(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_Vit...) 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?
In addition to his lab work, Adams is also the (non-paid) executive director of the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center (CWC), an organization that redirects 100% of its donations receipts to grant programs that teach children and women how to grow their own food or vastly improve their nutrition. Click here to see some of the CWC success stories.
With a background in science and software technology, Adams is the original founder of the email newsletter technology company known as Arial Software. Using his technical experience combined with his love for natural health, Adams developed and deployed the content management system currently driving NaturalNews.com. He also engineered the high-level statistical algorithms that power SCIENCE.naturalnews.com, a massive research resource now featuring over 10 million scientific studies.