Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew)
by Dawn Prate, citizen journalist
August 15 2005
Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of 44 and 55. Dr. Gofinan, in his book, Preventing Breast Cancer, cites this startling statistic along with an in-depth look at mammographic screening, an early-detection practice that agencies like the American Cancer Society recommend to women of all age groups. According to most health experts, catching a tumor in its early stages increases a woman's chances of survival by at least 17 percent.
The most common method for early detection is mammography. A mammogram is an X-ray picture of your breast that can reveal tumor growths otherwise undetectable in a physical exam. Like all x-rays, mammograms use doses of ionizing radiation to create this image.
Radiologists then analyze the image for any abnormal growths. Despite continuous improvements and innovations, mammography has garnered a sizable opposition in the medical community because of an error rate that is still high and the amount of harmful radiation used in the procedure.
Effectiveness of Mammography
Is mammography an effective tool for detecting tumors? Some critics say no. In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically detected tumors weren't tumors at all. These "false positives" aren't just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.
At the same time, mammograms also have a high rate of missed tumors, or "false negatives." Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, in his book, The Politics Of Cancer, claims that in women ages 40 to 49, one in four instances of cancer is missed at each mammography. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) puts the false negative rate even higher at 40 percent among women ages 40-49.
National Institutes of Health spokespeople also admit that mammograms miss 10 percent of malignant tumors in women over 50. Researchers have found that breast tissue is denser among younger women, making it difficult to detect tumors. For this reason, false negatives are twice as likely to occur in premenopausal mammograms.
Radiation Risks
Many critics of mammography cite the hazardous health effects of radiation. In 1976, the controversy over radiation and mammography reached a saturation point. At that time mammographic technology delivered five to 10 rads (radiation-absorbed doses) per screening, as compared to 1 rad in current screening methods. In women between the ages of 35 and 50, each rad of exposure increased the risk of breast cancer by one percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI.
According to Russell L. Blaylock, MD, one estimate is that annual radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year. So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent. In the 1960s and 70s, women, even those who received 10 screenings a year, were never told the risk they faced from exposure. In the midst of the 1976 radiation debate, Kodak, a major manufacturer of mammography film, took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic.
Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources.
Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman's breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.
The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies.
Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms. Dr. Samuel Epstein also claims that pregnant women exposed to radiation could endanger their fetus. He advises against mammography during pregnancy because "the future risks of leukemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it." Similarly, studies reveal that children exposed to radiation are more likely to develop breast cancer as adults.
Navigating the Statistics
While the number of deaths caused by breast cancer has decreased, the incidence of breast cancer is still rising. Since 1940, the incidence of breast cancer has risen by one to two percent every year. Between 1973 and 1991, the incidence of breast cancer in females over 65 rose nearly 40 percent in the United States.
Some researchers attribute this increase to better detection technologies; i.e., as the number of women screened for breast cancer rises, so does the number of reported cases. Other analysts say the correlation between mammographic screening and increases in breast cancer is much more ominous, suggesting radiation exposure is responsible for the growing number of cases.
While the matter is still being debated, Professor Sandra Steingraber offers ways to navigate these statistics. According to Steingraber, the rise in breast cancer predates the introduction of mammograms as a common diagnostic tool. In addition, the groups of women in whom breast cancer incidence is ascending most swiftly – blacks and the elderly – are also least likely to get regular mammograms.
The majority of health experts agree that the risk of breast cancer for women under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure. Similarly, the risk of breast cancer to women over 55 justifies the risk of mammograms. The statistics about mammography and women between the ages of 40 and 55 are the most contentious. A 1992 Canadian National Breast Cancer Study showed that mammography had no positive effect on mortality for women between the ages of 40 and 50.
In fact, the study seemed to suggest that women in that age group are more likely to die of breast cancer when screened regularly.
Burton Goldberg, in his book, Alternative Medicine, recommends that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society encourages mammograms every two years for women ages 40 to 49. Trying to settle this debate, a 1997 consensus panel appointed by the NIH ruled that there was no evidence that mammograms for this age group save lives; they may even do more harm than good. The panel advises women to weigh the risks with their doctors and decide for themselves.
New Screening Technologies
While screening is an important step in fighting breast cancer, many researchers are looking for alternatives to mammography. Burton Goldberg totes the safety and accuracy of new thermography technologies. Able to detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development, thermography does not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast. Also important, new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results.
Some doctors are now offering digital mammograms. Digital mammography is a mammography system in which x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors that convert x-rays into electric signals. Though radiation is still used, digital mammography requires a much smaller dose. The electrical signals are used to produce images that can be electronically manipulated; a physician can zoom in, magnify and optimize different parts of breast tissue without having to take an additional image.
The experts speak on mammograms and breast cancer:
Regular mammography of younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of controlled trials over the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast cancer mortality within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms evidence of the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative carcinogenic effects of radiation. The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539
In his book, "Preventing Breast Cancer," Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman's genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance. Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 23
"The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to mammographers and has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per examination," the panel explained. "Radiation can cause breast cancer in women, and the risk is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of exposure, the greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer. Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122
Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of breast cancer of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This projects up to a 20% increased cancer risk for a woman who, in the 1970s, received 10 annual mammograms of an average two rads each. In spite of this, up to 40% of women over 40 have had mammograms since the mid-1960s, some annually and some with exposures of 5 to 10 rads in a single screening from older, high-dose equipment. The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 537
No less questionable—or controversial—has been the use of X rays to detect breast cancer: mammography. The American Cancer Society initially promoted the procedure as a safe and simple way to detect breast tumors early and thus allow women to undergo mastectomies before their cancers had metastasized. The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 23
The American Cancer Society, together with the American College of Radiologists, has insisted on pursuing largescale mammography screening programs for breast cancer, including its use in younger women, even though the NCI and other experts are now agreed that these are likely to cause more cancers than could possibly be detected. The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 291
A number of "cancer societies" argued, saying the tests — which cost between $50-200 each - - are a necessity for all women over 40, despite the fact that radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women. Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 21
Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk—mammography exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years studying the effects of low-dose radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays, and other medical sources. Other research has shown that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography.69 In addition to exposing a woman to harmful radiation, the mammography procedure may help spread an existing mass of cancer cells. During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be placed on the woman's breast, as the breast is squeezed between two flat plastic surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue. Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588
In fact the benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now being aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one in four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older ages. Factors involved include: the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast to the cumulative carcinogenic effects of mammographic X-radiation; the still higher sensitivity to radiation of women who carry the A-T gene; and the danger that forceful and often painful compression of the breast during mammography may rupture small blood vessels and encourage distant spread of undetected cancers. The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 540
Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the breast, I do not recommend mammograms to my patients for two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are able to read mammogams correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only about six radiologists in the United States could read them correctly. 2) In addition, each time the breasts are exposed to an x-ray, the risk of breast cancer increases by 2 percent. The Hope of Living Cancer Free by Francisco Contreras MD, page 104
Mammography itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a potential tumor. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of mammography. As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay between the time of irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay can vary up to decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially dramatic in children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children have shown increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is reflected in women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer. But for this exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another forty years or longer. Eat To Beat Cancer by J Robert Hatherill, page 132
The use of women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency between the tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer Society involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there little evidence of effectiveness of mammography in premeno-pausal women, despite NCI's assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer from the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women. Of related concern is the NCI's continuing insistence on premeno-pausal mammography, in spite of contrary warnings by the American College of Physicians and the Canadian Breast Cancer Task Force and in spite of persisting questions about hazards even at current low-dose exposures. These problems are compounded by the NCI's failure to explore safe alternatives, especially transillumination with infrared light scanning. The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 544
High Rate of False Positives—mammography's high rate of false-positive test results wastes money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study of 60,000 women, aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that of the 726 actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be cancer free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of mammograms that suggest further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The Lancet report further noted that because the great majority of positive screenings are false positives, these inaccurate results lead to many unnecessary biopsies and other invasive surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80% of all positive mammograms do not, on biopsy, show any presence of cancer.71 According to some estimates, 90% of these "callbacks" result from unclear readings due to dense overlying breast tissue.72 Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588
"Radiation-related breast cancers occur at least 10 years after exposure," continued the panel. "Radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women." Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122
According to the National Cancer Institute, there is a high rate of missed tumors in women ages 40-49 which results in 40% false negative test results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumours, so tumours grow more quickly in younger women, and tumours may develop between screenings. Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammogram, it is recommended that women under fifty avoid screening mammograms although the American Cancer Society still recommends a mammogram every two years for women age 40-49. Dr. Love states, "We know that mammography works and will be a lifesaving tool for at least 30%." Treating Cancer With Herbs by Michael Tierra ND, page 467
Equivocal mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in women ages 40-49, there is a high rate of "missed tumors," resulting in 40% false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumors, and tumors grow more quickly in younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings. Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973
Even worse, spokespeople for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admit that mammograms miss 25 percent of malignant tumors in women in their 40s (and 10 percent in older women). In fact, one Australian study found that more than half of the breast cancers in younger women are not detectable by mammograms. Underground Cures by Health Sciences Institute, page 42
Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially if you are premenopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of getting cancer. If you are older, and there are strong reasons to suspect that you may have breast cancer, the risks may be worthwhile. 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. The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 305
Other medical research has shown that the incidence of a form of breast cancer known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which accounts for 12% of all breast cancer cases, increased by 328% — and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography! Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 123
As the controversy heated up in 1976, it was revealed that the hundreds of thousands of women enrolled in the program were never told the risk they faced from the procedure (ibid.). Young women faced the greatest danger. In the thirty-five- to fifty-year-old age group, each mammogram increased the subject's chance of contracting breast cancer by 1 percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then director of the National Cancer Institute (New York Times, August 23, 1976). The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24
Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammograms, it is recommended that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society is still recommending a mammogram every two years for women ages 40-49. The NCI recommends that, after age 35, women perform monthly breast self-exams. For women over 50, many doctors still advocate mammograms. However, breast self-exams and safer, more accurate technologies such as thermography should be strongly considered as options to mammography. Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973
In the midst of the debate, Kodak took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled "About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic" (see Science, July 2, 1976). Kodak is a major manufacturer of mammography film. The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24
The largest and most credible study ever done to evaluate the impact of routine mammography on survival has concluded that routine mammograms do significantly reduce deaths from breast cancer. Scientists in the United States, Sweden, Britain, and Taiwan compared the number of deaths from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years before mammogram screening became available with the number in the 20 years after its introduction. The research was based on the histories and treatment of 210,000 Swedish women ages 20 to 69. The researchers found that death from breast cancer dropped 44 percent in women who had routine mammography. Among those who refused mammograms during this time period there was only a 16 percent reduction in death from this disease (presumably the decrease was due to better treatment of the malignancy). Dr Isadore Rosenfeld's Breakthrough Health By Isadore Rosenfeld MD, page 47
In 1993—seventeen years after the first pilot study—the biochemist Mary Wolff and her colleagues conducted the first carefully designed, major study on this issue. They analyzed DDE and PCB levels in the stored blood specimens of 14,290 New York City women who had attended a mammography screening clinic. Within six months, fifty-eight of these women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Wolff matched each of these fifty-eight women to control subjects—women without cancer but of the same age, same menstrual status, and so on—who had also visited the clinic. The blood samples of the women with breast cancer were then compared to their cancer-free counterparts. Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber PhD, page 12
One reason may be that mammograms actually increase mortality. In fact numerous studies to date have shown that among the under-50s, more women die from breast cancer among screened groups than among those not given mammograms. The results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Trial published in 1993, after a screen of 50,000 women between 40-49, showed that more tumors were detected in the screened group, but not only were no lives saved but 36 percent more women died from The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 57
One Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms, a procedure whose stated purpose is to prevent cancer. Despite evidence of the link between cancer and radiation exposure to women from mammography, the American Cancer Society has promoted the practice without reservation. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents.53 When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 233
Premenopausal women carrying the A-T gene, about 1.5 percent of women, are more radiation sensitive and at higher cancer risk from mammography. It has been estimated that up to 10,000 breast cancer cases each year are due to mammography of A-T carriers. The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539
A study reported that mammography combined with physical exams found 3,500 cancers, 42 percent of which could not be detected by physical exam. However, 31 percent of the tumors were noninfiltrating cancer. Since the course of breast cancer is long, the time difference in cancer detected through mammography may not be a benefit in terms of survival. Woman's Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Gary Null, page 86
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has called for more mammograms among women over 50. However, constant screening still can miss breast cancer. mammograms are at their poorest in detecting breast cancer when the woman is under 50. The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 53
Despite its shortcomings, every woman between the ages of fifty and sixty-nine should have one every year. I also recommend them annually for women over seventy, even though early detection isn't as important for the slow-growing form of breast cancer they tend to get. One mammogram should probably be taken at age forty to establish a baseline, but how often women should have them after that is debatable. Some authorities favor annual screening. Others feel there's not enough evidence to support screening at all before fifty. Still others believe that every two years is sufficient. I lean toward having individual women and their doctors go over the pros and cons and make their own decisions. Finally, a mammogram is appropriate at any age if a lump has been detected. The Longevity Code By Zorba Paster MD, page 234
For breast cancer, thermography offers a very early warning system, often able to pinpoint a cancer process five years before it would be detectable by mammography. Most breast tumors have been growing slowly for up to 20 years before they are found by typical diagnostic techniques. Thermography can detect cancers when they are at a minute physical stage of development, when it is still relatively easy to halt and reverse the progression of the cancer. No rays of any kind enter the patient's body; there is no pain or compressing of the breasts as in a mammogram. While mammography tends to lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, thermography is not dependent upon tissue densities. Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 587
http://www.naturalnews.com/010886_cancer_brst_cancer_mammography.html
Showing posts with label mammograms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mammograms. Show all posts
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Cancer industry needs mammogram to recruit repeat buisness
Cancer industry desperately needs mammogram screenings to recruit patients and generate repeat business
by Mike Adams
November 19 2009
(NaturalNews) Any time you threaten to take away repeat customer from the businesses that make up the cancer industry, you're in for a political fight. After the United States Preventive Services Task Force released new recommendations advising against mammograms for women under 50 (and recommending only bi-annual screenings after that), the cancer industry went berserk.
Mammograms, you see, are the bread and butter of the for-profit cancer industry. They serve two very important purposes:
Purpose #1: RECRUIT patients. Mammograms are a clever tool for recruiting patients into a highly-profitable regimen of chemotherapy drugs, radiation and surgery that, nine times out of ten, isn't even medically justified. How's that? Because the detection technology behind mammograms is now so advanced it can detect tiny tumors present in virtually everyone, whether they're dangerous or not. This has lead to a huge increase in "false positives" and dangerous over-treatment of cancers that would be better off just left alone (or treated with anti-cancer nutrients and superfoods).
But mammograms are a great way to scare women into unnecessary cancer treatments. So they're pure genius when it comes to recruiting new patients using the fear tactics the cancer industry has come to rely on.
Purpose #2: CAUSE more cancer. The second purpose of mammograms is to cause cancer by exposing women's breasts (and heart tissues) to ionizing radiation. When subjected to repeated exposure of such radiation, the human body will undergo DNA mutations and inevitably be afflicted with cancer. This is how the cancer industry can make predictions like "one out of every three women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime..." -- they know this to be true because they are the ones causing the cancer in the first place!
If you took your car to a mechanic to have the oil changed, and that mechanic poured corrosive bits of metal into your car's engine that caused long-term engine damage, would you continue to take your car to that same mechanic year after year? And if so, would you PAY that mechanic to repair the damage he actually caused?
That's what women are essentially doing when they receive mammograms. Each year, as they dutifully get their mammograms, they are exposing themselves to the very kind of radiation that causes cancer, practically guaranteeing they will eventually be diagnosed with cancer. (At which point the oncologist will say something like, "See? Good thing we do these mammograms every year, or we wouldn't have caught this tumor!")
The false cancer slogan that "early detection saves lives" would be more accurately modified to read: Repeated exposure to radiation causes cancer.
More destructive than X-raying your feet!
Did you know that in the 1940's, shoe stores used to have their own X-ray machines? Customers would try on a shoe, stick their foot in the X-ray fluoroscope machine, and see on the viewing screen how their bones fit in the shoes.
It seemed like a really neat idea, and it sold a lot of shoes. But at the same time, it also dosed customers' feet with an astonishing 20 - 100+ rems per minute of radiation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope). As you might suspect, a lot of these shoe store customers developed very serious health problems with their feet, including DNA mutations and cancerous lesions.
Even long after the radiation risk of such shoe-fitting machines was known to be extremely harmful, doctors stayed silent about it. The machines were never banned, either... they were quietly phased out in the 1950's after raising the cancer risks of literally millions of people.
Mammograms are the modern-day version of the X-ray shoe-fitting machine. They're represent a harmful, cancer-causing technology that people mistakenly think offers some benefit for them. But every time you use the machine, your risk of cancer goes up another notch. Meanwhile, just like in the 1940's, most conventional doctors stay silent about the cancer risks resulting from such radiation! (But more and more informed doctors are finally speaking out against mammography...)
If you were an evil genius who wanted to design and manufacture a cancer-causing machine, it would be difficult to beat the present-day mammography machine. It exposes human tissue to high-powered radiation that, if repeated often enough, practically guarantees cancer will eventually develop. In one sense, it's sort of a "slow suicide machine" that takes years (or decades) to complete its work on your body. But before you die, you get to spend your life savings on "treatments" that will leave you bankrupt just before they leave you dead.
That's the whole point of the cancer industry, after all: To maximize profits from cancer. Mammography is a key piece of the puzzle in accomplishing precisely that.
Repeat business
The truth us, mammography offers no net saving in lives at all. In fact, the procedure harms far more women than it helps.
http://www.naturalnews.com/010886_cancer_brst_cancer_mammography.html
But at the same time, it's a "perfect weapon" for generating lucrative repeat business. If you're an oncologist, the best way to ensure you'll have a cancer patient to treat at age 55 is to start exposing them to radiation at age 40 (or earlier). It's sort of like a diabetes clinic offering free candy to children: At some point, after they eat enough processed sugar, they'll come back as repeat customers suffering from diabetes.
That's why the cancer industry freaked out when a U.S. govt. task force issued its new cancer screening guidelines. All of a sudden, the cancer industry realized it would lose a lot of repeat business if the screenings stopped. So they lobbied hard for some sort of reversal.
And they nearly got it. Today Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius went on the air to announce that the task force announcing the new mammography recommendations, "does not set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government." She went on to explain, "My message to women is simple. Mammograms have always been an important lifesaving tool in the fight against breast cancer and they still are today."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j4W_qistYWRU8CC4dCvvMRJv3SVAD9C26C302
In other words, keep getting your breasts irradiated. It's important for the U.S. economy! The disease industry is counting on your future cancer, didn't you know?
Confused?
The Associated Press says the new mammography recommendations from the government panel have "left women across the country confused about which advice to take."
Confused? Really?
Let's see, there's a machine that smashes your breasts, that hurts like the devil, and that blasts your breasts, heart and lungs with cancer-causing radiation.
All the evidence now points to the fact that the risk of harm caused by the machine is far greater than the risk of have your life saved by early cancer detection -- especially for women under 50.
So what is there to be confused about? The only confusion that exists is caused by the cancer industry itself which has always operated on the principle of keeping women uninformed and confused, knowing full well that people who are confused can be more easily manipulated with fear into surrendering to high-profit treatments like chemotherapy.
That's the whole point of the industry, after all: To make money treating cancer, whether the patient needs it or not.
Big, big money to be made by giving women cancer
The cancer industry likes to hide behind the false idea that it's "helping people" or "saving lives," but in reality, it's a for-profit industry that's out to maximizing profits just like every other business. And as we all know, medical corporations have absolutely no ethics: They will engage in outright criminal fraud, bribery of doctors, falsifying clinical trial data, price-fixing their products and overcharging Medicaid programs, and other similar crimes, all of which have been documented here on NaturalNews.com. (Use the search box, top right, to find articles on any of these topics if you wish.)
For these same corporations to intentionally cause cancer in women as a strategy for future profits is just standard operating procedure. They don't even think about acting with integrity or compassion: It's all about the money. So what if a few million women have to die along the way, right? We've got shareholders to think about!
Cancer is a $200 billion a year business, Suzanne Somers told me yesterday in an exclusive interview with NaturalNews
http://www.naturalnews.com/027526_Suzanne_Somers_curing_cancer.html
That gives the industry 200 billion reasons to keep on exposing women to radiation and creating more repeat business. That's why the cancer profiteers will fight these new recommendations tooth and nail -- their livelihoods depend on making sure more women get cancer!
Mammography is, by any honest assessment, pure quackery. It's no more accurate at detecting tumors needing acute treatment than just waving your hand over someone and guessing whether they have a tumor that needs treatment. In fact, waving your hand over someone is a lot less harmful, so it's actually better.
A far better alternative is thermography. It can detect breast cancer tumors using the infrared heat emitted by a tumor's blood supply. It's non-invasive, safe, affordable and doesn't involve deadly radiation.
And remember, even if you're diagnosed with breast cancer, chemotherapy does not work on breast cancer! You'll need a different, more natural approach. Read Suzanne Somers' book "Knockout" to find some answers, or read about Vitamin D here on NaturalNews:
http://www.naturalnews.com/vitamin_D.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/027537_mammograms_cancer_industry.html
by Mike Adams
November 19 2009
(NaturalNews) Any time you threaten to take away repeat customer from the businesses that make up the cancer industry, you're in for a political fight. After the United States Preventive Services Task Force released new recommendations advising against mammograms for women under 50 (and recommending only bi-annual screenings after that), the cancer industry went berserk.
Mammograms, you see, are the bread and butter of the for-profit cancer industry. They serve two very important purposes:
Purpose #1: RECRUIT patients. Mammograms are a clever tool for recruiting patients into a highly-profitable regimen of chemotherapy drugs, radiation and surgery that, nine times out of ten, isn't even medically justified. How's that? Because the detection technology behind mammograms is now so advanced it can detect tiny tumors present in virtually everyone, whether they're dangerous or not. This has lead to a huge increase in "false positives" and dangerous over-treatment of cancers that would be better off just left alone (or treated with anti-cancer nutrients and superfoods).
But mammograms are a great way to scare women into unnecessary cancer treatments. So they're pure genius when it comes to recruiting new patients using the fear tactics the cancer industry has come to rely on.
Purpose #2: CAUSE more cancer. The second purpose of mammograms is to cause cancer by exposing women's breasts (and heart tissues) to ionizing radiation. When subjected to repeated exposure of such radiation, the human body will undergo DNA mutations and inevitably be afflicted with cancer. This is how the cancer industry can make predictions like "one out of every three women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime..." -- they know this to be true because they are the ones causing the cancer in the first place!
If you took your car to a mechanic to have the oil changed, and that mechanic poured corrosive bits of metal into your car's engine that caused long-term engine damage, would you continue to take your car to that same mechanic year after year? And if so, would you PAY that mechanic to repair the damage he actually caused?
That's what women are essentially doing when they receive mammograms. Each year, as they dutifully get their mammograms, they are exposing themselves to the very kind of radiation that causes cancer, practically guaranteeing they will eventually be diagnosed with cancer. (At which point the oncologist will say something like, "See? Good thing we do these mammograms every year, or we wouldn't have caught this tumor!")
The false cancer slogan that "early detection saves lives" would be more accurately modified to read: Repeated exposure to radiation causes cancer.
More destructive than X-raying your feet!
Did you know that in the 1940's, shoe stores used to have their own X-ray machines? Customers would try on a shoe, stick their foot in the X-ray fluoroscope machine, and see on the viewing screen how their bones fit in the shoes.
It seemed like a really neat idea, and it sold a lot of shoes. But at the same time, it also dosed customers' feet with an astonishing 20 - 100+ rems per minute of radiation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope). As you might suspect, a lot of these shoe store customers developed very serious health problems with their feet, including DNA mutations and cancerous lesions.
Even long after the radiation risk of such shoe-fitting machines was known to be extremely harmful, doctors stayed silent about it. The machines were never banned, either... they were quietly phased out in the 1950's after raising the cancer risks of literally millions of people.
Mammograms are the modern-day version of the X-ray shoe-fitting machine. They're represent a harmful, cancer-causing technology that people mistakenly think offers some benefit for them. But every time you use the machine, your risk of cancer goes up another notch. Meanwhile, just like in the 1940's, most conventional doctors stay silent about the cancer risks resulting from such radiation! (But more and more informed doctors are finally speaking out against mammography...)
If you were an evil genius who wanted to design and manufacture a cancer-causing machine, it would be difficult to beat the present-day mammography machine. It exposes human tissue to high-powered radiation that, if repeated often enough, practically guarantees cancer will eventually develop. In one sense, it's sort of a "slow suicide machine" that takes years (or decades) to complete its work on your body. But before you die, you get to spend your life savings on "treatments" that will leave you bankrupt just before they leave you dead.
That's the whole point of the cancer industry, after all: To maximize profits from cancer. Mammography is a key piece of the puzzle in accomplishing precisely that.
Repeat business
The truth us, mammography offers no net saving in lives at all. In fact, the procedure harms far more women than it helps.
http://www.naturalnews.com/010886_cancer_brst_cancer_mammography.html
But at the same time, it's a "perfect weapon" for generating lucrative repeat business. If you're an oncologist, the best way to ensure you'll have a cancer patient to treat at age 55 is to start exposing them to radiation at age 40 (or earlier). It's sort of like a diabetes clinic offering free candy to children: At some point, after they eat enough processed sugar, they'll come back as repeat customers suffering from diabetes.
That's why the cancer industry freaked out when a U.S. govt. task force issued its new cancer screening guidelines. All of a sudden, the cancer industry realized it would lose a lot of repeat business if the screenings stopped. So they lobbied hard for some sort of reversal.
And they nearly got it. Today Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius went on the air to announce that the task force announcing the new mammography recommendations, "does not set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government." She went on to explain, "My message to women is simple. Mammograms have always been an important lifesaving tool in the fight against breast cancer and they still are today."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j4W_qistYWRU8CC4dCvvMRJv3SVAD9C26C302
In other words, keep getting your breasts irradiated. It's important for the U.S. economy! The disease industry is counting on your future cancer, didn't you know?
Confused?
The Associated Press says the new mammography recommendations from the government panel have "left women across the country confused about which advice to take."
Confused? Really?
Let's see, there's a machine that smashes your breasts, that hurts like the devil, and that blasts your breasts, heart and lungs with cancer-causing radiation.
All the evidence now points to the fact that the risk of harm caused by the machine is far greater than the risk of have your life saved by early cancer detection -- especially for women under 50.
So what is there to be confused about? The only confusion that exists is caused by the cancer industry itself which has always operated on the principle of keeping women uninformed and confused, knowing full well that people who are confused can be more easily manipulated with fear into surrendering to high-profit treatments like chemotherapy.
That's the whole point of the industry, after all: To make money treating cancer, whether the patient needs it or not.
Big, big money to be made by giving women cancer
The cancer industry likes to hide behind the false idea that it's "helping people" or "saving lives," but in reality, it's a for-profit industry that's out to maximizing profits just like every other business. And as we all know, medical corporations have absolutely no ethics: They will engage in outright criminal fraud, bribery of doctors, falsifying clinical trial data, price-fixing their products and overcharging Medicaid programs, and other similar crimes, all of which have been documented here on NaturalNews.com. (Use the search box, top right, to find articles on any of these topics if you wish.)
For these same corporations to intentionally cause cancer in women as a strategy for future profits is just standard operating procedure. They don't even think about acting with integrity or compassion: It's all about the money. So what if a few million women have to die along the way, right? We've got shareholders to think about!
Cancer is a $200 billion a year business, Suzanne Somers told me yesterday in an exclusive interview with NaturalNews
http://www.naturalnews.com/027526_Suzanne_Somers_curing_cancer.html
That gives the industry 200 billion reasons to keep on exposing women to radiation and creating more repeat business. That's why the cancer profiteers will fight these new recommendations tooth and nail -- their livelihoods depend on making sure more women get cancer!
Mammography is, by any honest assessment, pure quackery. It's no more accurate at detecting tumors needing acute treatment than just waving your hand over someone and guessing whether they have a tumor that needs treatment. In fact, waving your hand over someone is a lot less harmful, so it's actually better.
A far better alternative is thermography. It can detect breast cancer tumors using the infrared heat emitted by a tumor's blood supply. It's non-invasive, safe, affordable and doesn't involve deadly radiation.
And remember, even if you're diagnosed with breast cancer, chemotherapy does not work on breast cancer! You'll need a different, more natural approach. Read Suzanne Somers' book "Knockout" to find some answers, or read about Vitamin D here on NaturalNews:
http://www.naturalnews.com/vitamin_D.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/027537_mammograms_cancer_industry.html
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Cancer industry abandons science to keep pushing mammograms that harm women
NaturalNews Tip of the day (from Mike):
This isn't really a tip, but more of a curious thought: Did you ever notice that men invented mammogram machines that smash women's breasts and blast them with radiation? But then, did you ever wonder why there are no machines that smash men's testicles (and other junk) and blast the whole package with radiation while calling it "early detection?"
Why do male surgeons recommend "preventive mastectomies" but never "preventive castration?" Seriously. Think about it...
Cancer industry abandons science to keep pushing mammograms that harm women
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
November 23 2009
(NaturalNews) The cancer industry has blatantly abandoned science these past two weeks by insisting women under 50 should receive annual mammograms even though the industry's own scientific task force concluded that such screenings result in too many false positives. Essentially, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force took a good, hard look at the science and concluded that mammograms harm far more women than they help (for women under 50, anyway). But when they announced the new recommendations that women under 50 should avoid mammograms -- and women over 50 should only get them every other year -- the cancer industry cried foul.
Radiologists, oncologists, Big Pharma pill-pushers and cancer industry non-profits all banded together to declare, "We are abandoning the science! We want more mammograms for more women, science be damned!"
Of course, they all still claim to be "scientific," but what they really do is selectively cherry-pick which bits and pieces of the scientific evidence they choose to adhere to. And when it comes to these new mammogram recommendations, they've decided to simply abandon the science and keep pushing more radiation imaging tests for women (mammography).
The cancer industry is a complete failure
What you are witnessing here, folks, is the desperate last gasps of a failed industry. Their technologies do not save lives, their drugs do not cure cancer, and their "science" doesn't add up. The cancer industry is a fraud, and now its fraudulent nature is finally becoming apparent to everyone. It even has the mainstream media (USA Today) describing the failures of mammography in articles like the one you'll see here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-11-23-mammogram23_ST_N.htm
Here's something else you need to know: The cancer industry hasn't merely abandoned science in terms of mammography; it has also abandoned all science with the pushing of chemotherapy. Did you know there has never been a randomized, placebo-controlled study proving that chemotherapy saves the lives of breast cancer patients?
That evidence doesn't exist. The whole "treatment" scam is based entirely on fiction. Chemotherapy only works at all against three rare types of cancer, and breast cancer isn't one of them.
In defending the new mammography guidelines, Dr. Timothy Wilt, a member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said that the task force recommendations "were based on the most rigorous peer review of up-to-date, accurate information about the evidence about the harms and benefits of treatment."
He repeated that women under 50 should never receive mammograms, and women 50 or over should only receive a mammogram every two years.
The American Cancer Society, quite predictably, has a real problem with that recommendation. Its entire success (and power) depends on more people getting cancer, and one of the best ways to make sure that happens is to keep pushing for more mammograms. In opposing the new mammography recommendations, the ACS has now abandoned science, too.
Chemotherapy: The chemical holocaust
When cancer doctors tell you that "chemotherapy will save your life," they are lying to you. And they lie thousands of times a day, deceptively recruiting women into modern medicine's version of a chemical holocaust.
The cancer industry offers no cures. A cure for cancer would destroy the industry. It would wipe out billions of dollars in profits that drug companies, radiologists and oncologists are counting on right now. This is precisely why the cancer industry dares not tell women the truth about vitamin D, for example, which prevents 77% of all cancers, including breast cancer.
If every woman in America were given vitamin D supplements, cancer rates would plummet by up to 77% in a single year, and the cancer industry would virtually collapse. That cannot be allowed to happen, of course, which is precisely why the industry has a complete blackout on vitamin D information while pushing hard for annual mammograms that continue to cause cancer (and generate repeat business).
The U.S. government has abandoned science, too
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, has told women to ignore the new mammography advice by the U.S. government task force. But she has zero scientific evidence to back up her advice. She, like everyone else pushing mammograms, is engaged in pure quackery.
I find this particularly fascinating, given that the cancer industry claims people who are offering cancer cures are "quacks." Such cures aren't based on rock-solid science, they claim! But when the rock-solid science says mammograms are dangerous for women, the cancer industry abandons the science! That's why they are the new quacks.
Here's a simple prediction: In twenty years, mammograms will have been long since abandoned. Doctors of that era will look back at 2009 and wonder how this so-called "modern" medical industry could have been so deeply invested in such a dangerous, cancer-causing technology called mammography. They will scratch their heads and ask, "Why didn't they heed the science that said mammography is dangerous?" They'll write about "how medically illiterate the people were in 2009" because they voluntarily inserted their body parts into irradiation machines.
The fact is that people of every era are suckers for apparent medical authority. Patients tend to believe doctors because they mistakenly think doctors know what they're talking about. But conventional doctors are technicians, not healers. They understand the detailed of how to administer poisons, but they have no clue how to activate the body's innate healing potential.
Doctors tend to be very intelligent individuals, but even they cannot understand things they've never been taught, and medical school is focused almost entirely on a drugs-and-surgery approach to medicine (slash and burn).
To expect a conventional doctor to be good at healing is like expecting your accountant to be good at ballet.
Doctors may be smart, but they're ignorant about healing. And for the most part, they're nutritionally illiterate, which is why cancer doctors still don't recommend vitamin D. (Astonishing, but true.)
So why, then, would patients who are interested in healing their bodies go see medical professionals who are experts in the administration of poison? It makes no sense. But that's what insurance covers, so they keep doing it. And they keep dying of cancer, an almost entirely preventable disease with cures that exist right now but will never be publicized because too much profit depends on keeping people sick.
Mammograms are the insurance of the cancer industry. As long as mammogram machines keep running, there will always be more cancer to diagnose -- because the machines are making cancer!
Sources for this story include:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34040273/ns/health-cancer/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-11-23-mammogram23_ST_N.htm
http://www.naturalnews.com/027558_mammograms_cancer_industry.html
This isn't really a tip, but more of a curious thought: Did you ever notice that men invented mammogram machines that smash women's breasts and blast them with radiation? But then, did you ever wonder why there are no machines that smash men's testicles (and other junk) and blast the whole package with radiation while calling it "early detection?"
Why do male surgeons recommend "preventive mastectomies" but never "preventive castration?" Seriously. Think about it...
Cancer industry abandons science to keep pushing mammograms that harm women
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
November 23 2009
(NaturalNews) The cancer industry has blatantly abandoned science these past two weeks by insisting women under 50 should receive annual mammograms even though the industry's own scientific task force concluded that such screenings result in too many false positives. Essentially, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force took a good, hard look at the science and concluded that mammograms harm far more women than they help (for women under 50, anyway). But when they announced the new recommendations that women under 50 should avoid mammograms -- and women over 50 should only get them every other year -- the cancer industry cried foul.
Radiologists, oncologists, Big Pharma pill-pushers and cancer industry non-profits all banded together to declare, "We are abandoning the science! We want more mammograms for more women, science be damned!"
Of course, they all still claim to be "scientific," but what they really do is selectively cherry-pick which bits and pieces of the scientific evidence they choose to adhere to. And when it comes to these new mammogram recommendations, they've decided to simply abandon the science and keep pushing more radiation imaging tests for women (mammography).
The cancer industry is a complete failure
What you are witnessing here, folks, is the desperate last gasps of a failed industry. Their technologies do not save lives, their drugs do not cure cancer, and their "science" doesn't add up. The cancer industry is a fraud, and now its fraudulent nature is finally becoming apparent to everyone. It even has the mainstream media (USA Today) describing the failures of mammography in articles like the one you'll see here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-11-23-mammogram23_ST_N.htm
Here's something else you need to know: The cancer industry hasn't merely abandoned science in terms of mammography; it has also abandoned all science with the pushing of chemotherapy. Did you know there has never been a randomized, placebo-controlled study proving that chemotherapy saves the lives of breast cancer patients?
That evidence doesn't exist. The whole "treatment" scam is based entirely on fiction. Chemotherapy only works at all against three rare types of cancer, and breast cancer isn't one of them.
In defending the new mammography guidelines, Dr. Timothy Wilt, a member of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, said that the task force recommendations "were based on the most rigorous peer review of up-to-date, accurate information about the evidence about the harms and benefits of treatment."
He repeated that women under 50 should never receive mammograms, and women 50 or over should only receive a mammogram every two years.
The American Cancer Society, quite predictably, has a real problem with that recommendation. Its entire success (and power) depends on more people getting cancer, and one of the best ways to make sure that happens is to keep pushing for more mammograms. In opposing the new mammography recommendations, the ACS has now abandoned science, too.
Chemotherapy: The chemical holocaust
When cancer doctors tell you that "chemotherapy will save your life," they are lying to you. And they lie thousands of times a day, deceptively recruiting women into modern medicine's version of a chemical holocaust.
The cancer industry offers no cures. A cure for cancer would destroy the industry. It would wipe out billions of dollars in profits that drug companies, radiologists and oncologists are counting on right now. This is precisely why the cancer industry dares not tell women the truth about vitamin D, for example, which prevents 77% of all cancers, including breast cancer.
If every woman in America were given vitamin D supplements, cancer rates would plummet by up to 77% in a single year, and the cancer industry would virtually collapse. That cannot be allowed to happen, of course, which is precisely why the industry has a complete blackout on vitamin D information while pushing hard for annual mammograms that continue to cause cancer (and generate repeat business).
The U.S. government has abandoned science, too
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, has told women to ignore the new mammography advice by the U.S. government task force. But she has zero scientific evidence to back up her advice. She, like everyone else pushing mammograms, is engaged in pure quackery.
I find this particularly fascinating, given that the cancer industry claims people who are offering cancer cures are "quacks." Such cures aren't based on rock-solid science, they claim! But when the rock-solid science says mammograms are dangerous for women, the cancer industry abandons the science! That's why they are the new quacks.
Here's a simple prediction: In twenty years, mammograms will have been long since abandoned. Doctors of that era will look back at 2009 and wonder how this so-called "modern" medical industry could have been so deeply invested in such a dangerous, cancer-causing technology called mammography. They will scratch their heads and ask, "Why didn't they heed the science that said mammography is dangerous?" They'll write about "how medically illiterate the people were in 2009" because they voluntarily inserted their body parts into irradiation machines.
The fact is that people of every era are suckers for apparent medical authority. Patients tend to believe doctors because they mistakenly think doctors know what they're talking about. But conventional doctors are technicians, not healers. They understand the detailed of how to administer poisons, but they have no clue how to activate the body's innate healing potential.
Doctors tend to be very intelligent individuals, but even they cannot understand things they've never been taught, and medical school is focused almost entirely on a drugs-and-surgery approach to medicine (slash and burn).
To expect a conventional doctor to be good at healing is like expecting your accountant to be good at ballet.
Doctors may be smart, but they're ignorant about healing. And for the most part, they're nutritionally illiterate, which is why cancer doctors still don't recommend vitamin D. (Astonishing, but true.)
So why, then, would patients who are interested in healing their bodies go see medical professionals who are experts in the administration of poison? It makes no sense. But that's what insurance covers, so they keep doing it. And they keep dying of cancer, an almost entirely preventable disease with cures that exist right now but will never be publicized because too much profit depends on keeping people sick.
Mammograms are the insurance of the cancer industry. As long as mammogram machines keep running, there will always be more cancer to diagnose -- because the machines are making cancer!
Sources for this story include:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34040273/ns/health-cancer/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-11-23-mammogram23_ST_N.htm
http://www.naturalnews.com/027558_mammograms_cancer_industry.html
Twenty-one questions about mammograms, cancer screenings
From: -Sue (417817628)
Date: 11/23/2009 8:05:44 AM
Twenty-one questions about mammograms, cancer screenings and early detection
(NaturalNews) There's a lot of talk about mammograms and cancer screenings this week. A U.S. government task force altered its recommendations, saying that women under 50 should receive no mammograms at all because the risk of harm far outweighs any promise of saving lives. This, in turn, led to a very vocal backlash from cancer industry promoters and even a few deeply misinformed celebrities like Sheryl Crow who swear by mammograms. (Sheryl Crow has a poor understanding of the effects of ionizing radiation.)
Rather than providing new answers, this week's debates on mammograms have actually raised all sorts of new questions. Here, I present twenty-one questions that came to mind once I started pondering this issue in more detail.
Twenty-one questions about mammograms
#1) If mammograms are supposed to be based on "science," and yet all the recent science says mammograms cause far more harm than good, then how can the White House and cancer doctors in good conscience disregard the precautionary conclusions that women under 50 should not get mammograms?
#2) Why do male surgeons recommend "preventive mastectomies" for preventing breast cancer but never "preventive castration" for preventing testicular cancer?
#3) If radiation causes cancer, then why does the cancer industry use radiation-emitting machines to "screen" for cancer?
#4) If women stop getting annual mammograms, exactly how much profit will the cancer industry lose each year?
#5) Vitamin D prevents 77% of all cancers. (http://www.naturalnews.com/021892_cancer_Vitamin_D_cancer_industry.html ) Why doesn't the cancer industry give women vitamin D after each cancer screening? They claim to be interested in "helping people" shouldn't that help include the most obvious nutritional advice of all?
#6) If buying pink products raises money for cancer research, how much more stuff do we have to buy before cancer will be cured?
#7) Related question: Why are many of the pink-ribbon products sold to raise money for "cancer research" actually made out of cancer-causing chemicals!
#8) Where are all the cancer cures that were promised by the cancer researchers decades ago? Hint: They're still working on them. All they need is more of your money...
#9) Fifth-grade word problem: If walking ten miles raises fifty dollars for the Susan G. Komen foundation, and if all that money goes to fund cancer screening "recruitment" events that cost $1.25 per irradiated patient, how many miles will we all have to walk in order to irradiate the breasts of 100,000 women? Bonus question: How many new chemotherapy patients will be produced from this irradiation campaign ten years down the road?
#10) If "early detection saves lives" then why are more women dying of cancer today than ever before?
#11) If mammograms are so good for women, why don't the people who invented mammography machines puts their skulls in them and irradiate their own brains once a year to screen for brain cancer?
#12) Did you ever notice that men invented mammogram machines that smash women's breasts and blast them with radiation? But then, did you ever wonder why there are no machines that smash men's testicles (and other junk) and blast the whole package with radiation while calling it "early detection?"
#13) Since cancer doctors don't track the results of patients who decide to do nothing after being diagnosed with cancer, how can they talk with any authority about the risk vs. reward of harsh chemical treatments like chemotherapy?
#14) How many false positives from cancer screening does it take to make one legitimate cancer tumor?
#15) If chemotherapy works so well, why do oncologists, when privately polled, almost universally admit they would never undergo chemotherapy themselves? Why do family members of oncologists often seek out alternative therapies when they get diagnosed with cancer?
#16) If it takes ten years (or more) for a cancer tumor to grow to a size that can be detected, how can cancer doctors call it "early detection?" What's early about it?
#17) If "preventive double mastectomies" are such a great idea for preventing cancer, why don't cancer doctors surgically remove each other's brains to prevent brain cancer? (Sometimes I think they already did...)
#18) How many cancer industry workers would be instantly unemployed if cancer were suddenly cured with vitamin D and phytonutrients?.. (Answer: At least one million people... cancer provides job security for cancer industry workers...)
#19) If the cancer industry claims there's "no such thing" as a cure for cancer, how can they claim to still be looking for it?
#20) If the cancer industry ever finds "the cure" they claim to be looking for, does anyone honestly believe they will give it away for free just to benefit humanity? (In reality, they would destroy any cure as quickly as possible.)
And the biggest question of all...
#21) Why are health consumers all around the world so easily fooled into believing the corrupt, criminally-operated cancer industry and all its fraudulent non-profits?
Must-read report: The Breast Cancer Deception (free!). Read it here: http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_Breast_Cancer_Deception_0.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/027549_mammograms_early_detection.html
Date: 11/23/2009 8:05:44 AM
Twenty-one questions about mammograms, cancer screenings and early detection
(NaturalNews) There's a lot of talk about mammograms and cancer screenings this week. A U.S. government task force altered its recommendations, saying that women under 50 should receive no mammograms at all because the risk of harm far outweighs any promise of saving lives. This, in turn, led to a very vocal backlash from cancer industry promoters and even a few deeply misinformed celebrities like Sheryl Crow who swear by mammograms. (Sheryl Crow has a poor understanding of the effects of ionizing radiation.)
Rather than providing new answers, this week's debates on mammograms have actually raised all sorts of new questions. Here, I present twenty-one questions that came to mind once I started pondering this issue in more detail.
Twenty-one questions about mammograms
#1) If mammograms are supposed to be based on "science," and yet all the recent science says mammograms cause far more harm than good, then how can the White House and cancer doctors in good conscience disregard the precautionary conclusions that women under 50 should not get mammograms?
#2) Why do male surgeons recommend "preventive mastectomies" for preventing breast cancer but never "preventive castration" for preventing testicular cancer?
#3) If radiation causes cancer, then why does the cancer industry use radiation-emitting machines to "screen" for cancer?
#4) If women stop getting annual mammograms, exactly how much profit will the cancer industry lose each year?
#5) Vitamin D prevents 77% of all cancers. (http://www.naturalnews.com/021892_cancer_Vitamin_D_cancer_industry.html ) Why doesn't the cancer industry give women vitamin D after each cancer screening? They claim to be interested in "helping people" shouldn't that help include the most obvious nutritional advice of all?
#6) If buying pink products raises money for cancer research, how much more stuff do we have to buy before cancer will be cured?
#7) Related question: Why are many of the pink-ribbon products sold to raise money for "cancer research" actually made out of cancer-causing chemicals!
#8) Where are all the cancer cures that were promised by the cancer researchers decades ago? Hint: They're still working on them. All they need is more of your money...
#9) Fifth-grade word problem: If walking ten miles raises fifty dollars for the Susan G. Komen foundation, and if all that money goes to fund cancer screening "recruitment" events that cost $1.25 per irradiated patient, how many miles will we all have to walk in order to irradiate the breasts of 100,000 women? Bonus question: How many new chemotherapy patients will be produced from this irradiation campaign ten years down the road?
#10) If "early detection saves lives" then why are more women dying of cancer today than ever before?
#11) If mammograms are so good for women, why don't the people who invented mammography machines puts their skulls in them and irradiate their own brains once a year to screen for brain cancer?
#12) Did you ever notice that men invented mammogram machines that smash women's breasts and blast them with radiation? But then, did you ever wonder why there are no machines that smash men's testicles (and other junk) and blast the whole package with radiation while calling it "early detection?"
#13) Since cancer doctors don't track the results of patients who decide to do nothing after being diagnosed with cancer, how can they talk with any authority about the risk vs. reward of harsh chemical treatments like chemotherapy?
#14) How many false positives from cancer screening does it take to make one legitimate cancer tumor?
#15) If chemotherapy works so well, why do oncologists, when privately polled, almost universally admit they would never undergo chemotherapy themselves? Why do family members of oncologists often seek out alternative therapies when they get diagnosed with cancer?
#16) If it takes ten years (or more) for a cancer tumor to grow to a size that can be detected, how can cancer doctors call it "early detection?" What's early about it?
#17) If "preventive double mastectomies" are such a great idea for preventing cancer, why don't cancer doctors surgically remove each other's brains to prevent brain cancer? (Sometimes I think they already did...)
#18) How many cancer industry workers would be instantly unemployed if cancer were suddenly cured with vitamin D and phytonutrients?.. (Answer: At least one million people... cancer provides job security for cancer industry workers...)
#19) If the cancer industry claims there's "no such thing" as a cure for cancer, how can they claim to still be looking for it?
#20) If the cancer industry ever finds "the cure" they claim to be looking for, does anyone honestly believe they will give it away for free just to benefit humanity? (In reality, they would destroy any cure as quickly as possible.)
And the biggest question of all...
#21) Why are health consumers all around the world so easily fooled into believing the corrupt, criminally-operated cancer industry and all its fraudulent non-profits?
Must-read report: The Breast Cancer Deception (free!). Read it here: http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_Breast_Cancer_Deception_0.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/027549_mammograms_early_detection.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)