuu.
(https://issuu.com/akaprusiak2/docs/wilma_andersson)

Kaprusiak, A. (2019). Gas Explosion in East London in August Allegedly an Act of

Pedophile Terrorism. Issuu. (https://issuu.com/home/published/
pedophiles_now_terrorists)

Kaprusiak, A. (2018). Is China Really Exacerbating Social Problems in the West in the
Hopes of Eventually Annexing Australia? Issuu.
(https://issuu.com/akaprusiak2/docs/is_china_really_exacerbating_social)

Korsh, J., Shen, A., Aliano, K., & Davenport, T. (2015). Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons and Breast Cancer: A Review of the Literature. Breast Care,
10(5). (doi: 10.1159/000436956)

Krafft-Ebing, R. (1906). Psychopathia Sexualis. Rebman. (https://archive.org/stream/

psychopathiasex02krafgoog#page/n20/mode/2up)

Lantz, P.M. & Booth, K.M. (1998). The Social Construction of the Breast Cancer
Epidemic. Social Science and Medicine, 46(7). (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
9541076/)
Long-Run Perspective on Female Labor Force Participation Rates,1890 to 2016. (n.d.).
Reprinted from Our World in Data. (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/female-
labor-force-participation-oecd)

Megan’s Law. (n.d.). Wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan%27s_Law)

 23

Moreau, G. (2018) Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2018. Canadian Centre

for Justice Statistics. (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2019001/
article/00013-eng.htm)

News of the World. (n.d.). Wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

News_of_the_World#End_of_publication)

Parker, G. (1983). The Legal Regulation of Sexual Activity and the Protection of
Females. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 21(2). (https://
digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://
www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1965&context=ohlj)

Pistono, S. (1989). Rape in Medieval Europe. Atlantis. 14(2) (https://journals.msvu.ca/

index.php/atlantis/article/view/4287)

Seduction Theory (n.d.). Wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Freud's_seduction_theory#:~:text=Freud's%20seduction%20theory%20emphasize
s%20the,memories%20of%20infantile%20sexual%20abuse.&text=Psychic%20dis
orders%20are%20a%20direct%20consequence%20of%20experiences%20that%2
0cannot%20be%20assimilated)

Sinha, D. K., Pazik, J.E. & Dao, T.L. (1983). Progression of Rat Mammary Development
with Age and its Relationship to Carcinogenesis by a Chemical Carcinogen.
International Journal of Cancer, 31(3). (doi.org/10.1002/ijc.2910310312)

Strong, W.M. (1921). Is Cancer Mortality Increasing? Cancer Research, 6(3).

 (doi: 10.1158/jcr.1921.251)

The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences.
(2014). The National Academies Press. (https://www.nap.edu/read/18613/chapter/
2)

Trends in Female Breast Cancer Incidence Rates by Race/Ethnicity, 1975-2014, US.

(2017). Reprinted from Breast Cancer: Facts & Figures 2017-2018. American
Cancer Society. (https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-
 24

facts-and-statistics/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures/breast-cancer-facts-and-
figures-2017-2018.pdf)

Uniform Crime Report, USA, 1957-2006. (n.d.). US Department of Justice. (https://

www.bjs.gov/ucrdata/index.cfm)

What is Sarah’s Law? How the murder of Sarah Payne led to the Child Sex Offender
Disclosure Scheme. (2019). Inews. (https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/sarahs-
law-what-uk-explained-sarah-payne-murder-killer-child-sex-offender-disclosure-
scheme-307014)