Better to Rethink Mammogram

UPDATE: 1 December

The US Government has known since the 1960s and perhaps before that mammogram causes breast cancer, they just failed to tell you so an industry could be created on false findings.

Mammogram Radiation May Put Some Women at Risk
By Julie Steenhuysen
Reuters
CHICAGO

Low-dose radiation from mammograms and chest X-rays may increase the risk of breast cancer in young women who are already at high risk because of family history or genetic susceptibility, Dutch researchers said on Tuesday.
They said high-risk women, especially those under 30, may want to consider switching to an alternative screening method such as magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, which does not involve exposure to radiation.

"Our findings suggest that low-dose radiation increases breast cancer risk among these young, high-risk women, and a careful approach is warranted," said Marijke Jansen-van der Weide of the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands.

"I should recommend to be careful with radiation before 30 and to think about alternatives," Jansen-van der Weide, who presented her findings at the Radiological Society of North America meeting in Chicago, said in a telephone interview.

For the study, Jansen-van der Weide pooled data from six published studies that involved 12,000 high-risk women from Europe and the United States.

The team found that of the 8,500 women who had been exposed to radiation from chest X-rays or mammograms before the age of 20 or those who had had five or more exposures were 2.5 times more likely to develop breast cancer than other high-risk women who had not been exposed. read full story

UPDATE: 29 November

The Basic Problem With Screening Mammography
Reservoir of Silent Disease

The basic underlying problem with screening for breast cancer with mammography

is the "reservoir of silent disease". A series of autopsy studies show that indolent breast cancers are common in the population. These early cancers, called DCIS, are silent and rarely cause clinical disease. The most impressive study was from Denmark in 1987. The Danish group used specimen radiography on autopsy samples, which most closely approximates what screening mammography does, searching for and finding small clusters of calcifications. The Danish team found breast cancer in one out of five women, most of which was DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ).

One out of 5 women show breast cancer at autopsy, yet only 2 to 3 women per 10,000 die from breast cancer annually. (20% vs .03%) This indicates a disconnect between the huge reservoir of silent and clinically insignificant disease, and the much smaller numbers of invasive breast cancer presenting clinically.

DCIS in 18% of the Population

Current screening mammography technology detects >60,000 cases of DCIS annually, and this is only a small fraction of total DCIS which is present in one out of five women in the population. DCIS is ductal carcinoma in situ, an early form of cancer with good prognosis, a 98% five year survival with no treatment. I expect future refinements in xray technology to allow detection of even greater numbers of DCIS cases which have small calcifications. Ultimately the technology will catch up and replicate the Danish autopsy findings.

Do we really want to be detecting DCIS in one out of five women, and submit all these women to biopsy and lumpectomy? This is exactly what is advocated by the corporate-government-media sponsored mammography screening programs.

Just Stop Calling It Cancer

Recently, an NIH panel has asked pathologists to stop calling DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ). Here is the NIH Consensus statement: "Because of the noninvasive nature of DCIS, coupled with its favorable prognosis, strong consideration should be given to elimination of the use of the anxiety-producing term “carcinoma” from the description of DCIS. "

Less is Better

I beg to offer a differing opinion more in line with the US Preventive Task Force revisions. The detection of massive numbers of cases of DCIS results in harmful over-treatment of the population with little benefit in terms of reduced mortality from breast cancer. This opinion is echoed by Dr Laura Esserman in a recent JAMA article on the limitations, and disappointing benefits of screening mammography.

Cancer Prevention With Iodine Supplementation

The discovery of a large reservoir of silent disease is a wake-up call that something is dreadfully wrong. Rather than screen the population for small calcifications, called DCIS, generating massive numbers of lucrative procedures with biopsies and lumpectomies that have little impact on overall mortality, I suggest a better approach.

The evidence is overwhelming that Iodine deficiency causes breast cancer, and Iodine supplementation prevents and treats breast cancer. Iodine supplementation is a less expensive and more effective alternative to the corporate-government-media sponsored runaway train called mammogram screening.

Radiation Exposure Causes Breast Cancer

Iodine tablets are available from Natural Health News, just contact us to order.

************************

ORIGINAL POST 11/17

Larry King had a discussion last evening about the mammography controversy.  One of his guests was the TV OB-GYN Lisa Masterson who was very aggressive in her defense of this practice.

Listening to the other guests and Masterson discuss this topic it made it so very clear how graduate education seeks to make one believe that certain things are written in stone, and should never change.  And so once you've received your diploma and later a license if you are in a licensed profession, you will often go to great ends to defend what you were taught rather than look to see if there might be something else more effective.

As a person with an investigative mine I did look for all of the options and I will continue to support the science behind the dark side of mammogram that no one seems to want you to know.   And I will encourage thermography.

Mammogram accounts for finding 10% of all breast cancer cases. The woman herself discovers the other 90% of breast cancer cases.


Although the numbers are recorded separately from other breast cancers by the American Cancer Society, DCIS, Ductile Carcinoma in Situ accounts for 40% of all breast cancer detected by mammogram. DCIS is abnormal (sometimes called pre-cancerous) cells confined to the milk ducts of the breasts. (source:leaflady.org)

There are at least 45 articles here on Natural Health News addressing the issue of mammogram, and specifically the issue that it is known to increase breast cancer.

I think Dr. Susan Love is correct when she says the focus needs to be on prevention and finding out why so many younger women are getting breast cancer.

Of course there are many factors such as hormones, cell phones, fluoridated water, vaccines, environmental toxins, BPA, pharmaceutical drugs, cosmetics....and I am sure you can think of several others.

Instead of outrage, and of course knowing that Big Insurance will take this chance to limit screening as a cost cutting action, get more knowledgeable about the real facts on this issue.  And demand better methods of screening that detect sooner and do not increase your exposure to radiation that also can cause severe thyroid and heart problems.

There are some 22 articles regarding thermography, ultrasound and Breast Self Exam here and more here.

http://leaflady.org/mammography_risk1.html
http://www.leaflady.org/breast_thermography.htm
http://www.greenmuze.com/blogs/natural-notes/1631-not-pretty-in-pink.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091117/ap_on_bi_ge/us_med_mammogram_advice

Read more »

Posted in: ACS,breast self exam,Larry King,Lisa Masterson,mammogram,mammogram causes breast cancer,natural regression breast cancer,Sheryl Crow,thermography

Discord on Mammography Roils the ACS

Ralph Moss is an active educator regarding cancer issues.  I am pleased to see his newsletter this week and read his coments on issues surrounding mammography.

Of concern to me is the focus on the American Cancer Society's resistance to consider the impact on breast cancer rates attributed to mammogram screening.

As Moss writes, "According to a front-page article in the New York Times, the ACS intends to abandon its rigid advocacy of mammography screening of the age 40+ female population."

My concern is that elsewhere throughouit the world where breast cancer rates are lower, many attribute this to avoidance of radiological screening in the under 50-60 age group.

As you know from reading articles here at Natural Health News, Creating Health Institute has been a strong proponent for thermography and ultrasound for more than two decades.

Listen to our recent 2 part series "Pink May Not Be Protective"
Listen to Herbalyoda Says! on Blog Talk Radio
Read more of the many articles here (use blog search), at Natural Healing through Natural Health and at GreenMuze.

Read more »

Posted in: ACS,mammogram causes breast cancer,Ralph Moss

Breast Self-Exam is Important

I'm a bit taken by the latest propaganda from cancer and breast cancer groups, the media folks and others in the attempt to down play the importance of Breast Self Examination (BSE).

Of course along with the negative information given out lately about BSE there is always some need to tell you to you get more cumulative, breast-cancer-causing radiation exposure with your annual screening mammogram.

I was happy though to hear that a member of Congress, Debbie Wasserman Schultz from Florida, making a strong point in favor of BSE. She found her own cancer this way.

I urge you, and to young women especially, to read more here, learn about BSE, and include it in your personal care routines every month.

And remember Breast Thermography: For Earliest Detection and Intervention

Women Denied Truth On Breast Cancer Testing
By Sarah Boseley

Women must be told the full truth about breast screening, which may in some cases expose them to surgery and radiotherapy more damaging than the early cancerous tissue it detects, argues a controversial paper in the British Medical Journal today.

The paper says women are being patronised by being denied the proper information on which to make their decision to be screened or not. "The question of whether the benefits of screening outweigh the harms is essentially a value judgment. The problem is that, up to now, this judgment has been made by paternalistic agents of the state rather than by women," the authors say.

While deaths from breast cancer have dropped since screening began, there is no unambiguous data as to what part screening has played alongside the improvements in cancer treatment that took place over the same period.

The number of cancers has risen in recent years, but few realise that this is because screening is detecting them at a very early stage, when cells have just begun to undergo cancerous changes, say Hazel Thornton of Leicester University's department of epidemiology and public health, Adrian Edwards of the University of Wales department of primary care and Michael Baum, professor of surgery at University College, London, who helped set up the screening programme in 1987-8 but is now a consistent critic.

A fifth of the cancers now detected are ductal carcinoma in situ - where cells inside the milk ducts have begun to turn into cancer cells. This disease, the authors write, "has an uncertain natural course and those women who have heard of it find it hard to understand, as do many doctors; it is an early stage of disease that results in a 40% mastectomy rate". Women are faced with a difficult decision: whether to undergo surgery or wait and see whether cancer develops.

Women invited for NHS screening are not told, the paper says, that the US preventive task force found that 1,224 women aged 40 to 74 needed to be screened for 14 years to prevent one death from breast cancer.

"These are pertinent facts for a woman to know when attempting to decide how to manage her risk. The [US] researchers concluded that the age at which the trade-off between benefit and harm becomes acceptable 'is a subjective judgment that cannot be answered on scientific grounds'."

There are tensions between the drive to get as many women screened as possible and promoting real informed choice among women, say the authors. "Most women who are screened have neither suffered nor been educated about the reality of the uncertainties, harms and limitations of screening or the consequences of finding pathology of borderline importance."

Women want balanced information, they say. "Although some doctors may be concerned about admitting scientific uncertainty, honesty can enhance patients' respect for the profession.

A paper in the Lancet today says that women whose ductal carcinoma in situ is detected should undergo radiotherapy after the tissue is removed. Scientists from Cancer Research UK and the medical research council say trials have shown that radiotherapy reduces the chance of recurrence by 60%, while the cancer drug tamoxifen cuts it by only 10%.

SocietyGuardian.co.uk © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

Read more »

Posted in: breast cancer awareness,breast cancer detection,breast self exam,Debbie Wasserman Schultz,mammogram causes breast cancer,prevent breast cancer,thermography

PINK TIPS

I'll be posting health tips during this month as part of our Breast Health Awareness Campaign-

PINK TIP - Women who have poor diets, low in antioxidants and high in omega-6 fats (vegetable oils such as corn, safflower, sunflower, peanut, soybean and canola oils), are at much greater risk for breast cancer. Likewise, women with chronic diseases such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, colitis, and other autoimmune disorders are at substantially higher risk of cancer with yearly mammograms.

NB: Canola and Soy oils are used in Promise, Smart Balance, other margarines and prodcuts as "plant sterols". In most cases these oils are genetically modified which causes other health risks.

Read more »

Posted in: breast cancer awareness,mammogram causes breast cancer,natural health news,Pink Lid Parade

Breast Health Awareness Education and Advocacy Campaign

Something you won't learn from mainstream medicine

Continuing to advocate and educate during our Breast Health Awareness campaign


Iodine is extremely important for breast health and health in general. If you happen to live in northern latitudes it is much more important as well as if you live in US western states bordering with Canada. In this area low selenium levels in the soil and food impact thyroid health because selenium helps make iodine work.

Other risks include environmental exposure, especially to other halides like chlorine and fluoride (check your drinking water) as these two partners block iodine from doing its job to feed your thyroid gland.

One well known Canadian physician, Donald Derry MD, lost his license because he was curing breast cancer without chemo and radiation, but using natural methods including iodine.

Here another MD, well respected for his opinion on iodine, explains further -

Breast Health Iodine and Other Nutrients Play a Crucial Role
By Jorge D. Flechas M.D., M.P.H.
Of all the cancers women develop, 29 percent are breast cancer. By age 25, 1 in 19,608 women will develop breast cancer. By age 50, this number changes to a shocking 1 in 50 and by age 75 an even more dismal statistic: 1 in 11. In a total lifetime, one woman in 8 will develop breast cancer.

In January 2005, cancer became the leading cause of death in the United States. Each year about 211,000 cases of breast cancer are diagnosed in the USA. The number of new breast cancer cases increased from 82 per 100,000 women in 1973 to 195 per 100,000 women in 2000. The main cause of death prior to that was heart disease. The estimated death rate from breast cancer is 40,600: 40,200 females and 400 males.

Much is said in the public media about a genetic link with this cancer. Yet, genetics play only a small role in the development of breast cancer — less than 7 percent. In the September 8, 2006 issue of USA TODAY one of the lead articles was on Killer Cancer Genes ID’d. It mentioned that 122 breast cancer-causing genes have been identified. The scientist quoted in the article mentioned that we may not be able to tackle all the genes in a tumor but that we may have to work on silencing the cancer-causing genes. Doctors in the future may find that silencing even one of these genes could be enough to keep a tumor in check or kill it. They mention in the article that treatments could be a decade or more to develop.

Yet, the technology for tomorrow is here today in the supplements we have at our disposal. For example, methylation of DNA and gene silencing are affected by nutrition. Many articles exist on silencing genes and how the use of methyl-folic acid, methyl-vitamin B12, selenium, trimethylglycine powder and zinc help to methylate the DNA.

Breast Cancer Risk Factors
Many breast cancer risk factors have been identified such as a high-fat diet, low-fiber diet, tobacco use, and alcohol use. These risk factors can be modified by an individual. There are other factors that are mostly out of a woman’s control. The longer a woman is exposed to estrogen in her body, for example, the higher her risk. This would include early age at menarche, late age at menopause, long-term use of birth control pills and nulliparity (never having given birth). There seems to be a group of women whose use of birth control pills for more that 4 years puts them at higher risk before age 45. Women who take thyroid hormone are also at higher risk for developing breast cancer.1 Conversely, a lower risk for breast cancer is seen in women who are late in age at menarche, early age at menopause, and early age at first pregnancy.

Fibrocystic Breasts
In the New England Journal of Medicine, July 22, 2005 issue, there was a lead article showing that benign breast changes in women are associated with breast cancer. Benign breast changes is a new term for what we have called fibrocystic breast disease (FBD) in the past. FBD is currently affecting about 84 percent of the female population in North America.2 FBD is a misnomer because the medical problem is not a disease in the strictest sense. It is more a problem of cyclic breast pain that is associated with the menstrual cycle. In some patients the breast pain is seen daily, regardless of their menstrual cycle. Tissue biopsy for these benign breast changes that do grow larger are called proliferative lesions and if they do not grow they are called non-proliferative lesions.

Non-proliferative lesions (non-growers) can include cyst of the breast, radial scars, apocrine cells which generally make up sweat glands—the breasts are classified as a modified sweat gland—fibroadenoma, and hyperplastic cells that are normal in appearance under the microscope but are more numerous than usual. Proliferative lesions with normal cells are called sclerosing adenosis, which have a slightly increased risk (1.5 to 2 times). There are proliferative lesions with abnormal or atypical cells that are called hyperplasia—high degree with a moderate increased risk of breast cancer of (4 to 5 times), lobular neoplasia and intraductal papilloma. As a rule in medicine, the more abnormal cells look under the microscope, i.e., the more atypical the cells look, the higher the risk of cancer being present.

Iodine’s Supportive Role
Back in the early 1990s it was noted that patients who had iodine deficiency had associated benign breast changes. By giving these patient’s iodine the breast changes that were present would regress.2 It had been noticed a few years earlier that in animal studies, where the animal had been denied access to iodine, the animals developed benign breast changes like humans.3-5 In animal studies, researchers have been able to produce breast cancer in animals by depriving them of iodine.4

In my own personal medical practice I have literally seen the regression of cysts, nodules, scar tissue, and painful breast with the use of 50 mg of Iodoral® per day for 2-3 years. The breast pain goes away in just a few weeks, but the cyst/cysts, scar tissue and breast nodules take up to 2 to 3 years to resolve. On mammograms I have seen a 50 to 80 percent reduction in the scar tissue present in the breast. Studies are needed to show via biopsy that the many different types of FBD will regress with iodine supplementation.

Before starting on iodine therapy, a patient should have their thyroid hormone values investigated. A doctor should check the size of the thyroid for enlargement and or nodules. An iodine-loading test should also be done prior to starting iodine therapy to establish the need for iodine therapy. In this test the patient is given 50 mg of iodine and a 24-hour urine test is then collected. The iodine level in the urine is measured. The more saturated the body is with iodine the higher the level of iodine excreted. The more saturated the body is, the less breast abnormalities have been seen. The test is repeated at 3 months to document increasing saturation. If saturation is not occurring then further investigation is called for to find out why saturation isn’t happening.

Additional Support
Several other nutrients/hormones are also important to breast health and can be used in conjunction with Iodoral. DIM (diindolylmethane), the nutrient derived from cruciferous vegetables, for example, is influential in helping the body metabolize estrogen. DIM has been shown to change the way estrogen is metabolized. Metabolism of the natural estrogen estradiol occurs via one of two pathways. The tumor enhancer metabolic pathway, 16 alpha-hydroxylation, is elevated in patients with breast and endometrial cancer and in those at increased risk of such cancers. This increased 16 alpha-hydroxylation activity has been shown to precede clinical evidence of cancer, and it represents a significant risk factor for developing estrogen-dependent tumors.

Conversely, when estrogen veers away from the 16-alpha pathway and takes another route out of the body, the incidence of cancer decreases. This alternate route, which acts as a tumor suppressor metabolic pathway, is called 2-hydroxylation, a process that transforms estrogen into 2-hydroxyestrone (20HEI), an antiestrogen. Healthy individuals not at risk for breast or endometrial cancer bypass the 16-alpha route and instead metabolize estrogen through this preferable pathway. DIM signals the body to metabolize estrogen via the tumor suppressor 2-hydroxylation pathway.

In addition to this more well known estrogen-related mechanism of action of DIM, recent research also indicates that DIM can prevent angiogenesis, the process by which new blood vessels develop. Cancer cells use the development of new blood vessels to spread throughout the body. In mice, DIM inhibited angiogenesis by up to 76 percent.6 In addition, in mice implanted with human breast cancer cells, tumor growth was inhibited by 64 percent in animals treated with DIM.6

Another means of supporting breast health is by using natural progesterone cream. A syndrome known as Estrogen Dominance is prevalent in women, especially postmenopausal women. According to progesterone researcher Dr. John Lee, estrogen unopposed by progesterone results in a number of adverse effects including painful breasts, fibrocystic breast disease, and breast cancer.

Estrogen dominance usually occurs at menopause, when progesterone production falls to approximately 1 percent of its pre-menopausal level. At this time, the production of estrogen falls to about 50 percent of its pre-menopausal levels. This dramatically alters the estrogen: progesterone ratio, causing estrogen to become toxic without progesterone to oppose it. As a result, the risks for breast and uterine cancer and fibrocystic breast disease increase.7 Therefore, progesterone also has a crucial role to play in maintaining breast health.

Vitamin D is another breast-supportive nutrient. Women who have mutations in their vitamin D receptor gene are nearly twice as likely to develop breast cancer compared to women who do not have the mutation. The vitamin D receptor gene controls the action of vitamin D in the body. Scientists have found that Caucasian women with certain versions of this gene not only have an increased risk of breast cancer but also may suffer from a more aggressive form of the disease if it spreads. The results suggest that vitamin D does indeed play a part in protecting the body against breast cancer, as past studies indicate.

Five to ten percent of breast cancer cases are due to already established gene mutations such as BRCA1. However, the underlying cause of breast cancer in women who do not have this gene and have no family history of the disease has remained a mystery. The study suggests that the mutation in the Vitamin D receptor gene may have a role to play in disease development in women who would not ordinarily be expected to develop the disease.8

References
1. Ghandrakant C, Kapdim MD, Wolfe JN. Breast Cancer. Relationship to Thyroid Supplements for Hypothyroidism. JAMA. 1976; 238:1124.

2. Ghent WR, Eskin BA, Low DA, et al. Iodine Replacement in Fibrocystic Disease of the Breast. Can J Surg. 1993; 36:453-460.

3. Eskin BA, Bartuska DG, Dunn MRea. Mammary Gland Dysplasia in Iodine Deficiency. JAMA. 1967; 200:115-119.

4. Eskin BA. Iodine Metabolism and Breast Cancer. Trans New York Acad of Sciences. 1970; 32:911-947.

5. Eskin BA. Iodine and Mammary Cancer. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1977; 91:293-304.

6. Chang X, Tou JC, Hong C, Kim HA, Riby JE, Firestone GL, Bjeldanes LF. 3,3’-Diindolylmethane inhibits angiogenesis and the growth of transplantable human breast carcinoma in athymic mice. Carcinogenesis. 2005 Apr;26(4):771-8.

7. Lee, John R., What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Menopause. Warner Books, May, 1996.

8. Guy M, Lowe LC, Bretherton-Watt D, Mansi JL, Peckitt C, Bliss J, Wilson RG, Thomas V, Colston KW. Vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms and breast cancer risk. Clin Cancer Res. 2004 Aug 15;10(16):5472-81.

Read more »

Posted in: breast health,iodine,Jorge D. Flechas M.D.,mammogram causes breast cancer,mammorgram suppresses thyroid,natural health news,screening mammogram and heart disease

Pink Lids Marching

Now that we are once again in the Pink Pandemonium I would like to comment on a recent interview aired from Portland OR about the fact that the woman interviewed said there is no cure for breast cancer.

Well there is cure, and there is also prevention. All of this has been on the record for decades, and little attention is given to it because of the influence of the breast cancer industry.

How about reporting on the well known fact that mammogram promotes breast cancer and it increases the incidence when you promote the "Annual Screening Mammogram" to women who are 40 years old.

Why not report on Thermography, a non-carcinogenic screening system that detects earlier and even identifies very minute real tumours. Mammogram, on the other hand, can't detect tumours until they are about 8 years old. And if you recall, the problem of reading the x-ray was seriously lacking, leading to many false findings, so another machine was developed to re-read your x-ray (digital mammography).

Why not report on the damaging effects of chemo and radiation and the miserable statistics proving that chemo really cures about 1-2% of people.

The politics of this is that there won't be a cure until the "race racket" stops subsidizing paychecks for researchers. Maybe it should subsidize the families of women who die from breast cancer or provide accountability to women who have been conditioned to believe there will be a cure.

AP should start doing some real investigative coverage of this issue. I've done the research and I've been educating women for several decades on these topics.

I direct a 501c3 organization and I can't get General Mills/Kraft to donate to it for our educational efforts, like this blog for example, as they give only to Komen. Komen refuses to communicate with my office.

Maybe there is a hidden agenda, or more likely a political issue, that keeps everyday people in the dark, at the cost of many lives.

TV News Harmful to Health
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2009/09/tv-health-news-harmful-to-health.html

John Gofman, PhD, MD
"His 1985 book X-rays: Health Effects of Common Exams, co-written with Egan O'Connor, stated that 75 percent of cancer cases are caused by medical radiation, including X-rays, mammograms and CT scans."

Read more »

Posted in: breast cancer awareness,mammogram causes breast cancer,natural health news,Pink Lid Parade,screening mammogram and heart disease

Question Authority and Breast Screening

Since 2005 I have posted 45 articles on Natural Health News regarding the risks and hazards of mammogram.

For more than 20 years I have been questioning mammogram and educating people about the known facts that mammogram does not statistically improve discovery, treatment and or cure of breast cancer, and in deed, increases the incidence.

All of this has been known for more than 50 years.

Just this week I sent a message to the Inland NW contingent of the Komen Foundation who are gearing up for another "Race for the Cure". My message was the same: "Why aren't you providing women with the facts about mammogram?"

I also asked why there is no information about thermography, a better screening test with earlier detection and no risk of increasing rates of breast cancer.

You can get the information you need from our non-profit organization with a donation. We do not get any greatly needed donations from pink lids.

Even the local media outlets have refused my efforts over many years, although more then five years ago, one did give some coverage to my concerns.

Women who are most at risk of developing breast cancer deserve better.

CHI's Healthy Handout on Risks of Mammography is available with a donation.

Breast Cancer: To Screen Or Not To Screen?

ScienceDaily (2009-04-04) -- Women are often told that mammography saves lives. But rarely is the question asked, "how often?" Researchers set out to examine how often this life-saving event occurs. ... > read full article

Read more »

Posted in: 2009,breast cancer awareness,mammogram,mammogram causes breast cancer,natural health news,natural news,prevent breast cancer,thermography,women's health

Women's Health Month and Propaganda

During March our organization sponsors a class for women called "What Your Doctor Won't Tell You".

This has always been very popular and we educate more women every year on this facts of the breast cancer scam and other very specific issues for women's health.

The major reason we have sponsored this program is to help women learn how to be better advocates for their health and not fall prey to substandard health care.

We also do not wish for you to be subjected to forced mammogram, which has been proposed under universal health care. You have rights, you need to be informed, and you need choices.

One of the "Healthy Handouts" we publish is a fact sheet on mammography. It is very important to understand why mammogram is a factor in the increased rates of breast cancer, as is a cell phone, WIFI, and Yoplait.

You can get a copy of this Healthy Handout by making a donation to our parent organization, Creating Health Institute, at PayPal.

In the interim we hope you will consider more about thermography.

We hope too that you will visit our colleague at Thermomed, especially good if you are located in the SoCal area.

Women need to take back the night on their own health and not fall prey to the purveyors of radiation, chemo, and other cancer promoting modalities.

Read more »

Posted in: 2009,awareness,mammogram causes breast cancer,natural health news,prevent breast cancer,thermography,Thermomed,women's health

Doctors zapping patients with too much radiation

Please recall that exposure to radiation is cumulative and that it is a known cause of cancer. For women who are propagandized to comply with annual mammogram this is an extremely important issue to consider. The annual mammogram is a major component of rising breast cancer rates. Dental and chiropractic x-rays are also a factor as is the airport screening x-ray.
See other articles here at Natural Health News on the risks of screening mammogram.

A new study says that the average American is exposed to six times more radiation from medical tests than in the early 1980s, prompting warnings that physicians may be upping patients' cancer risk by giving them unnecessary exams.

A study by The National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) shows that the average American's overall radiation exposure jumped from 3.6 millisieverts (mSv) to 6.2 mSv per year -- almost entirely a result of radiation-based medical tests. These tests, once responsible for only 15 percent of Americans' exposure to radiation, now account for nearly 50 percent. In contrast, there was almost no change in so-called background radiation, which naturally emanates from soil, rocks and other environmental substances.

The increase in medical radiation exposure (from 0.53 mSv to 3.0 mSv) stemmed primarily from a rise in the use of computer tomography (CT) scans (which use x-rays to create cross sectional images of inside the body to spot tumors, clogged arteries, among other things), and nuclear imaging tests, which involve injecting radioactive chemicals into the bloodstream that can be picked up by special instruments and used to create images of the body's inner structures.

The advantage of these tests is that they are generally better for diagnosing conditions than older technologies [such as standard x-rays, which expose patients to much less radiation], says Arl Van Moore, president of the American College of Radiology. "But we are concerned about the overuse of radiation through self-referral," or doctors ordering exams that can be done in their own offices for their own financial benefit, he says.

Need medical tests and worried about radiation exposure? Walter Huda, a medical physicist at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, advises that you press your doc on why he or she has ordered the exams – and ask whether the clinic is certified by the American College of Radiology to perform the tests.

One tidbit of good news from the report, says physicist David Schauer, NCRP's executive director: ***occupational exposure has been sliced in half during the same period. The major reason: employers have taken steps to protect them, such as installing lead-coated pipes in nuclear plants to prevent the escape of harmful radiation.
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=are-doctors-zapping-patients-with-t-2009-03-05

*** As for occupational exposure, do not overlook the impact of the ever increasing EMF-ELF ElectroSmog issues related to DTV, WIFI and cell/mobile use are exposure. In one city I lived in the Public Works Department requires anyone climbing the water towers there to wear a radiation detection badge (like radiologists and techs use in health care) to track exposure. Yes, non-ionizing radiation is harmful too.

Read more »

Posted in: 2009,airport x-ray,Cancer,CT scans,mammogram causes breast cancer,natural health news,natural news,nuclear imaging,radiation,x-ray

Radiation of any kind increases cancer risk

UPDATE: 19 January, 2009 -More mammography madness, women's health really not a priority - Thermography needs to become the treatment of choice and women should not be subjected to high risk of harm or breast cancer (along with heart and thyroid damage from the screening). This is why for more than a decade we have been saying THINK Before You Pink! Women's Health Month is March, and that is not too far away.

FDA Warns of Potential of Serious Side Effects with Topical Numbing Agents
By Todd Neale, Staff Writer, MedPage Today, Published: January 16, 2009

ROCKVILLE, Md., Jan. 16 -- The FDA has issued a second warning about the potential dangers of using topical anesthetics for relieving pain from medical tests and conditions.

The latest advisory was prompted by a report last summer on the results of a randomized trial evaluating the use of lidocaine for the pain and discomfort of mammography. (See: Pre-Mammography Painkiller May Ease the Pinch)

The researchers found that women using lidocaine -- which was spread over the breasts and chest wall and covered with plastic wrap for a total absorption time of about 45 minutes -- reported significantly less discomfort than those using acetaminophen, ibuprofen, or placebo.

"Although no serious side effects were reported in this study," the FDA warning read, "it was not large enough to evaluate whether uncommon but serious reactions could occur with this use.

"FDA remains concerned about the potential for topical anesthetics to cause serious and life-threatening adverse effects when applied to a large area of skin or when the area of application is covered," the advisory read.

The agency said that some of the topical medication can pass into the blood stream upon application.

Under certain circumstances -- if a large area of skin is covered, the drug is applied to broken skin, or skin temperature increases -- the amount of medication entering the blood stream may be toxic, causing irregular heartbeat, seizures, breathing difficulties, coma, and death, the agency said.

This latest warning repeats the concerns of an advisory issued in February 2007 following the deaths of two women, ages 22 and 25, who applied topical anesthetics to their legs and covered them in plastic wrap to numb the anticipated pain of laser hair removal.

Both women had seizures, fell into a coma, and subsequently died because of the drugs' toxic effects.

The drugs involved were lidocaine and tetracaine.

The FDA advised physicians to determine whether a topical anesthetic would create the necessary pain relief when considering its use for any purpose and whether an alternate treatment would be as effective.

If a topical anesthetic is determined to be the best choice, the agency recommended using the lowest amounts possible, applying the medications as sparingly as possible, avoiding broken or irritated skin, and being aware that wrapping or applying heat to the areas treated with the medications can increase the risk of serious side effects.

and

Breast Imaging Premedication to Reduce Discomfort during Screening Mammography1
Colleen K. Lambertz, MSN, MBA, FNP, Christopher J. Johnson, MPH, Paul G. Montgomery, MD, and James R. Maxwell, MD

1 From the St Luke's Mountain States Tumor Institute (C.K.L., P.G.M.), 100 E Idaho St, Boise, ID 83712; Cancer Data Registry of Idaho, Boise, Idaho (C.J.J.); and St Luke's Regional Medical Center, Boise, Idaho (J.R.M.). Received August 27, 2007; revision requested November 1; final revision received November 29; accepted January 24, 2008; final revision accepted March 4. Supported by the Mountain States Tumor Medical Research Institute grant. Address correspondence to C.K.L. (e-mail: lambertc{at}slrmc.org).

Purpose: To test the hypothesis that premedication with acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and/or 4% lidocaine gel would decrease discomfort and improve satisfaction with screening mammography in women who expect a higher level of discomfort.

Materials and Methods: In this HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board–approved, prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 418 women aged 32–89 years who expected substantial discomfort with screening mammography were randomly divided to receive premedication with acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and/or 4% lidocaine gel. Subjects provided informed written consent. The primary outcome was discomfort. Secondary outcomes were satisfaction and plans for future mammography on the basis of discomfort. Subjects completed structured questionnaires with visual analog scales to measure discomfort and satisfaction. A generalized linear mixed-models framework was used to assess the effect of medications on discomfort during mammography, and satisfaction with technologist and machine combinations was included as a random effect. The "plans for mammography next year" outcome was modeled by using a binary distribution and logit link function.

Results: Discomfort was significantly lower in the lidocaine gel group (P = .01). Satisfaction was significantly negatively correlated with discomfort (P < .001). Satisfaction and whether or not the subject had delayed her mammography because of fear of discomfort had significant effects on plans to undergo mammography next year (P < .001 for both). There were significant differences in discomfort between different combinations of technologists and machines.

Conclusion: Premedication with 4% lidocaine gel significantly reduced discomfort during screening mammography, and reduced discomfort may improve the likelihood of future mammographic screening and early detection of breast cancer.
(Radiology 2008;248:765-772.)© RSNA, 2008

Originally posted 9/5/08, Our new paper is linked with facts you do want to know.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each year, about 800,000 women around the world are diagnosed with early breast cancer.

It amazes me that there is so much closed minded "research" aiming at co-opting women to believe that mammogram or other radiation exposure is good for them to detect cancer earlier and better.

The fact is that tumours picked up on mammogram are at least 8-10 years old. If you are 40 and get a mammogram (x-ray) every year, the risk of your getting cancer rises exponentially. Why aren't you being told this?

Other less intrusive and decidedly less risky diagnostic techniques have been around for a long time. Ultrasound is one, but that still relies on EMF or radio waves, but it is a far sight safer than X-RAY.

Another health impact that seems to be overlooked in this allegedly novel approach is that radioactive "tracers" or dyes are in use. Often there is no pre-test screening to determine if you have an allergy to the substance. These allergies may elicit anaphylactic reactions and death. Other considerations is the impact of radioactive substances on your endocrine system, especially your thyroid gland.

Mammography does not save or extend lives and is not a justifiable practice. So how much money do insurance companies and consumers pay out for radiation treatment of breast cancer? This practice results in only a less than 1% chance of improving survival. Is this worth such a large investment when so many medical claims are denied and there is virtually zero coverage of preventive practices? from the Lancet 2000; 355: 129-134.

and versus MBI
One drawback of MBI: It uses about 8 to 10 times the radiation of mammograms, a dose that engineers like Hruska are trying to lower with newer technology. Other medical centers also are testing MBI.

and they are again experimenting with an unproven technology that may be exciting to the researchers, but harmful to your health as there are no long term studies. Once again the lab rats are lining up to be experimented on, and paying to do so.

And by the way, don't overlook the fact that it is you that become the lab rat in this an in many other mainstream medical situations.

Thermography is really your better bet. Stand up for your health and demand this test.

Study: New way to spot breast cancer shows promise
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE, AP Medical Writer
Wed Sep 3, 2008

A radioactive tracer that "lights up" cancer hiding inside dense breasts showed promise in its first big test against mammograms, revealing more tumors and giving fewer false alarms, doctors reported Wednesday.

The experimental method — molecular breast imaging, or MBI — would not replace mammograms for women at average risk of the disease.

But it might become an additional tool for higher risk women with a lot of dense tissue that makes tumors hard to spot on mammograms, and it could be done at less cost than an MRI, or magnetic resonance imaging. About one-fourth of women 40 and older have dense breasts.

"MBI is a promising technology" that is already in advanced testing, said Carrie Hruska, a biomedical engineer at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which has been working on it for six years.

She gave results in a telephone news briefing Wednesday and will present them later this week at an American Society of Clinical Oncology conference in Washington, D.C.

Mammograms — a type of X-ray — are the chief way now to check for breast cancer. MBI uses radiation, too, but in a different way. Women are given an intravenous dose of a short-acting tracer that is absorbed more by abnormal cells than healthy ones. Special cameras collect the "glow" these cells give off, and doctors look at the picture to spot tumors.

Researchers tried both methods, on 940 women who had dense breasts and a high risk of cancer because of family history, bad genes or other reasons.

Thirteen tumors were found in 12 women — eight by MBI alone, one by mammography alone, two by both methods and two by neither. (The two missed cancers were found on subsequent annual mammograms, physical exams or other imaging tests.)

Looked at another way, MBI found 10 out of 13 tumors, missing three; mammograms detected three out of 13 tumors and missed 10. Using both methods, 11 out of 13 tumors would have been detected.

"These images are quite striking. You can see how the cancers would be hidden on the mammograms," Hruska said.

Mammograms gave false alarms — led doctors to conclude that cancer was present when it was not — in about 9 percent of patients, compared to only 7 percent for MBI. The MBI tests led to more biopsies than mammograms did, but they more often revealed cancer.

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb, which makes the imaging agent used in the study, paid for the work.

The next test will be to see how MBI stacks up against MRI. The federal government is paying for a new study Mayo is leading that compares the two in 120 high-risk women with dense breasts.

MRI is often used now for women with dense breasts, but it gives many false alarms that lead to unnecessary biopsies. Doctors hope MBI will prove more accurate and cost less — under $500 versus more than $1,000 for an MRI.

"We all know that mammography is, in and of itself, an imperfect tool, and we clearly need to do better in the future," said Dr. Eric Winer of the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, a spokesman for the oncology group. "It is fair to say that MRI will not solve all problems either."

One drawback of MBI: It uses about 8 to 10 times the radiation of mammograms, a dose that engineers like Hruska are trying to lower with newer technology. Other medical centers also are testing MBI.

"We're just beginning to see what this technology can do," she said.
___

On the Net:
Cancer conference: http://www.asco.org and http://www.cancer.net
Mayo Clinic: http://tinyurl.com/5rrwx3
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.

Related articles

Read more »

Posted in: independent health news,mammogram,mammogram causes breast cancer,mammogram hazards,natural health expert,natural health news,radiation,thermography