PDA

View Full Version : Mammograms : Medical Hoax



Old Herb Lady
27th November 2012, 10:54 AM
I've never had one of these, thank goodness and I don't plan on letting them bastards anywhere near my girls ! Nevuh !!!!!! Runnnnnnnn !!!!!!!


Shock study: Mammograms a medical hoax, over one million American women maimed by unnecessary 'treatment' for cancer they never had.




http://www.naturalnews.com/images/authors/MikeAdams.jpgTuesday, November 27, 2012
by Mike Adams (https://plus.google.com/u/0/108002809946749848449?rel=author), the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com















(NaturalNews) Mammography is a cruel medical hoax. As I have described here on Natural News (http://www.naturalnews.com/) many times, the primary purpose of mammography is not to "save" women from cancer, but to recruit women into false positives that scare them into expensive, toxic treatments like chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.

The "dirty little secret" of the cancer industry is that the very same oncologists who scare women into falsely believing they have breast cancer are also the ones pocketing huge profits from selling those women chemotherapy drugs. The conflicts of interest and abandonment of ethics across the cancer industry is breathtaking.

Now, a new scientific study has confirmed exactly what I've been warning readers about for years: most women "diagnosed" with breast cancer via mammography never had a cancer problem to begin with!

93% of "early detection" has no benefit to the patient

That's the conclusion of a groundbreaking new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1206809?query=featured_home&) (NEJM).

"We found that the introduction of screening has been associated with about 1.5 million additional women receiving a diagnosis of early stage breast cancer," writes study co-author Dr. Gilbert Welch.

Now, at first, you might think that's a good thing. You might think, "Well, early detection saves lives, just like we've been told by Komen and the cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/cancer.html) non-profits."

But you'd be wrong. As Dr. Welch's team discovered, there was virtually no reduction in late-stage breast cancer from all this "early" diagnosis, meaning that most women who were told they had breast cancer after a mammogram were being lied to.

As he explains:

We found that there were only around 0.1 million fewer women with a diagnosis of late-stage breast cancer. This discrepancy means there was a lot of overdiagnosis (http://www.naturalnews.com/overdiagnosis.html): more than a million women who were told they had early stage cancer -- most of whom underwent surgery, chemotherapy or radiation -- for a "cancer" that was never going to make them sick. Although it's impossible to know which women (http://www.naturalnews.com/women.html) these are, that's some pretty serious harm.

Yep, it is. In fact, if you do the math and calculate 0.1 million fewer women with advanced-stage cancer out of 1.5 million who were diagnosed,
93% of the "early detection" cancer cases studied were false positives (http://www.naturalnews.com/false_positives.html), meaning that they would never have gone on to cause advanced-stage cancer anyway.

Chemo, radiation, cancer surgery largely a hoax

According to these scientists, "Breast cancer was overdiagnosed (i.e., tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms) in 1.3 million U.S. women in the past 30 years."

That's 1.3 million women who were told by their lying oncologists: "If you don't agree to treatment, you'll be dead in six months" (or two years, or whatever fraudulent scare schedule they use).

Under the threat of this fear, most women cave in and agree to start "treatment" -- often on the very same day they are falsely diagnosed. This so-called "treatment" consists of a highly toxic injection of deadly chemicals that the oncologist makes a small fortune selling to the very same patients he falsely diagnosed. Yep, that's right: Cancer clinics and oncology treatment centers make huge profits on the chemotherapy drugs they sell to patients -- the very same patients they scared into treatment through a false positive mammogram.

Despite the near-total failure of mammography from a scientific point of view, the propaganda push for mammography is downright deafening. As Dr. Welch explains in his New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/opinion/cancer-survivor-or-victim-of-overdiagnosis.html?_r=0) article:

...No other medical test has been as aggressively promoted as mammograms -- efforts that have gone beyond persuasion to guilt and even coercion ("I can't be your doctor if you don't get one"). And proponents have used the most misleading screening statistic there is: survival rates. A recent Komen foundation campaign typifies the approach: In short, tell everyone they have cancer, and survival will [statistically] skyrocket.

Komen for the Cure, of course, has been caught blatantly lying about the supposed "benefits" of mammography (http://www.naturalnews.com/036711_Komen_for_the_Cure_mammography_fraud.html). Their statistical deception fools most women, sadly, convincing them to undergo toxic chemotherapy for a "breast cancer" they never really had.

The quackery of modern oncology

Once women begin the chemotherapy for a cancer they don't even have, they begin to experience what the quack oncologist calls "symptoms of cancer." Their hair falls out. They lose their appetite. Their muscles atrophy. They become weak, mentally confused and chronically fatigued. The cancer doctor then tells the woman, "You must be strong to pull through this while the medicine is working."

Pure quackery! You could do much better invoking voodoo or even just wishing to be cured. Because everything about the cancer experience in modern medicine -- the diagnosis, the "treatment," the medical authority -- is utterly and maliciously fabricated for the purpose of generating cancer industry profits.

"Better" technology leads to more false positives

There is no more apparent example of modern-day medical quackery than the cancer industry. Armed with ever-more-precise mammography machines, the rate of false positive diagnoses has shot through the roof.

As Dr. Welch writes in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/opinion/cancer-survivor-or-victim-of-overdiagnosis.html?_r=0):

Six years ago, a long-term follow-up of a randomized trial showed that about one-quarter of cancers detected by screening were overdiagnosed. And this study reflected mammograms as used in the 1980s. Newer digital mammograms (http://www.naturalnews.com/mammograms.html) detect a lot more abnormalities, and the estimates of overdiagnosis have risen commensurately: now somewhere between a third and half of screen-detected cancers.

Got that? Many cancer diagnoses from mammography are utterly false. But they are a great scare tactic for recruiting women into what can only be called a "cult (http://www.naturalnews.com/cult.html) of cancer" in which they are manipulated into poisoning themselves with chemicals. They are later called "cancer survivors" if the poison doesn't manage to kill them.

These cancer survivors are, of course, victims of a malicious medical cult that I call "the Cult of Komen." In nearly all cases, it wasn't the cancer that nearly killed them... it was the treatment!

The cult of Komen

Modern day people sneer and snort at the Jim Jones mass suicide cult of 1978, thinking, "How could those cult members be so stupid to poison themselves to death?"

Look around, folks, because the cancer industry has taken the Jim Jones formula and multiplied it by a factor of a million. The "Cult of Komen" is the modern-day Jim Jones "suicide cult." It's a cult where people "believe" in the promise of salvation through chemical indoctrination, but what's actually delivered to them is rotting death, pain, suffering and humiliation. (Many cancer surgeons operating today literally slice off women's breasts following a false positive cancer diagnosis (http://www.naturalnews.com/double_mastectomy.html), maiming her for life.)

One of the earmarks of this cult is the worship of self-mutilation. It's not just the women who are manipulated into having their breasts sliced off by surgeons; it's also the women who are manipulated into being injected with deadly poisons that destroy their kidneys, livers and brains. The No. 1 side effect of chemotherapy, by the way, is cancer.

Like any cult, the cancer industry cult pushes its delusions with emotionally-charged propaganda and powerful symbols (pink ribbons). Millions of women get innocently swept up into the "run for the cure," apparently clueless to the fact that most of that "cure" money goes to pay for more mammograms that result in more false diagnoses (http://www.naturalnews.com/Komen_for_the_cure.html) which ensnare yet more women into the same victimization racket.

Thus, the very women who participate in raising money for these pink ribbon cult worship-fests are actually paying for the mammogram machines that will recruit more women into the same cult via a quack diagnosis followed by a "campaign of fear and terror" carried out by oncologists against women. What the cancer industry is doing today is, by any measure, a crime against women. It's also a form of cultural mutilation of women, much like we've seen in Aztec, Mayan and various African cultures throughout history.

Is the Cult of Komen a criminal operation? Almost certainly. Is it scientific? Not a chance. There is nothing "scientific" about the modern-day cancer industry other than the scientific manipulation of women's fears and emotions. What Komen and the cancer industry lacks in ethics, science or facts, it more than makes up for in tactics of linguistic influence, arm-twisting and flat-out lying to the public about the over-hyped benefits of mammography (http://www.naturalnews.com/036711_Komen_for_the_Cure_mammography_fraud.html).

The cancer industry isn't in the business of curing cancer, after all. But it is in the business of catapulting the propaganda of the delusional cancer cult. As Dr. Welch explains:

Screening proponents have also encouraged the public to believe two things that are patently untrue. First, that every woman who has a cancer diagnosed by mammography (http://www.naturalnews.com/mammography.html) has had her life saved (consider those "Mammograms save lives. I'm the proof" T-shirts for breast cancer survivors). The truth is, those survivors are much more likely to have been victims of overdiagnosis.

Thus, all those women marching around with pink T-shirts that say, "Mammograms save lives" are actually declaring themselves to be the unwitting victims of a scientific campaign of targeting women, scaring women into treatment they don't need, then maiming women with toxic chemicals or surgeons' knives.

If those pink T-shirts actually told the truth, they should say, "I survived the cancer industry."

The big question in all this, of course, is: For how long will western civilization continue to live under the spell of the Cult of Komen? How many million women have yet to be sacrificed to the false quackery of mammography and the scam of modern oncology?

And more importantly, why do families allows their own mothers, daughters, aunts and grandmothers to be poisoned and maimed right in front of their own eyes, while they all sit back and submit to the false authority of profit-seeking doctors who practice nothing more than pure quackery?

Modern oncology represents the Dark Ages of western medicine

There will come a day, I have repeatedly predicted, when the modern practice of chemotherapy will be relegated to the history books of bad medicine, alongside sniffing mercury vapors and surgically removing body organs to treat mental disorders (http://www.naturalnews.com/019930.html).

Until that day comes, countless numbers of innocent women will be tricked into being mutilated, chemically poisoned, and blasted with ionizing radiation by cruel doctors who frankly don't care one bit how many women they maim or murder as long as they get reimbursed by Medicare for the procedures.

That's the truth about the cancer industry you won't hear from Komen (nor from any of its pink ribbon cult followers).

The conclusion from the study authors

Despite substantial increases in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer detected, screening mammography has only marginally reduced the rate at which women present with advanced cancer. Although it is not certain which women have been affected, the imbalance suggests that there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1206809?query=featured_hom... (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1206809?query=featured_home&)




Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038099_mammograms_false_positives_overdiagnosis.ht ml#ixzz2DRwmqijG

mamboni
27th November 2012, 11:23 AM
This article is wrong on many levels. It does raise a valid point: that some breast "cancers" may not be life threatening akin to most prostate cancer in men. But the article makes sweeping accusations and impunes modern medicine as malicious. This is just over the top. Mammography does accomplsih it's stated purpose: to find breast cancer early. Yes, there are false positives - this is true for any screening test. But the article overstates the falase positive rate which is highly operator dependent. The data quoted does suggest that screening is not saving lives even though it's finding early cancers: ergo, the cancers being found were never a threat to the patient and didn't need such aggressive treatments. This is a valid question well worth investigating. Also understand that modern medicine cannot distinguish a "good" breast cancer from a "bad" one consistently, akin to the situation with prostate cancer.

Old Herb Lady
27th November 2012, 11:39 AM
Why yes there , Doctor, as a matter of fact, us natural peoples do see modern medicine as malicious.
Sorry to burst thy bubble.
HUG.

Not you of course, tho...

Youre my favoritist. You do autopsies tho, right ?

Neuro
27th November 2012, 12:20 PM
The article highlights the immense suffering of the women, the vast majority needlessly, to go through after having been diagnosed with a breast cancer that essentially would have turned out harmless to them if it had gone undetected. The winners were the oncology departments, breast cancer NGO's, and big pharma. Sure it MAY not have been done out of inherent malice or profit motives, but the fact is that research has for at least 15 years, pointed out that mammography is a problem. This has been ignored and I suspect this latest research will be ignored as well. Which leaves us with malice and profit motives. The show must go on!

gunDriller
27th November 2012, 01:27 PM
Iatrogenesis strikes again.

iOWNme
27th November 2012, 03:27 PM
Modern medicine is Allopathic based. Dr.'s either use DRUGS or SURGERY to either HIDE or REMOVE the problem. FACT.

The problem isnt 'early detecting', or 'curing' or any other nonsensical GARBAGE. The problem is WHY ARE PEOPLE GETTING CANCER? How about we stop it from happening, instead of finding a way to manage it? Because there is NO MONEY IN STOPPING IT.

Even if they find a 'cure' tomorrow it is all owned and controlled by Government and Corporations. How much will it cost you and your loved one? ALOT. Wanna know why? Because you have insurance. Which is the absolute heart of the problem. NOTHING in the world of human health will EVER benefit the individual while 'insurance' is around. Soon to be mandated insurance, and then the REAL fun begins.

I dont need to be a Dr to realize something in the air/food/water/vaccination supply is what is most likely causing cancer. How is a Dr. going to help you with any of those things when he can only prescribe you some poison, or cut off your arm?

Everytime i see a pink ribbon for breast cancer awareness/cure i want to tie it around the persons neck and yell in their face "How about we find out how to stop getting cancer, instead of promoting the 'cure' that we will have to buy from the people who gave us the cancer if the first place!"


No offense to our resident Doc, but this is how i see it truthfully.

Uncle Salty
27th November 2012, 03:50 PM
Doctors are amazing when they are used appropriately. Just like firemen, they should be used for putting out fires.

But doctors do not create health or prevent disease. That is up to the individual. What bothers me is the monopoly of the AMA and Big Pharma when it comes to treatment. Let doctors do their thing. Just don't make me be a part of that system and prevent me from using alternatives.

osoab
27th November 2012, 03:50 PM
The below is a story of a dumb broad.

Allyn Rose: Miss America contestant to undergo double mastectomy after pageant (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/zap-allyn-rose-miss-america-contestant-to-undergo--20121116,0,888569.story)

Miss District of Columbia, Allyn Rose. will have both of her breasts removed following her competition in the 2013 Miss America pageant.

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/miss-america-contestant-undergo-double-mastectomy-pageant/story?id=17740642#.UKbO-4c1mSo) reports the 24-year-old beauty queen lost her mother to breast cancer and believes she is genetically predisposed to contracting the disease. Rose will undergo a double mastectomy as a precautionary measure.

"A lot of people are confused when I say I'm choosing life over beauty," Rose says. "But it's beauty as a stereotype -- the Hollywood idea of beauty, the physical attributes. I'm not going to let my desire to achieve those goals distract me from my own health."

Waging a proactive battle against as-yet-undiagnosed breast cancer is a widening practice among American women. Sharon Osbourne recently revealed she had a double mastectomy (http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2012/11/sharon-osbourne-reveals-shes-had-a-double-mastectomy.html) because she carries the breast cancer gene.

Allyn previously competed in the Miss USA pageant as Miss Maryland.


Some am radio news spots were questioning the usefulness of early mammograms. Heard these medical news shorts about 11 days ago.

Neuro
27th November 2012, 04:03 PM
The below is a story of a dumb broad.

Allyn Rose: Miss America contestant to undergo double mastectomy after pageant (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/zap-allyn-rose-miss-america-contestant-to-undergo--20121116,0,888569.story)

Why on earth are the Doctors who agree to do something like this, still licensed physicians?

Old Herb Lady
27th November 2012, 04:31 PM
This is how I feel about diagnostic tests:

1. A lady I know was having gall bladder trouble, went in and had a bunch of tests run.
She ended up getting her gall bladder taken out, ( which could have been fixed EASILY, IMO) next her liver is showing a
big mass in it. She's freaked out, they send her for more and more tests....ended up being a big clump of blood vessels or something like that-- totally harmless but they had her tested for all she was worth and stressed her out to the max.

2. I met a dude that had high PSA levels. They ended up doing a 12 needle biopsy.......That means they stuck a needle up his rectum and POKED his prostate TWELVE times in TWELVE different spots. Couple days later the biopsied areas became infected and he got septic. The infection spread through his entire body, people. His brain, eyes, lungs. He had every infectious disease doctor in that hospital trying to help him. I think he lived, I hope he lived. don't know.

3. I know a woman who was told that her baby had a BRAIN TUMOR in UTERO via ultrasound over and over the whole pregnancy. That baby was fckng perfect at birth. Whatever was on that ultrasound scan was not there when that baby came out PERFECTLY FINE.

4. The last blood work I had done pretty much spewed out false positives like I was a freak from Mars. It was insane. The team of doctors were very professional and very caring and very worried about me. I said, People ! Stop it ! It's not what it looks like, please !
I was right. Time and tests showed them I was right. A team of doctors with probably combined experiences of like 80 years and little old stupid herb lady has to explain to them that all is fine and it was. They would look at each other like she is crazy. Huh. Yep. Crazy BUT right.
That was almost a decade ago. Never been back.


5. Shall I go on ? I could post for days about false positives .

Old Herb Lady
27th November 2012, 04:34 PM
The below is a story of a dumb broad.

Allyn Rose: Miss America contestant to undergo double mastectomy after pageant (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/zap-allyn-rose-miss-america-contestant-to-undergo--20121116,0,888569.story)



Some am radio news spots were questioning the usefulness of early mammograms. Heard these medical news shorts about 11 days ago.

Dumbest thing I ever heard in my life . If brain cancer runs in the family you don't get your head cut off.

Neuro
27th November 2012, 04:46 PM
This is how I feel about diagnostic tests:

2. I met a dude that had high PSA levels. They ended up doing a 12 needle biopsy.......That means they stuck a needle up his rectum and POKED his prostate TWELVE times in TWELVE different spots. Couple days later the biopsies areas became infected and he got septic. The infection spread through his entire body, people. His brain, eyes, lungs. He had every infectious disease doctor in that hospital trying to help him. I think he lived, I hope he lived. don't know.
Not very surprising you get an infection if you insist in having multiple holes created in your body from the rectum. Fecal matter does that sometimes...

Old Herb Lady
27th November 2012, 05:05 PM
here's a more recent one fresh in my head. I had to take a relative to the doctor for cellulitis ( blood poisoning) Big freakin red rope of an ugly red line up his arm from cutting himself, got badly infected. They said its so bad that it spread to his bone and the infection was eating his bone. Relative starts freaking out crying that he's scared that they're gonna amputate his hand, arm etc. Horrifying.

Tests and more tests and more doctors...... No osteomyelitis ( bone infection )
It was just severe arthritis in said finger.

Why induce fear instead of just waiting to see what is actually going on ?
These tests scare you half to death !!!!

We need to STOP cutting off people's body parts ! Keep your breasts ,prostates, ovaries, uterus, keep your fingers and toes and gall bladders and kidneys and liver intact !!

This is insanity.

And cutting out those lymph nodes under the arms for breast cancer is pretty much cutting out any chance
whatsoever of healing it naturally because you just killed your closest and best friends when your sick -- your immune system !

Ponce
27th November 2012, 05:14 PM
To me all this is like the HBP.......I was born with hbp and have never taken any pills and I am still here.

Old Herb Lady
27th November 2012, 05:21 PM
The article highlights the immense suffering of the women, the vast majority needlessly, to go through after having been diagnosed with a breast cancer that essentially would have turned out harmless to them if it had gone undetected. The winners were the oncology departments, breast cancer NGO's, and big pharma. Sure it MAY not have been done out of inherent malice or profit motives, but the fact is that research has for at least 15 years, pointed out that mammography is a problem. This has been ignored and I suspect this latest research will be ignored as well. Which leaves us with malice and profit motives. The show must go on!

Thats just the breasts, now go down a little farther. the abdomen.
do you know how rare it is for a woman say over the age of 40 to NOT have an abdominal scar
from surgery ? Very rare. Hysterectomies are another HUGE unnecessary surgery according to
alot of research studies.

Old Herb Lady
27th November 2012, 06:11 PM
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


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/010886_breast_cancer_mammograms.html#ixzz2DTj3NUyA

Santa
27th November 2012, 06:58 PM
My older brother was diagnosed with with prostrate cancer. The Dr. told him he needed the whole shebang right away. Surgery, Chemo, Radiation... cuz he only had a year or two if he didn't.

He walked away. Took it upon himself to heal. Told the Dr. no fucking way was he gonna wear a diaper.

That was about 5 years ago. Today he's healthier than he's probably ever been.