Why Mammograms Are Dangerous!
According to federal health figures, breast cancer is the main cause of cancer deaths in women ages 40 to 55. Now, another in a long line of studies has shown that annual mammogram testing does not reduce the rate of deaths from breast cancer. In fact, they increase the risks of having breast cancer by about 60%.
These study results defy the common medical industry gospel that regular breast screenings are the best way to combat this horrid disease.
However, irrespective of the results of these studies, the National Institute of Cancer along with federal health officials (stuck with the tag of having preached annual testing for years) have announced that they are going to continue recommending annual mammograms for women older than 40. Well, what else is new?
Mammograms, specialized X-rays of breast tissue, supposedly detect tumors too small to be found in all other exams. But even that's not true. The medical industry is caught lying again, as this article will prove.
Dr. Joann Elmore, associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Washington, is among the experts on mammogram testing who believe "we have way oversold the American public on the benefits of mammogram testing." Moreover, several kinds of breast cancers grow slowly and might not pose a health risk for years; post-mortem studies of women who died of something other than breast cancer found one-fourth had undiagnosed DCIS or some form of cancer, Dr. Elmore said.
The fact that mammogram testing does not reduce the risk of breast cancer is not new information. Several years ago Danish scientists found serious flaws in seven major ongoing studies which claimed to have shown benefits from mammograms. The Danish scientists, in effect, threw out five of the studies, and applied a new statistical model to the remaining two. They concluded the data did not prove mammography reduces breast cancer deaths.
Increasingly, however, medical experts are recognizing that mammograms themselves pose risks, especially but not only including anxiety produced by the numerous false-positive results.
A 1998 study of medical records by Barton and Elmore showed that over 10 years, women had a 50-50 chance of getting an abnormal mammogram. The vast majority of these abnormalities turned out to be false positives, i.e., not cancer. But further study showed those with false-positive results went on to have a greater number of doctors' visits; 10 percent of their charts even noted their increased anxiety and downright state of fear that they had experienced because of the false-positive results of their mammogram tests.
As other researchers have noted, This mental suffering and not to mention the pain and displeasure of the tests in the first place.
The medical industry sells the safety of mammogram testing by claiming, "Mammography equipment uses low dose X-rays and therefore carries no danger of over-exposure."
But what they don't tell you is this form of X-ray stays in your breasts—and never leaves! You can't beat physics, and the physics of it is that ionized radiation causes diseases. Period! We know this from Chernobyl, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima—and from hundreds of studies. For years people turned up with tumors and all manner of deformities after their exposure to ionized radiation, which is exactly what mammograms produce. These same problems are still occurring from the Chernobyl catastrophe.
Also, if you happen to have cancer, the ionized radiation from a mammogram can cause its growth to explode. So what if the medical industry discovers that you have cancer early on, if the test they used to find it causes your cancer to worsen!
Dr. John W.Gofman (M.D. & Ph.D.) estimates that 75% of breast cancer may be prevented by eliminating exposure to ionized radiation from these outdated tests and states most adamantly that he believes "there is no safe threshold for exposure to ionizing radiation," again, which mammograms produce.
Gofman states that, "Since the mammogram screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ of breast cancer has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is a result of mammography." Those figures should be enough to keep the average woman away from having "a doctor" irradiate her breasts; but the pro-mammogram propaganda is so overwhelming that even such figures won't keep most women from allowing someone to send deadly rads of radiation into one of the most tender places in their body.
Women certainly don't want to stop having some type of breast examination, and thank goodness there are definitely options—absolutely safe ones too.
One is Thermal Imaging Process (also called Thermagram). It is able to detect the beginning of angiogenesis (the development of blood vessels in which a cancerous tumor begins to create its own blood supply), allowing a two to three year head start for treatment. This actually puts this test ahead of mammograms, because it is this pooling of blood that mammograms are unable to detect. But most "doctors" aren't going to tell you that; neither are they going to tell you about thermagrams.
Also, Thermal Imaging can distinguish the difference between a malignant tumor and fibroids, which mammograms can't do. You end up having another costly and painful procedure because mammograms aren't able to detect the difference between the two. That is, of course, a biopsy of the breast.
It is through this early detection process using Thermal Imaging that a woman has a greater chance of reversing breast cancer through alternative medicine—using natural means instead of torturous invasive forms of "treatment" used by the traditional medical industry, such as radiation, chemotherapy, and surgery. These forms of treatment are outdated by at least fifty years, and should be universally abolished. However, in some cases surgery is a workable option, but the first two are far outdated.
So, what to do to protect yourself from breast cancer? First, find you a good, up-to-date alternative doctor. Ask him about Thermal Imaging Process. If he's not up on it, move on until you find one who is. If your doctor doesn't understand that ionized radiation causes disease, then move on. He's not an up-to-date doctor. He's a quack, disguising himself as a healer. You'll get butchered fooling around with these outdated, outmoded sycophants.
Second, get off of synthetic hormones, and begin using natural ones. This definitely includes birth control pills! Today smart women are using compounded bio-identical-hormones. Suszane Summers learned this the hard way, but is now an active proponent of compounded bio-identical-hormones.
Third, learn about the many supplements and foods that studies have proven protect your breasts from cancer.
Vitamin E is a protector of women's breasts and men's prostates, but it's a particular form of Vitamin E that shows the protective effects. We now know that the form of vitamin E used in most commercial preparations (alpha tocopherol acetate) has not been shown to protect against breast cancer. It is the Gamma E Tocotrienols and Tocopherrols that have demonstrated the most significant potential not only to reduce the incidence of breast cancer, but also to inhibit existing breast cancer cell propagation.
Studies on this form of vitamin E intake show that women with a family history of breast cancer derive an 80% risk reduction, whereas women who don't have a family history obtain a 60% risk reduction. So look for Gamma E with Tocopherrols and Tocotrienols and buy these only. If you can't find this type, call the Life Extension Foundation at 800-544-4440. LifeX carries this product, and can also provide studies that show its efficacy.
Along with Vitamin E you should add the trace mineral, selenium, because it works synergistically with Vitamin E. It is also a powerful protector against cancer by itself.
Another supplement that is a must in protecting you from breast cancer is Coenzyme Q-10. One of the pioneering scientists in the exploration of the clinical benefits of Coenzyme Q-10 is Karl Folkers of the Institute for Biomedical Research at the University of Texas in Austin. Dr. Folkers has been conducting Co-Q10 research for about 35 years, and has edited several textbooks on the subject.
Dr. Folkers has found that breast cancer patients have significantly lower blood levels of Co-Q10 than normal people. This finding, combined with the remarkable results of treating breast cancer patients with Co-Q10 in Denmark, is persuasive and conclusive evidence that taking supplemental Co-Q10 can protect women against breast cancer.
For prevention purposes, Dr. Folkers recommends a Co-Q10 dose of 100 mg per day. Women who are at high risk for breast cancer because of a family history of the disease, or because they have already had breast cancer, or because they've been taking synthetic hormones, should take at least 200-300 mg a day of Co-Q10. No toxic side effects have been found from doses of up to 800 mg per day.
I tell everyone when it comes to Co-Q10 to take all you can afford, because it's the most powerful supplement yet discovered. And I urge everyone to obtain their Co-Q10 from the Life Extension Foundation, because LifeX keeps their supplements up to date with the data and because they use the firstfruits of the oil used to make up Co-Q10.
There also is evidence that the B-complex vitamins can protect you against the toxic effects of estradiol and estrone in the body. Estrogen may produce some of its toxicity by causing a vitamin B-6 deficiency. There is evidence that flax seed oil, borage oil, olive oil, and other plant oils lower the production of these potentially dangerous estrogens by blocking some of their tumor initiating effects. We like Udo's Choice for a combination of these oils. The Complete B-Complex from LifeX is a great product to obtain all the Bs, and my wife loves it.
Another natural supplement that should be mandatory for both men and women is Saw Palmetto. When taken orally the natural sterols go to a woman's breasts and to a man's prostate and there they stay to protect both. Tumors cannot feed off of natural sterols as they can their synthetic derivative: steroids. Amazingly, this plant extract keeps a woman's breasts full and a man's prostate from swelling. We recommend the Saw Palmetto from Source Naturals, which you can find at most any health food store.
As far as food products that protect you from breast cancer and other cancers, cruciferous vegetables, such as broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, and brussels sprouts contain several compounds that produce estrogen-like activity and protect against breast cancer. These plant foods convert estrogen into a metabolite other than the active form that feeds cancer tumors.
Another powerful natural compound—sulforaphane—found in broccoli, was found by scientists at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore to increase the synthesis of enzymes such as quinone reductase and glutathione transferase, which detoxify cancer-causing chemicals within the body.
Tomatoes also contain powerful protective phyto-nutrients. In fact, scientists have discovered 10,000 phyto-nutrients in tomatoes, and researchers really only understand what about sixty of them do. All, however, are good for you. You get an even greater benefit from tomatoes when they're cooked, which causes even more protective enzymes to activate. Salsa, tomato paste, tomato juice, and even natural forms of catchup (without added sugar) are excellent ways to get the benefits of tomatoes.
Other supplements that protect you from breast cancer are as follows: Vitamin C; beta-carotene and other carotenoids (we like the Carotenoid Blend from Nature's Sunshine Products) ; and melatonin.
Finally to our ladies, whatever else you do, vow to yourself that you won't risk another mammogram, and that you'll get off the synthetic hormones. As you can see, there are other routes that you can go to protect yourself besides irradiating your breasts and piling synthetic hormones in them for tumors to feed off of.
For your health: The Artfuldodger
Note: I am not a doctor and have no degrees in medicine or medical care whatsoever. Neither have I had any classes in medical care. I have, however, been studying alternative and natural therapies for many years, and so has my wife—who would "not have a mammogram even if President Obama himself ordered it."
We recommend finding a trained physician who understands that some women do not wish to load their breasts with radiation and synthetic hormones.
We do not receive any kickbacks or stipends of any type from the above-mentioned product sources.
4 Comments
Anonymous
How is ionizing radiation used in mammograms different from the radiation used in any other x-rays? I seem to recall reading that most radiology exams expose a patient to less than they typically absorb on a high-altitiude, cross country airline flight. If so, I would think there should be a statistically significant higher incidence of breast cancer amongst airline stewardesses. Does anyone know if that is the case?
As for the supplement recommendations, have any double-blind studies been done on their beneficial effects? Without them, it is hard to assert their benefits with any certitude.
This reads a bit like one of those articles that is actually an advertisement. Usually journalists avoid making specific brand recommendations or providing contact information for companies for precisely this reason. It clouds the credibility of the message, which in this case could be unfortunate as there may be good information, even life-saving information here.
JennJohnson
In my family, I will die of heart disease long before I die from cancer, so I have told my dr that I have no intentions of getting one until I am at least 50+ When I am 50, I will re-evaluate.
I am not keen on any kind of x-ray unless it is absolutely necessary. People need to be more proactive in their health care. Drs are not all-knowing and many are profit motivated. We complain about people blindly following politicians, but health care is just as big of a problem.
Anonymous
Comment Flagged as Inappropriate