Gerald E. Markle and Frances B. McCrea
See book keywords and concepts |
 Yet it is worth remembering that "mammography screening may lead to an overdiagnosis of breast cancer—that is, the detection of a tumor that would not have become clinically detectable in the patient's lifetime." Thus, women must consider the adverse consequences of false-positive mammograms."47
Still another editorial (though not by the editor) in the same issue of Annals took a harsher view of mammography. "The controversy looks almost Swiftian when we consider that even under the most optimistic assumptions, mammography still cannot prevent the vast majority of breast cancer deaths. |
Bottom Line Health
See book keywords and concepts |
| Overall, film and digital mammography were equally accurate," Pisano says. "But for women with dense breasts, women under age 50 and women who were pre- and perimenopausal, digital was significantly better. The kinds of cancer that the digital [mammography] found and film missed were important cancers—the kind that kill women," she notes.
"For the 65% of women who had improved accuracy, they should get that kind of mammography," Pisano says. "But for other women, there is no benefit of digital over film, and it's more expensive. |
| Younger women and women with denser breasts should not forego their regular mammograms if digital mammography is not available. While this study showed an advantage with digital imaging in these groups, it should be remembered that traditional film mammography also is effective," Smith adds.
Pisano agrees. "It is important that women get screened when they are supposed to be screened and not wait to get a digital [mammography]. If there is film available, it's better than nothing."
A Bad Sign: Breast Cancer Survivors Fail To Get Mammograms
Chyke A. |
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
See article keywords and concepts |
 Chemotherapy, radiation and surgery for cancer are largely medical frauds, and mammography is actually an insidious recruiting system that scares women into unnecessary treatments for cancers they often don't even have. (The rate of false positives is shockingly high, and mammography has been scientifically proven to harm 10 women for every one woman that it helps.)
If you undergo such barbaric procedures, note that using aloe vera (both internally and externally) can greatly improve your results by protecting you from the treatment itself. |
T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. and Thomas M. Campbell II
See book keywords and concepts |
 But it's important to remember that doing a mammography or getting a genetic test to see if you harbor BRCA genes does not constitute prevention of breast cancer.
Screening is merely an observation to see whether the disease has progressed to an observable state. Some studies34-36 have found that groups of women who undergo frequent mammography have slightly lower mortality rates than groups of women who do not undergo frequent mammography. This implies that our cancer treatments are more likely to be successful if the cancer is found at an earlier stage. |
Gerald E. Markle and Frances B. McCrea
See book keywords and concepts |
| The controversy looks almost Swiftian when we consider that even under the most optimistic assumptions, mammography still cannot prevent the vast majority of breast cancer deaths." This editorial concluded:
There will come a time when all the study patients have been followed up, all the analyses have been done, all the expert groups have met, and all the editorials have been written, and we still won't be sure how much benefit and how much harm are caused by mammography.48
In this book, we are using mortality as an indicator of effectiveness. |
Bottom Line Health
See book keywords and concepts |
| The cancer that the digital mammography found and film missed were the kind that kill women.
Etta D. Pisano, MD
Dr. Rowan T. Chlebowski, a medical oncologist at Los Angeles BioMedical Research Institute, says, "Even without a clinical benefit, digital would replace film. With the current mandate for electronic medical records, you are going to have a hard time getting a film mammogram into an electronic medical record.
"This study makes it more reasonable to go for the investment now, because you get an immediate clinical payoff," he adds. |
Andreas Moritz
See book keywords and concepts |
 Fortunately for women, the massive increase in lawsuits as a result of missed tumors is contributing to an increasing reluctance among doctors and clinics that once offered mammography to continue doing so.
A 1997 report by the American National Cancer Institute stated that mammograms showed no mortality benefit unless women in their 40s had been followed for 10 years. Other studies have shown that women who have mammograms suffer about the same rates of death due to breast cancer as women who do not have mammograms. |
| Only 1 to 10 out of 100 "positive" mammography tests are truly positive, which means that there is a 90 to 99 percent chance of a woman being diagnosed with breast cancer who doesn't have it. Since these tests are not taken only once in a lifetime, the chances of becoming a victim of false diagnosis for breast cancer are very high.
In Great Britain, about 100,000 women per year receive a false diagnosis for breast cancer (not excluding other forms of diagnosis). The women undergo many unnecessary biopsies and an unknown number of mastectomies (breast amputations). |
| To suggest mammography to be a diagnostic tool for detecting pre-symptomatic stages of cancer is deceptive and dubious. In most cases of breast cancer, it is irrelevant whether breast cancer is detected at an early or late stage. It is rather the type of cancer and whether it tends to metastasize ("spread to," which in reality means, "develop in" other parts of the body as well) at an early stage, that determines the outcome of the disease. Contrary to common belief, early detection has not shown to lower mortality rats for these types of cancer. |
| Also by having many mammograms performed, a woman may put herself at risk for developing the very disease mammography is supposed to prevent, or worsen it if it is already present. Mammograms certainly aren't the "magic bullet" for breast cancer prevention that everyone seems to think they are. For one thing, mammograms are of very limited effectiveness because they seem only to be able to detect tumors of a size that is large enough to signify a rather advanced stage of cancer. |
| Women don't need to rely on mammography to feel safeguarded against breast cancer, especially since it is highly unreliable as a diagnostic tool. A series of liver, kidney and colon cleanses are often enough to prevent, stop and regress any type of cancer. |
Bill Sardi
See book keywords and concepts |
 Screening mammography misses about 17% of all breast cancers in women and might mistakenly label an abnormal area as a tumor where none exists. Other studies indicate the error rate could be even higher, closer to 30%. A prominent doctor likens the task of finding breast cancers on a mammogram to 'trying to find a snowstorm in a blizzard'." Source: Medical Imaging Newsletter
One out of three mammograms produce abnormal results that require further testing, but subsequent tests reveal no cancer. About 19% of biopsies are needless and cause 16 million false alarms over 10 years. |
Gerald E. Markle and Frances B. McCrea
See book keywords and concepts |
| Programs to encourage self-examination in the absence of mammography are unlikely to reduce breast cancer.
3. Women who choose to practice self-examination should be informed that its efficacy is unproven and that it may increase their chances of having a benign breast biopsy.43
An accompanying editorial, two University of North Carolina physicians pronounced the self-exam "dead" and urged their colleagues to change their advice to women. Until there is evidence to the contrary, "physicians can stop spending time routinely teaching women's fingers to do breast exams. |
| This editorial concluded:
There will come a time when all the study patients have been followed up, all the analyses have been done, all the expert groups have met, and all the editorials have been written, and we still won't be sure how much benefit and how much harm are caused by mammography.48
In this book, we are using mortality as an indicator of effectiveness. Thus, the question: What has been the impact of screening—and all treatment—of all breast cancer? The answer: The mortality rate from breast cancer has been stable over the period from 1930 to the present. |
Bill Sardi
See book keywords and concepts |
| If none of the miniscule tumors that cannot be detected by mammography undergo remission, but rather accumulate over time, then one would expect the incidence of breast cancer to increase and be about three times what is observed. The only explanation for the findings of the Norwegian Institute is that undetectable tumors disappear spontaneously, without treatment. [Journal American Medical Association 292: 2579-80, 2004]
Drs. John K. Whiteford, MD, and John Ryan Whiteford, MD, of Verona, Pennsylvania, emphasize that most women with breast cancer survive without treatment. |
| Archives Internal Medicine 156: 1414-20, 1996]
Cancer screening
Denial of treatment
Oddly enough, while studies show that people in higher income brackets are more likely to undergo mammography or sigmoidoscopy [used to detect colon/rectal cancer] [Preventive Medicine 23: 816-23, 1994], this has ended up as an exercise in finding more disease to treat rather than improving survival rates. |
| The list includes: heart failure due to chemotherapy, radiation damage due to mammography and CT scans that can lead to cancer years later, the seeding of cancers into surrounding tissues due to biopsy, and following cancer surgery the triggering of growth factors that heal surgical wounds, but which also spur the growth of residual tumor cells.
Most cancer patients can't fathom the idea of rejecting cancer treatment or defying their doctor's orders, no matter how ineffective or toxic modern cancer treatment may be, for fear of having nowhere else to go. |
Andreas Moritz
See book keywords and concepts |
| Despite the fact that over 90 percent of the abnormalities discovered by mammography have been benign (not cancerous), 63 percent of U.S. women in their 40s keep having a mammogram every one or two years. This poses a great risk on healthy women who wish to prevent developing breast cancer in the future. Given the powerful cancer-inducing effects of mammograms, there is little if any benefit having a yearly mammogram.
Prevention of breast cancer does not begin with having a mammogram; it starts with taking active responsibility for one's body and mind. |
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
See article keywords and concepts |
 Breast cancer mammography is a complete scam: The machines actually cause cancer!
Fact #6: Doctors know virtually nothing about nutrition and are still not taught nutrition in medical schools. Expecting a doctor to teach you about how to prevent disease is sort of like expecting a car mechanic to show you how to perform brain surgery. Although there are some exceptions (doctors who have taught themselves nutrition), most doctors remain so nutritionally illiterate that they have no familiarity with the natural plant-based medicines found in everyday fruits and vegetables. |
Mark Sircus
See book keywords and concepts |
 Preventive Medicine
Typically, if you are a mainstream allopathic physician, preventive medicine is limited to elective stress testing, mammography, screening for prostate-specific antigen, periodic lipid profiling and giving cursory attention to life-style changes and diet. This kind of medicine offers only a shadow of what preventive medicine needs to be.
According to the New York Times, "New evidence keeps emerging that the medical profession has sold its soul in exchange for what can only be described as bribes from the manufacturers of drugs and medical devices. |
T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. and Thomas M. Campbell II
See book keywords and concepts |
| Some studies34-36 have found that groups of women who undergo frequent mammography have slightly lower mortality rates than groups of women who do not undergo frequent mammography. This implies that our cancer treatments are more likely to be successful if the cancer is found at an earlier stage. This is likely to be true, but there is some concern over the way statistics are used in this debate. |
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
See article keywords and concepts |
 I can't wait to see what headlines will come next:
"Prescription Drugs That Killed Patients Found Innocent Since Patients Did Not Come Back to Life After the Drugs Were Removed"
Or:
"Radiation From Mammograms Found Harmless Because Death Rates Continued to Climb Even After mammography was Halted"
Or my favorite: "Ephedra Herb Banned After Ten Deaths; Drugs Are Safer Because They Only Kill 100,000 Americans a Year"
I'm beginning to wonder if all the journalists have been injected with mercury. |
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
See article keywords and concepts |
 Chemotherapy is so dangerous to the heart, liver, kidneys and brain that the very act of screening for cancer tumors with mammography machines ultimately causes harm to most patients. Find that hard to believe? Researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Denmark studied 500,000 women to determine the results of breast cancer screening programs. They found that for every one woman helped by breast cancer screening, ten were harmed through false diagnosis or unnecessary treatments that devastated their health. |
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
See article keywords and concepts |
 Or maybe they're all just so steeped in mammography and chemotherapy (the vast majority of panel participants work in conventional oncology) that they are intellectually unable to acknowledge the value of any healing modality outside their own areas of expertise.
One thing is certain: They sure didn't invite any nutritionists to the task force. All it would have taken was one person standing up and saying, "Um, excuse me. Has anybody thought this might be related to vitamin D?" No such person, it seems, was invited to the task force. |
| In fact, it was less of a "task force" and more of a self-serving oncology orgy fest that was clearly designed to sell one thing to black woman: mammography.
Myth vs. Fact About Breast Cancer
Let's get to some facts about breast cancer. Forget all the hype and propaganda put out by the breast cancer industry and this astonishingly ignorant Chicago task force. |
Joan Liebmann-Smith, Ph. D., and Jacqueline Nardi Egan
See book keywords and concepts |
 A recent British study found that even small irregularities in breast symmetry as measured by mammography may become an important indicator of increased risk of breast cancer.
Though rare, uneven breasts can also be a sign of a congenital defect called Poland's syndrome, in which the chest muscles on one side of the body are underdeveloped. Although present from birth, and sometimes hereditary, this type of breast asymmetry may go unnoticed until puberty when the breasts start to develop. Poland's syndrome is actually more common in men than women. |
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
See article keywords and concepts |
 The shocking truth about the miserable failure of over-hyped breast cancer drugs
How chemotherapy causes permanent organ damage to cancer patients
Why "pink products" are often just a marketing sham
Why the cancer industry ultimately doesn't want people to prevent cancer
How certain cancer non-profits are actually front groups for Big Pharma
How the cancer industry victimizes black women by keeping them ignorant of simple cancer prevention strategies
The truth about deadly mammograms (and why mammography harms ten times as many women as it helps! |
Email this page to a friend
