| Home | About Natural News | Contact Us | Write for Natural News | Media Information | Advertise with Natural News | ||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||
|
||||
|
|
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_c...) 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?
Related CounterThink Cartoons:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Home | About Natural News | Contact Us | Write for Natural News | Media Information | Advertise with Natural News This site is part of the Natural News Network © 2009 All Rights Reserved. Privacy | Terms All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing International, LTD. is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms and those published here. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners. |
![]() |