(NaturalNews) If you or someone you know walks into a clinic to receive an annual mammogram, do you automatically trust the equipment to provide an accurate cancer reading? Many women are subjected to this unnecessary radiation, only to be given false positive cancer readings.
Mammography philosophy of cancer detection is fear-mongering, capable of offering false positives, and always emitting unnecessary radiation
As the pink ribbon campaign funds and perpetuates mammography technology, advertising its cancer screening philosophy, many women are swept into the arms of this radiological equipment. Sadly, many women are being led astray by these faulty devices, which lead them to believe that they have or will get cancer.
Many clinics today unintentionally use faulty mammography equipment that gives patients false positives. Patients are told that they have cancer when it's really just benign or reversible through dietary changes.
Many improper readings fool patients into succumbing to invasive cancer treatments. Some women even maim themselves out of fear, as they have their breasts surgically removed. This fear-mongering, cut-burn-poison approach to cancer is wildly deceptive, and it all starts at the average clinic, under the radiation of the mammography equipment.
Doctor's mammography equipment found to be lacking quality controls, pertinent outcome information omitted for weeks
One case out of Arkansas shows that radiological equipment used by Ruston Pierce, M.D., is wildly out of compliance, likely projecting false positive cancer
readings that coax fearful women into receiving expensive, invasive and unnecessary cancer treatments.
In fact, an investigator from the Food and Drug Administration conducted an undercover inspection at Dr. Pierce's clinic on suspicion that mammography
equipment was defective and providing unqualified readings. The investigation revealed a "serious problem involving the conduct of mammography."
According to mammography quality standards, specific requirements must be met for a doctor to practice mammography. Dr. Pierce was allegedly acting outside of quality conduct and requirements.
"The problems identified during this inspection constitute a violation of the Mammography Quality Standards Act at your facility," says an FDA
representative. The investigation was launched September 23, 2013. The specific, confidential violations were mailed to Dr. Pierce and were later addressed in a follow-up letter from Dr. Pierce.
According to the FDA letter, the doctor's equipment was lacking quality
control records for weeks on end, as if the records were omitted from file. The lack of transparency had kept many patients in the dark for at least a month as to whether the facility could perform quality mammography.
In fact, the investigation revealed that outcome analysis for the mammography equipment was disregarded on many individual accounts, as each physician at the clinic bypassed documentation and quality control.
Sadly, this may be the norm around the US, as investigations around the country report on at least 1.3 million cases of misdiagnosed cancer coming from faulty mammography equipment.
In this case, the FDA states that "these violations may be indicative of serious underlying problems that could compromise the quality of mammography at your facility."
The FDA letter to Dr. Pierce clarified that his clinic may now be subject to undergo an Additional Mammography Review, be placed under a Directed Plan of Correction, be billed for the cost of on-site monitoring and be required to notify past patients of faulty mammography, including potential harm resulting from deficiencies and remedial measures.
The clinic may also be subject to penalties of $10,000 for each breach, may be revoked of their FDA certificate and may be taken to court.
The question: how much junk radiation equipment could be in use in clinics everywhere?
There are better ways to assure that cancer is not abounding in you, and it may have to do with the quality of food going in and your connective understanding of your own body signals.Sources for this article include:http://www.fda.govhttp://www.naturalnews.comhttp://science.naturalnews.com