Can one trust the cancer industry? Four top American cancer charities have been accused of misusing over £1BILLION in donations. The Cancer Fund of America (CFA), Cancer Support Services Inc (CSSI), the Children’s Cancer Fund of America (CCFA) and the Breast Cancer Society Inc (BCSI) were charged by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) yesterday.The total amount alleged to have been defrauded is reported to be £120million.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first mammography device that generates 3-D images of the breast, potentially helping doctors to spot more cancerous tumors. The FDA says the new system doubles the radiation exposure for patients, but also increases the accuracy of diagnosis. Roughly 37 million women each year have a mammogram to check for signs of breast cancer even though every physician knows that radiation exposure increases ones risk for cancer. Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer in women and is the second leading cause of cancer death in women (after lung cancer). The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2005, about 211,240 women were diagnosed with breast cancer — and 40,410 died from the disease.
This diagnostic device demonstrated a 7 percent improvement in spotting cancerous tumors compared with traditional 2-D images. Approximately one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime, according to the National Cancer Institute. The institute recommends women ages 40 and older expose themselves to cancer provoking radiation (mammogram) every one to two years.
Dr. David Brownstein says, “Unfortunately, screening mammograms, used for nearly 30 years, have never been shown to alter breast cancer mortality. And, to make matters worse, mammography exposes sensitive tissue to ionizing radiation which actually causes cancer. In fact, it is estimated that each mammogram increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer by 1%. After 10 years of mammograms, a woman’s risk may increase by 10%.”
Babies born of mothers who had a series of X-rays of the pelvic region
during pregnancy were nearly twice as likely to develop leukemia or
another form of canceras those born of mothers who had not been X-rayed.
Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, former professor of radiation physics at the University Of Pittsburgh School Of Medicine, in his book Secret Fallout – Low-Level Radiation from Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island, indicated that the risk increased with each additional picture, as the studies of Stewart similarly indicated. This clearly implied that there was no significant healing of the damage and that the cancer-causing effects of radiation were cumulative.]This would mean that the effects of a dose received over a period of time from fallout would be similar to those from an equal dose received all at once from X-rays. Even worse was the realization that children whose mothers were X-rayed during the first trimester of their pregnancy were found to be ten times more likely to develop cancer than those whose mothers were X-rayed toward the end of pregnancy.
Dr. Sternglass’ concluded that all the research led to the tragic conclusion that the unborn fetus was hundreds or thousands of times more sensitive to radiation than anyone had ever suspected. According to the now antiquated “threshold” theory there was a certain low level of radiation exposure, a “threshold,” below which no damage would be caused. If this threshold was about the same as the yearly dose from background radiation or from exposure to typical diagnostic X-rays, as various supporters of nuclear programs maintained it was, then we could all sleep safe knowing that the military and medical industrial complexes were not doing us harm. But Dr. Stewart’s study implied that if there were any safe threshold for unborn children and infants it would have to be less than the dose from a single X-ray picture.
From the simplest X-ray to each particle of uranium we inhale
on the wind or drink from water, we have a problem.
About half of all people with cancer are treated with radiation therapy, either alone or in combination with other types of cancer treatment. Radiation therapy uses ionizing radiation to kill cancer cells and shrink tumors. Unfortunately, the treatment can. Americans today receive far more medical radiation than ever before. The average lifetime dose of diagnostic radiation has increased sevenfold since 1980 with doctors and dentists having no real idea of the risks they are taking with their patients’ lives.
What few doctors and health officials recognize is that chemicals and radiation combine to act on the very same cellular enzyme pathways. One type of contamination reinforces and strengthens the other. Exposure to radiation causes a cascade of free radicals that wreak havoc on the body. Radiation decimates the body’s supply of glutathione, which in turn allows free radicals to run rampant through our body’s tissues and organs. It is the worst and most dangerous form of medical treatment though chemotherapy gives radiation treatment and diagnosis a run for its money in terms of toxicity. When chemo and radiation are combined it’s a wonder anyone survives their medical treatment and the truth is few do survive orthodox oncology when you look over the five year mark.
Treating or diagnosis of cancer with surgery, chemotherapy or radiation may sometimes cause tumors to spread. Tests in mice show that using the chemotherapy drug doxorubicin or radiation both raised levels of TGF-beta, which in turn helped breast cancer tumors spread to the lung.
Waste of Time Anyway
A Norwegian study found that breast cancer screening, commonly known as mammogram screening, may reduce the risk of death from breast cancer by only 10 percent. Mette Kalager, M.D. and colleagues followed 40,075 women, screened and unscreened from 1996 through 2005. The findings were reported on Sept 23, 2010 in the New England Journal of Medicine. This is not the only study suggesting that the life-saving effect of this screening method is quite limited.
Jørgensen KJ and colleagues from the University of Copenhagen in Denmark conducted a study suggesting that the benefit may be zero. The researchers found women ages 44 to 74 who had received mammogram screening had their risk of death from the disease reduced by 1 percent, compared to 2 percent reduction in the women who were unscreened. Similarly, no benefit was found in women aged 35 to 55 and those aged 75 to 84. The findings were reported in the March 23, 2010 issue of British Medical Journal.
A COURSE IN NATUROPATHIC ONCOLOGY
Special Offer: My 100 lesson course on cancer at eighty percent off the regular price of 500 dollars. So your cost will be only 99 dollars. The course is part of a doctoral program at Da Vinci University and, when taken for credit, costs 1,000 Euros for both parts.I WANT!
According to a University of Florida study, breast
biopsies should not be the only option to further
diagnose abnormalities found in mammograms.
Cellular effects of radiation are basically the same for the different kinds and doses of radiation. The simplest and most direct effect of radiation is cell death. Changes in cellular function can occur at much lower radiation doses than those that cause cell death. Changes can include delays in phases of the mitotic cycle, disrupted cell growth, permeability changes, and changes in motility.
Massive campaigns exist to encourage women to have annual mammograms. However, routine screening has not been proven to reduce the death toll from cancer. Americans spend an estimated $4 billion annually on mammograms, according to Dr. David H. Newman, author of the book “Hippocrates’ Shadow: Secrets from the House of Medicine.” Some of those tests cause false alarms that lead to unnecessary follow-up surgery on normal breasts, at a cost of $14 billion to $70 billion over a decade, according to Newman, the director of clinical research in the department of emergency medicine at St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital Center in Manhattan.
There are five things that can happen as a
result of screening tests, and four of them are bad.
Dr. Ned Calonge
Chairman US Preventive Services
More breast tissue is exposed to dangerous cancer causing radiation each year. This yearly ritual generates false positive and false negative results leading to many worthless operations and considerable anxiety in women incorrectly diagnosed. Biopsies are often done to evaluate breast masses. Needle biopsies are considered less invasive and safer than common breast biopsies of suspected tumors but even this procedure can spread small foci of tumor along the needle track potentially increasing the spread of tumor cells.
Routine mammograms which have been shown to
reduce deaths from breast cancer in older women, have
not proved to reduce the toll in women in their 20s and 30s
Dr. Susan M. Love
Breast cancer surgeon
Many women will be over-diagnosed by both two and three dimensional mammograms leading to overtreatment. One of the most basic reasons why mammograms do not demonstrate affectively higher survival rates is that the test is negatively reinforcing in that women are exposed to cancer provoking treatments and even more cancer provoking tests that lead to higher incidence of death, not from the cancer itself but from the treatments and dangerous tests.
Taking a daily 10 to 15 minute walk in the sun
not only clears your head, relieves stress and increases
circulation – it could also cut your risk of breast cancer in half.
Dr. Esther John
Safely Diagnosing Breast Cancer
Women are beginning to embrace Breast Thermography because it is 100% safe & non-invasive early screening option along with lymphatic therapy to assist with reversing toxic symptoms in their breasts. Breast thermography can screen for indications of breast disease up to ten years before a mammogram, at the cell stage, when we can still halt and reverse indications of disease holistically. Thermal imaging reads abnormal heat generated by new blood vessel growth in the area of tumors as well as heat generated from other abnormalities that need not be cancer such as lymph congestion, fibrocystic symptoms and estrogen dominance.
Thermography can be used as part of an early detection program, which gives women of all ages the opportunity to increase their chances of detecting breast disease at a very early stage. Thermal Mammography has been shown to be the earliest and safest risk marker of physiologic breast abnormalities. Breast cancer is evidenced by increased vascular flow (blood flow) and increases in metabolism. This increase in blood flow is secondary to angiogenesis. Angiogenesis is growth of new blood vessels. Angiogenesis occurs before the tumor cells invade the surrounding tissues. Breast thermography is particularly useful during these early phases of rapid tumor growth that is not yet detectable by clinical exam or mammograms. Breast thermography has the potential to detect problems five to eight years before abnormalities can be seen with x-ray mammograms so we must ask why is the FDA now approving even more dangerous three dimensional mammograms?
The International Commission on Radiation Protection [ICRP] exists in
practice largely to play down the effects of radiation on human health,
and to shield the nuclear industry from compensation claims from the public.
The International Academy of Thermography (IACT) insists that thermography is not a replacement for mammography because there is no one test that can detect 99-100% of all cancers. Therefore, no single test exists that can be used alone as an adequate screening or detection method for breast cancer. They say a physiological imaging procedure (thermography) cannot replace an anatomical imaging procedure (mammography). The two tests are “looking” for completely different pathological processes. Though thermography is far more sensitive than mammography the IACT cautions that some slow growing non-aggressive cancers will only be detected by mammography.
The ICRP and the IACT share offices, certainly they are promoting further radiation exposure. Recommending radiation is the same thing as recommending premature death because radiation is the death principle in action.
Imaging centers, borrowing a marketing approach that has swept the country, have begun offering “mammogram parties” to groups of women to encourage yearly checkups for breast cancer for women over 40. Creating “spa-like environments” mammogram imaging centers offer attractive chair massages, visits by cosmetics representatives and food. Obviously this is an extremely aggressive marketing maneuver to recover lost business after the federal Health and Human Services Department recommended that routine mammogram screenings be performed only once every two years, rather than every year, and also suggested that regular screenings could begin at age 50 instead of age 40. These new guidelines were roundly criticized by physicians and cancer experts and the American Cancer Society said that it would continue to advocate annual screening after age 40.
Clash of Medical Paradigms
Dr. Russell Blaylock is warning women about the orthodox ontological approach including its use of mammograms because they are dangerous and cancer provoking from the radiation being used. Most women depend upon that yearly mammogram to warn them of possible breast cancer. Yet, as Dr. Blaylock points out, studies show mammograms actually increase a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer from 1-3% per year, depending on the technique used. Now that may not sound like a lot. However, if you religiously undergo a mammogram every year for 10 years, you increase your risk from 10-30% (and some radiation experts feel the danger is much higher than that).
A woman’s breasts are one of her most sensitive areas when it comes to cancers caused by radiation exposure. Modern medicine terrorizes women in a typical male oriented aggressive way using testing and treatments that cause cancer to treat breast cancer. Doctors have as little compunction in removing breasts as they do doing C sections or injecting women’s babies with vaccines containing toxic poisons like mercury.
Dr. Blaylock continues saying that, “by the age of 50, a full 45% of women will have cancer cells in their breasts. This doesn’t mean that all these women will develop breast cancer, because in most women these cancer cells remain dormant. What it does mean is that, if you are one of these 45% of women, you are at high risk of spurring these cancer cells to full activity.”
Bodies for Profit
Many women at high risk for breast or ovarian cancer are choosing to undergo surgery as a precautionary measure to decrease their cancer risk, according to a report in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. Women who had a biopsy after undergoing risk evaluation were twice as likely to choose a risk-reducing mastectomy. Forty percent of the women who were mutation carriers underwent bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy; 45 percent had bilateral risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (surgical removal of ovaries). Most of the women, specifically those aged 35 to 45 years, opted for surgery within the first two years after the genetic mutation test, but some did not make a decision until seven years later.
This is the consequence of women who have participated in genetic counseling, testing and management programs. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have a very high lifetime risk of cancer, according to these counseling teams. These women face a 50 to 85 percent lifetime risk of breast cancer, and mastectomy is currently the most effective prevention method available according to their belief system. Thus researchers conclude that, “Careful risk counseling does appear to influence women’s decision for surgery although the effect is not immediate.”
 Effect of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Mortality in Norway; Mette Kalager, M.D., Marvin Zelen, Ph.D., Frøydis Langmark, M.D., and Hans-Olov Adami, M.D., Ph.D.
N Engl J Med 2010; 363:1203-1210September 23, 2010DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1000727; http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1000727
 Breast cancer mortality in organised mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study
BMJ2010;340doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c1241(Published 24 March 2010)