NaturalNews.com

Twenty-one questions about mammograms, cancer screenings and early detection

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:00:00 PDT

(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 78% of all cancers. Why doesn't the cancer industry give women vitamin D after each cancer screening? They claim to be interested in "helping people," after all... 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

#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?

Aspirin kills 400% more people than H1N1 swine flu

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:00:00 PDT

(NaturalNews) The CDC now reports that nearly 4,000 Americans have been killed by H1N1 swine flu. This number is supposed to sound big and scary, motivating millions of people to go out and pay good money to be injected with untested, unproven H1N1 vaccines. But let's put the number in perspective: Did you know that more than four times as many people are killed each year by common NSAID painkillers like aspirin?

The July 1998 issue of The American Journal of Medicine explains it as follows:

"Conservative calculations estimate that approximately 107,000 patients are hospitalized annually for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related gastrointestinal (GI) complications and at least 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur each year among arthritis patients alone." (Singh Gurkirpal, MD, 'Recent Considerations in Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Gastropathy', The American Journal of Medicine, July 27, 1998, p. 31S)

So for every person the CDC claims was killed by H1N1 swine flu this year, common painkillers like aspirin have killed four! Yet you don't see the CDC, FDA, WHO or mainstream media running around screaming about the extreme dangers of aspirin, do you? All those deaths apparently don't matter. Only swine flu deaths lead to hysteria.

Understanding risk
According to death statistics tables available on the 'net, you are ten times more likely to die in a car accident this year than be killed by swine flu.

Nearly 100,000 Americans die every year from adverse reactions to FDA-approved prescription drugs. That's twenty-five times the number of people killed by H1N1 swine flu (even if you believe the CDC's numbers). So where's the big warning about the dangers of prescription drugs? Why isn't the CDC warning Americans about an "epidemic of dangerous drugs" that poses a far greater threat to your health?

The answer, of course, is that health authorities want to push people to buy vaccines that are about to become worthless (they're only good before swine flu fizzles out). And the only way to sell more vaccines to people who don't need them is to hype up a bunch of scare stories by citing bold statistics that make H1N1 swine flu seem really, really dangerous.

But the flu is no more dangerous than aspirin. In fact, H1N1 swine flu may be safer than aspirin.

Here's another quote from the New England Journal of Medicine:

"It has been estimated conservatively that 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur among patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis every year in the United States. This figure is similar to the number of deaths from the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and considerably greater than the number of deaths from multiple myeloma, asthma, cervical cancer, or Hodgkin's disease. If deaths from gastrointestinal toxic effects from NSAIDs were tabulated separately in the National Vital Statistics reports, these effects would constitute the 15th most common cause of death in the United States. Yet these toxic effects remain mainly a 'silent epidemic,' with many physicians and most patients unaware of the magnitude of the problem. Furthermore the mortality statistics do not include deaths ascribed to the use of over-the-counter NSAIDS." (Wolfe M. MD, Lichtenstein D. MD, and Singh Gurkirpal, MD, 'Gastrointestinal Toxicity of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs', The New England Journal of Medicine, June 17, 1999, Vol. 340, No. 24, pp. 1888-1889.)

Did you catch that? The 16,500 figure for deaths each year doesn't even include over-the-counter painkiller drugs! If you add in those numbers, you're probably looking at something closer to 40,000 Americans kills each year by these drugs. And that makes these drugs 1000% more deadly than swine flu (because 40,000 is ten times greater than 4,000).

Swine flu vs. seasonal flu
Also according to CDC statistics, swine flu is only approximately one-tenth as dangerous as regular seasonal flu. That's because the CDC maintains that seasonal flu kills 36,000 Americans each year (a figure that I've already pointed out is highly suspect, but that's what they claim).

But even seasonal flu is nothing to get all worked up over. Unless you're in a state of terrible health with a compromised immune system, obesity and asthma, beating seasonal flu is a no-brainer: Just nourish your body with vitamin D, zinc, superfoods and natural health supplements and let your built-in immune technology do its job. Your immune system has already saved your life countless times. It knows how to do it if you give it the right nutrition.

There are lots of things that are far more dangerous than swine flu and yet are openly sold to consumers. Over 400,000 Americans die each year from smoking and yet you can buy cigarettes at Walgreens, Wal-Mart and CVS pharmacies. That means statistically, these pharmacies knowingly sell a product that kills 400 times as many people as swine flu has this year. Where's the alarm about the epidemic of tobacco-related deaths? Nowhere. Not a word from the CDC or WHO.

Also, if pharmacies really cared about your health, why do they openly sell a product that causes cancer and heart disease? Think about it...

They're just trying to sell you something that will harm you
The fact is, pharmacies will sell anything that makes money: Tobacco, processed junk food, and of course H1N1 vaccines. If they could make money selling influenza, they'd sell that, too. To the pharmaceutical retailers, it doesn't matter how many people die from the products they sell. They're just in business to sell anything that turns a profit, regardless of the consequences to public health.

And the vaccine industry is similarly motivated to sell you false ideas that make money. By selling you on the concept that swine flu is extremely dangerous, they can manipulate you into buying yet more harmful stuff they're hawking at pharmacies... like H1N1 vaccines. And they're counting on the fact that the American people won't do the math (or can't).

Most people have a very poor understanding of risk, and the vaccine industry is counting on precisely that risk assessment ineptitude to push its dangerous vaccines. If people knew that they are 40 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to have their life saved by a swine flu vaccine, very few would line up to be injected with one. But they don't grasp the difference between numbers that are very far apart such as 10^2 versus 10^5. To many people, those factors are "about the same" and it's worth getting injected with a vaccine "just in case."

That's why I've always stated a simple truth that still holds true today: People who seek out vaccine shots are the same kind of people who regularly play the lotto. Both decisions demonstrate a complete lack of understanding risk vs. reward. In fact, if you get a swine flu vaccine injection on the same day you buy a lotto ticket, you have a greater chance of buying a winning lotto ticket than being saved by the swine flu vaccine.

Playing the lotto is actually smarter than getting a swine flu vaccine shot. Plus, the lotto ticket won't potentially cause neurological damage that puts you in a coma or causes the spontaneous abortion of your baby -- both of which have been happening to people after receiving H1N1 vaccine shots.

It's already too late to shut the door on GM foods

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:00:00 PDT

(NaturalNews) A report from the British Royal Society has been released that urges support for genetically-modified foods by the British public in order to address what it deems the world's growing demand for food. The report also reveals the disturbing reality about just how far genetically-modified (GM) foods have already penetrated the food supply in England, despite widespread public rejection of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) roughly a decade ago.

Over the years, Brits have been led to believe that their diets are GMO-free. Truth be told, nearly two-thirds of the roughly 2.6 million tons of soy that is imported into the United Kingdom each and every year is GM and most people there are entirely unaware of it.

Though used primarily for animal feed, GM soy has been making its way into the British food supply for years due to the fact that manufacturers and retailers are not properly tracking the source of their soy, allowing GM soy to make its way into the human food chain. GM soybean oil, for example, is now being heavily used by catering companies in preparing food.

GM foods found in "GMO-free" products
Further disturbing is the fact that although British products that contain GM ingredients must be labeled as such, GM ingredients are being found in all kinds of products labeled "GMO-free". Many varieties of GM soy are being found in food as well, despite the government's approval of only Monsanto's RoundUp Ready soy.

GMOs of any kind have been shown to be harmful and, whenever presented to the public as a viable alternative to the "food crisis", they are uniformly rejected. Nevertheless, many officials and regulators continue to wage support for artificial food that is verifiably dangerous to human health, claiming it is going to make its way into food anyway and that there is no way to control contamination.

The goal of the Royal Society report is to garner support for a practice that is already taking place against the will of the people, an effort that is designed to indoctrinate the public into wholehearted endorsement for GMOs in the food supply in order to solve the problems of world hunger.

Officials, representatives, and groups opposed to GMOs continue to lobby against such a hypothesis, claiming that GMOs serve no legitimate purpose in alleviating world hunger. They aim to convey the powerful truth that global hunger is actually caused by the likes of GMO companies like Monsanto who continue to gain increasing power over the world's food supply.

Data reveals that roughly 82 percent of the global seed market has intellectual property rights attached to it, meaning the seeds have been patented and are owned by one of a handful of AgroScience companies. Additionally, six companies , Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, and Dow , control about 75 percent of the global agrochemical market.

John Fagan, chief scientist of food certification company Cert-ID, believes that government hype over a perceived inability to control GM contamination is contrived. Noting his company's status as the leading certifier of non-GMO soy imported from Brazil, he emphasizes that managing ingredient supply chains is perfectly attainable. To claim otherwise, he says, is "nonsense".

Opposition against efforts to standardize GMOs continues to mount, yet many now realize that GMOs have so severely penetrated the food chain that it may be next to impossible to identify where they are hiding.

Sources for this story include

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/16/too-late-to-stop-gm

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/10/royal-society-r.html

http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=8825