Mammograms And Cancer


NOW this is not to say you should not get regular check ups and breast examinations. This info is to provide alternatives to radiation exposure that saturates tissues and the fact that this radiation is stored in the breast tissue. Thermography is not invasive and senses subtle temperature changes in the soft tissues.

Contributing Editor: Health Sciences Institute Written: 12/18/2001

For two decades now the medical mainstream has been telling women that mammograms can save their lives. I’m sure that when they started, they believed it was true. But mounting research is revealing the new truth: if anything, mammograms may actually do more harm than good.

Mainstream practices “selective hearing” on the mammogram issue

Last year, an analysis of all available mammography research by two scientists at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen, Denmark concluded, “screening for breast cancer with mammography is unjustified.” The Cochrane Center is well known and respected in the medical research community for its rigorous systematic review methods. In this thorough review of seven of the largest mammography studies from around the world, the Cochrane scientists found that “there is no reliable evidence that screening decreases breast cancer mortality.” The study was met with solid resistance and sharp criticism. The medical community effectively covered its ears as if to say, “I’m not listening!” After all, think about how many women they’ve sent to have this test. They needed to believe they had been doing the right thing.

Now, those same authors are back with another study. In response to the heckling they endured last year, they re-examined their data and subjected it to even more rigorous analysis. This time the results are even harder to ignore.

The NHS insists screening saves 1,400 lives a year. ´Not true´, says Professor Peter Gotzsche of the highly respected Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen. Writing in the ´Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine´ in August 2011 he states: “Information provided to the public by the NHS Breast Screening Programme is seriously misleading, downplays the most important harm, and has remained largely unaffected by repeated criticism and pivotal research questioning the benefits of screening and documenting substantial overdiagnosis. This is unacceptable”. In the Times (September 1st) he adds, “If screening was a drug it would have been withdrawn. You don´t market a drug that harms so many people for such uncertain benefit”.

The Nordic Cochrane centre has reviewed one of the major studies often used to show ´lives saved´ – and concluded that the data was wrong. Indeed, they conclude that there was a higher level of breast cancer in the group screened regularly.

As the authors stated in a research letter in the British medical journal The Lancet, the second analysis just “confirmed and strengthened” their previous findings. They still found no benefit from mammograms. In fact, they found that they may actually be harmful, as women who were screened with mammograms were much more likely to undergo a mastectomy, lumpectomy, or radiation treatment. And according to their evidence, these invasive procedures did little to save women’s lives – and may actually put them in harm’s way.

Radiation exposure in known to cause genetic mutation in breast cells. It is also known to switch off the tumour suppressing gene (p16). 2011 research from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in America (a US Government facility) has shown that radiation both changes the environment around breast cells AND increases the risks of mutation within them; a mutation that can be passed on in cell division.

This study showed that 4 to 6 weeks after exposure to radiation at a level below that of a screening mammogram, breast cells started to prematurely age. This resulted in their inability to send certain chemical messages into their immediate environment, which then filled with pre-cancerous mutated cells also from the radiation. ” Our work shows that radiation can change the microenvironment of breast cells, and this in turn can allow the growth of abnormal cells with a long-lived phenotype that have a much greater potential to be cancerous”, said Paul Yaswen, a cell biologist and breast cancer research specialist with Berkeley Lab´s Life Sciences Division, adding “Many in the cancer research community, especially radiologists, have been slow to acknowledge and incorporate in their work the idea that cells are not independent entities, but are highly communicative with each other and with their microenvironment.

Cancer industry desperately needs mammogram screenings to recruit patients and generate repeat business

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.