Governor McAuliffe Announces Evonik Industries to invest $15 million in Business and Innovation Center in Chesterfield County

Seal of Chesterfield County, Virginia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

~Company to create 50 new jobs and retain 130 jobs~

RICHMOND – Governor Terry McAuliffe announced in North Chesterfield today that Evonik Industries, one of the world's leading specialty chemicals companies, will invest $15 million to relocate and expand its Business and Innovation Center in Chesterfield County. The company will maintain its manufacturing operation in the City of Hopewell. Virginia successfully competed against New Jersey and Indiana for the project, which will create 50 new jobs over five years and retain 130 jobs.

            Speaking at today’s announcement, Governor McAuliffe said, “Evonik’s decision to stay in Virginia is a win-win for the state and for the Greater Richmond region. Evonik Corporation’s expansion of its research and development facilities in Chesterfield County and the creation of 50 new jobs is a testament to Virginia’s ability to attract innovative and growing companies to the Commonwealth and will contribute to the long-term economic sustainability of the community.”

            “The addition of 50 new high-tech and high-paying jobs in Chesterfield County is great news for the region,” said Maurice Jones, Virginia Secretary of Commerce and Trade. “As Evonik expands its footprint in Virginia, we look forward to continuing a long corporate partnership between the company and the Commonwealth.”

            Evonik, the creative industrial group from Germany, is one of the world leaders in specialty chemicals. Profitable growth and a sustained increase in the value of the company form the heart of Evonik’s corporate strategy. Its activities focus on the key megatrends health, nutrition, resource efficiency, and globalization. Evonik benefits specifically from its innovative prowess and integrated technology platforms.  The company is active in over 100 countries around the world.

            "Virginia is a great place to do business,” said Dr. Reinhold Brand, senior vice president and general manager of Evonik's Consumer Specialties business unit in North America. “The state is known as very business-friendly. The region has highly-educated workforce. Talent from all over the world can be attracted to work and live here in Virginia. And it was extremely easy to work with the Governor and his economic development team. Our employees are happy to be in Virginia—and very excited about our bright future with the new facility."

The Virginia Economic Development Partnership worked with Chesterfield County and the Greater Richmond Partnership to secure the project for Virginia. Former Governor Bob McDonnellapproved a $500,000 grant from the Governor’s Opportunity Fund to assist Chesterfield County with the project. Through its Virginia Jobs Investment Program, the Virginia Department of Small Business and Supplier Diversity will provide funding and services to support the company’s recruitment and training activities.

            “We are proud to welcome Evonik to our corporate family,” said Jim Holland, Chairman of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors. “As a world leader in the manufacturing and developing of specialty chemicals, we are extremely pleased that they have chosen Chesterfield County for their new Business and Innovation Center. Research and development is one of our target growth markets and this announcement certainly fits well into our economic base. We look forward to their continued growth.”

Related articles

• Governor McAuliffe Announces Safety Improvements for I-77 in Fancy Gap
• Governor McAuliffe Announces $21.3 Million Investment in City of Lynchburg
• Governor McAuliffe Announces Virginia Adopts National Cybersecurity Framework
• Governor McAuliffe Announces Virginia's Continued Progress on Telehealth and Broadband Expansion
• Governor McAuliffe Applauds House Passage of SOL Reform Legislation
• Governor McAuliffe Announces 155 New Jobs for Henry County

Largest, Longest Study on Mammograms Again Finds No Benefit

Early signs of breast cancer. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Dr. Mercola

It appears once again, major industry defenders will remain in complete denial and do anything possible to put profits before people.

An annual mammogram is the conventional go-to "prevention" strategy for breast cancer. But researchers increasingly agree that mammography is ineffective at best and harmful at worst.

Unfortunately, breast cancer is big business, and mammography is one of its primary profit centers. This is why the industry is fighting tooth and nail to keep it, even if it means ignoring the truth.

Several studies over the past few years have concluded that mammograms do not save lives, and may actually harm more women than they help, courtesy of false positives, overtreatment, and radiation-induced cancers.

The latest study to reach this conclusion is also one of the longest and largest. As reported by the New York Times:1

"One of the largest and most meticulous studies of mammography ever done, involving 90,000 women and lasting a quarter-century, has added powerful new doubts about the value of the screening test for women of any age.

It found that the death rates from breast cancer and from all causes were the same in women who got mammograms and those who did not.  And the screening had harms: one in five cancers found with mammography and treated was not a threat to the woman's health and did not need treatment such as chemotherapy, surgery or radiation."

Where's the Wisdom in Using a Cancer Screen That Causes Cancer?

Besides the harm caused by overtreatment, the wisdom of radiating your breasts year after year, for decades, is questionable at best, considering the fact that ionizing radiation can cause cancer.

Results published in the British Medical Journal2 (BMJ) in 2012 show that women carrying a specific gene mutation called BRCA1/2 are particularly vulnerable to radiation-induced cancer.

Women carrying this mutation who were exposed to diagnostic radiation before the age of 30 were twice as likely to develop breast cancer, compared to those who did not have the mutated gene.

They also found that the radiation-induced cancer was dose-responsive, meaning the greater the dose, the higher the risk of cancer developing. The authors concluded that:

"The results of this study support the use of non-ionizing radiation imaging techniques (such as magnetic resonance imaging) as the main tool for surveillance in young women with BRCA1/2 mutations."

I've warned against the use of routine mammograms for years, despite vehement attacks from radiologists and individuals hell-bent on attacking me. In the final analysis, it's been worth the legal fees I've had to pay to defend myself against these attacks over the years, as ever-mounting research repeatedly confirms my stance. 

At this point, the controversy is pretty much settled—at least if you take the published research into account.  To all of my opponents out there who have attacked me for my opinion regarding mammograms, I know they will remain in denial.  The big lie must continue to be told to avoid the guilt associated with the damage done. The attacks only make us better at defending controversial views.

Biggest Mammography Study to Date Finds No Benefit

The featured study, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ),3  included a five-year screening period, with a total follow-up period of 25 years. The women, aged 40-59, were randomly assigned to receive either five annual mammography screens, or an annual physical breast examination without mammography.

Over the course of the study, 3,250 of the women who received mammography were diagnosed with breast cancer, compared to 3,133 in the non-mammography group. Of those, 500 women in the mammography group, and 505 in the control group, died from the disease.

However, after 15 years of follow-up, the mammography group had another 106 extra cancer diagnoses, which were attributable to over-diagnosis. As previously explained by Dr. Otis Webb Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, the term "overdiagnosis" in cancer medicine refers to:4

"...a tumor that fulfills all laboratory criteria to be called cancer but, if left alone, would never cause harm. This is a tumor that will not continue to grow, spread and kill. It is a tumor that can be cured with treatment but does not need to be treated and/or cured."

The authors of the featured study concluded that:5

"Annual mammography in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer beyond that of physical examination or usual care when adjuvant therapy for breast cancer is freely available. Overall, 22 percent of screen detected invasive breast cancers were over-diagnosed, representing one over-diagnosed breast cancer for every 424 women who received mammography screening in the trial."

More Studies Disputing the Value of Routine Mammograms

The rate of overdiagnosis (22 percent) is virtually identical to that found in a 2012 Norwegian study,6 which found that as many as 25 percent of women are consistently overdiagnosed with breast cancer that, if left alone, would never have caused them any harm. Other studies that support the findings of the featured study include the following:

• In 2007, the Archives of Internal Medicine7 published a meta-analysis of 117 randomized, controlled mammogram trials. Among its findings: rates of false-positive results are high (20-56 percent after 10 mammograms)
• Similar results were found in a 2009 meta-analysis by the Cochrane Database Review,8 which found that breast cancer screening led to a 30 percent rate of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, which actually increasedthe absolute risk of developing cancer by 0.5 percent.  The review concluded that for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout a 10-year period, the life of just ONE woman was prolonged, while 10 healthy women were treated unnecessarily.
• Another Norwegian study,9 published in 2010, concluded that the reduction in mortality as a result of mammographic screening was so small as to be nonexistent—a mere 2.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years were spared as a result of the screening.
• Research published in The Lancet Oncology in 2011,10 described the natural history of breast cancers detected in the Swedish mammography screening program between 1986 to 1990, involving 650,000 women. Since breast lesions and tumors are aggressively treated and/or removed before they can be determined with any certainty to be a clear and present threat to health, there has been little to no research on what happens when they are left alone.
This study however, demonstrated for the first time that women who received the most breast screenings had a highercumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer over the following six years than the control group who received far less screenings.

False Negatives—Another Hazard of Mammography

Besides false positives that lead to unnecessary treatments, there's also the risk of getting a false negative, meaning that a life-threatening cancer is missed. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), mammograms miss up to 20 percent of breast cancers that are present at the time of screening. If a mammogram detects an abnormal spot in your breast, the next step is typically a biopsy. This involves taking a small amount of tissue from your breast, which is then looked at by a pathologist under a microscope to determine if cancer is present.

The problem is that early stage cancer like ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can be very hard to diagnose, and there are no diagnostic standards for it. Furthermore, pathologists doing the readings are not required to have specialized expertise. As Dr. Shahla Masood, the head of pathology at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Jacksonville, told the New York Times in 2010:11

"There are studies that show that diagnosing these borderline breast lesions occasionally comes down to the flip of a coin."

It's important to realize that a negative mammogram cannot be equated with a clean bill of health. All a negative mammogram can tell you is that IF you do have cancer, it hasn't grown large enough yet to be detected. This is particularly true for women with dense breast tissue. Forty-nine percent of women have high breast tissue density,12 and mammography's sensitivity for dense breasts is as low as 27 percent13—meaning about 75 percent of dense-breasted women are at risk for a cancer being missed if they rely solely on mammography. Even with digital mammography, the sensitivity is still less than 60 percent.

Women Faced with Increasingly Confusing Choices

The featured study has reignited the debate about whether or not an annual mammogram is a wise choice for most women. Complicating matters further is the fact that, over the past few years, a number of medical groups have created divergent recommendations with regards to if and when you should get a mammogram. 

In November of 2009, the US Preventive Services Task Force, a federal advisory board, revised their cancer screening recommendations,14 saying annual mammograms weren't necessary for women under age 50 and that screenings were recommended only every two years after that. The panel based the new guidelines on data indicating that mammography does more harm than good when used on younger women.

Many cancer groups refused to adopt these guidelines however, and still recommend women over the age of 40 to be screened annually. This includes the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the American College of Radiology.

In 2011, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) threw women for yet another loop when it changed its guidelines to include MORE screening compared to its previous recommendations. ACOG had previously recommended annual mammograms starting at age 50. As of 2011, it began urging women to get an annual mammogram starting at the age of 40. As stated by the New York Times:15

"[T]he days of one-size-fits-all screening may be ending. Now patients and their doctors will face much more nuanced choices, based on each woman's risk for breast cancer and her feelings about the prospect of unnecessary treatment. 'The balance between benefits and harms is more and more up in the air,' said Dr. Russell P. Harris, a professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 'Reasonable people will disagree.'"

3D Tomosynthesis—The Crazy Alternative That Increases Your Risks Even Further

Unfortunately, instead of admitting the flaws and inherent dangers of mammography, the industry unveiled a "new and improved" type of mammogram in 2011 called 3D tomosynthesis, which actually exposes you to even HIGHER doses of radiation than a standard mammogram. What's worse, they also recommend you continue receiving your traditional 2D mammogram when you get tomosynthesis, thereby multiplying your radiation exposure even further. According to surgeon Dr. Susan Love,16tomosynthesis exposes you to about twice the amount of radiation compared to a standard mammogram.

According to one 2010 study,17 annual screening using standard digital or screen-film mammography on women aged 40–80 years is associated with an induced cancer incidence and fatal breast cancer rate of 20–25 cases per 100, 000. Meaning, annual mammograms CAUSE 20-25 cases of fatal cancer for every 100,000 women getting the test. Further increasing—perhaps doubling—the number of fatal breast cancer caused as a direct result of the screening procedure itself can hardly be called progress.

Cancer Prevention Begins with Your Lifestyle Choices

Mammograms are portrayed as the best form of "prevention" a woman can get. But early diagnosis is not the same as prevention. And cancer screening that does more harm than good can hardly qualify as "your best bet" against becoming a cancer statistic! I believe the vast majority of all cancers could be prevented by strictly applying basic, common-sense healthy lifestyle strategies, such as the ones below.

• Avoid sugar, especially fructose, and processed foods. All forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Refined fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible. This automatically means avoiding processed foods, as most are loaded with fructose (typically in the form of high fructose corn syrup, HFCS).
• Optimize your vitamin D levels. Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature's most potent cancer fighters. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death). If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should probably be between 70 and 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I'm aware of, with no adverse effects. Ideally, your levels should reach this point by exposure to the sun or a safe tanning bed, not oral vitamin D.
• Limit your protein. Newer research has emphasized the importance of the mTOR pathways. When these are active, cancer growth is accelerated. One way to quiet this pathway is by limiting your protein to one gram of protein per kilogram of lean body mass, or roughly a bit less than half a gram of protein per every pound of lean body weight. For most people this ranges between 40 and 70 grams of protein a day, which is typically about 2/3 to half of what they are currently eating.
• Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and cancerous cells.
• Improve your insulin and leptin receptor sensitivity. The best way to do this is by avoiding sugar and grains and restricting carbs to mostly fiber vegetables. Also make sure you are exercising, especially with Peak Fitness.
• Exercise regularly. One of the primary reasons exercise works to lower your cancer risk is because it drives your insulin levels down, and controlling your insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks. It's also been suggested that apoptosis (programmed cell death) is triggered by exercise, causing cancer cells to die. Studies have also found that the number of tumors decrease along with body fat, which may be an additional factor. This is because exercise helps lower your estrogen levels, which explains why exercise appears to be particularly potent against breast cancer.
• Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It's important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.
• Drink a pint to a quart of organic green vegetable juice daily. Please review my juicing instructions for more detailed information.
• Get plenty of high-quality, animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
• Curcumin. This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful adjunct in the treatment of cancer. It actually has the most evidence-based literature18 supporting its use against cancer of any nutrient, including vitamin D. For example, it has demonstrated major therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis.19 It's important to know that curcumin is generally not absorbed that well, so I've provided several absorption tips here. Newer preparations have also started to emerge, offering better absorption. For best results, you'll want to use a sustained release preparation.
• Avoid drinking alcohol, or at least limit your alcoholic drinks to one per day.
• Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible. Even electric blankets can increase your cancer risk.
• Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy, especially if you have risk factors for breast cancer. Breast cancer is an estrogen-related cancer, and according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy. (There are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which are also comprised of synthetic hormones, have been linked to cervical and breast cancers.)
If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy instead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.
• Avoid BPA, phthalates, and other xenoestrogens. These are estrogen-like compounds that have been linked to increased breast cancer risk.
• Make sure you're not iodine deficient, as there's compelling evidence linking iodine deficiency with certain forms of cancer. Dr. David Brownstein,20 author of the book Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can't Live Without It, is a proponent of iodine for breast cancer. It actually has potent anticancer properties and has been shown to cause cell death in breast and thyroid cancer cells.
For more information, I recommend reading Dr. Brownstein's book. I have been researching iodine for some time ever since I interviewed Dr. Brownstein as I do believe that the bulk of what he states is spot on. However, I am not at all convinced that his dosage recommendations are correct. I believe they are far too high.
• Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame-broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide—a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted, or fried—has been found to increase cancer risk as well.

This is not an exhaustive list. There are many other strategies that can be useful as well. One excellent resource is Dr. Christine Horner's book, Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr. Christine Horner's Program to Protect Against and Fight Breast Cancer, which contains research-proven all-natural approaches for protecting against and treating breast cancer.

Experts Tell Radiologists to Stop Lying About Mammograms

Dr. H. Gilbert Welch of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice on CNN explains why the American College of Radiology two main arguments against the Canadian National Breast Screening Study are wrong as he explains in the video below

Arm Yourself with Information So You Can Take Control of Your Health

Many women are still unaware that the science backing mammograms is sorely lacking. Instead of being told the truth, women are guilt-tripped into thinking that skipping their yearly mammogram is the height of irresponsibility. It can be hard to stand your ground against such tactics. After all, you expect health professionals to know what they're talking about, and to give you the best advice possible.

When it comes to cancer prevention however, many doctors are just as brainwashed as the average person on the street, having succumbed to industry propaganda that downplays or ignores research conflicting with their profit-based agenda. Mounting research shows that more women are being harmed by regular mammograms than are saved by them. In light of such facts, avoiding an annual mammogram is hardly an irresponsible act. Ditto for saying "no thanks" to 3D tomosynthesis, which exposes you to an even greater amount of cancer-causing radiation for virtually no benefit.

Please understand that there are other screening options, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, and you have a right to utilize those options. Also remember that in order to truly avoid breast cancer, you need to focus your attention on actual prevention and not just early detection.

Related articles

• Largest, Longest Study on Mammograms Again Finds No Benefit
• New Analysis Claims Vitamin D Supplements Are Useless -- Here's Why It's Wrong
• A Potent Tool Against Osteoarthritis and Cancer Broccoli-Based Medicine
• Endocrine Disruptors, They Could Be Raising Your Family's Cancer Risk
• Preventable Medical Mistakes Account for One-Sixth of All Annual Deaths
• Cell Phone Use Linked to Lower Grades, Anxiety, and Much Worse...

Gloucester, VA Edgehill Texaco Service Station Historic Landmark?

It's interesting that we are all told that the Edgehill, Texaco,  Service Station is some sort of historic landmark.  Why is anyone buying this?  That is a really good question.  A thought had occurred, if this gas station was really of any historic concern, then why hasn't Texaco stepped up to offer some form of support to help this project along?  So we started digging.  What we were told is that the reason this place is being called an historic location is because it is the oldest service station of it's type that ran the longest in the history of Texaco. (BS meter anyone?)

  First off, who cares?  That is like arguing that you can never put anyone into the old Wal Mart because that was the first Wal Mart ever built in Gloucester, therefore it's an historic Landmark.  The old Roses which is now the Boys Club never should have been allowed as that was the first Roses to ever come to Gloucester.  The arguments do not fly.  So why are we buying the same lousy argument to this old Texaco station?

  In 1911 Texaco opened its first filling station in Brooklyn, New York.  So this is not the first Texaco in the nation by any means.  As far as the longest running of it's type?  Give it a few years, that will change.  So where exactly is the historical value in this area?  Your guess is as good as ours and we would sure like to see the evidence as to where that so called value is.

  Tomorrow we will be covering more on this property, opening up even more questions and concerns everyone should have.  Stay tuned.

Related articles

• Mapping Gloucester, Virginia's Future? The Heart of Gloucester County

Gloucester, VA Real Estate Investment Zone

The above picture has the Heart of Gloucester outlined which is the new hot bed area or zone for Gloucester development.  What we have done is highlighted the area that is of the highest level of importance for future real estate investments.  It's all in the area along route 17.  You want to figure the hottest investment zones along 17 are where the new Page Middle school is going up to the Short Lane road is.  Anything on either side of the road with decent amount of space is of the highest priority for investment.  Just below or above the highlighted area is also within a pretty decent area for having and or holding investments.

  If you presently own real estate in this zoned area, it is probably worth much more than you think and you may be getting approached to think about selling it if you have not already.  Do not get lowballed here.  There are plans well in the works for this area and we will be going over these plans in the upcoming months.

  We do not have any inside sources or we would be breaking the law right now.  We have just been able to put together all of this information based on paying attention to what the Board of Supervisors, School Board and certain concerns in the county have been telling us all.  You really should pay close attention, they are not hiding any of this.  They are just not putting it into black and white for you.

  Investment groups are also a good idea.  If anyone wants help starting one, let us know.  We know exactly what and where to buy based on our research and paying attention to what is going on.

Related articles

• Mapping Gloucester, Virginia's Future? The Heart of Gloucester County
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisors Meeting February, 2014 Video
• Gloucester, VA Page Middle School Corruption?
• Gloucester, VA Board of Supervisor's February 18th, 2014 Meeting Agenda Information
• Gloucester, VA Public School Officials Speak Out - Corruption At Highest Levels?
• Notes on Gloucester County Board of Supervisors second February meeting