American Cancer Society admits mammograms and cancer screenings are over-hyped

(NaturalNews) Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, recently participated in an interview with the New York Times concerning a Journal of the American Medical Association analysis of breast and prostate cancer screening. The study questioned the legitimacy of such screenings in saving lives, a notion confirmed by Dr. Brawley as legitimate.

Adding that the supposed benefits of screening have been "exaggerated", Dr. Brawley's comments have fueled a firestorm of controversy since they fly in the face of what the organization has been saying and promoting for years.

Cancer screenings essentially have no benefit
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) cancer screenings are considered by many to be ineffective in identifying legitimate cancers and in reducing prostate cancer deaths. Eric Larson, a physician serving as executive director of the Group Health Center for Health Studies in Seattle, is one such person.

Because there has been no demonstrated benefit to screenings (and they often lead to needless procedures and complications), Mr. Larson continually refuses to receive annual PSA cancer screenings until any alleged benefit can be proven scientifically. Since PSA screenings first began, the number of prostate cancer diagnoses have increased while advanced and late-stage cancers have remained roughly the same.

Breast cancer screenings, primarily in the form of mammography, have a similar track record of failure. The journal report notes that since screenings began, there has been a 40 percent increase in diagnoses and a near doubling of early-stage cancers with only a 10 percent decrease in late-stage cancers that spread throughout the body.

Screenings reveal far more incidences of both breast and prostate cancers but do virtually nothing to curb their promulgation and the outcome that ensues. Researchers note that, if screenings lived up to the promises made about them, late-stage cancers that were formerly incurable because they were found too late would now be discovered earlier when they could be cured. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.


Screenings fail to properly identify cancers resulting in unnecessary treatment

While some still see screening as essential and beneficial, despite evidence to the contrary, others recognize the potential dangers of screening.

Dr. Laura Esserman of the University of California, San Francisco, and Dr. Ian Thompson of the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, both believe that prostate and breast cancer screenings pose inherent problems that people must be aware of before getting them.

Cancer screenings often identify cancers that should not be identified due to the fact that, if left alone, they would never spread or cause harm. Dormant cancers that will never spread in the body are often pinpointed by screenings and treated as though they are harmful. Detection of these innocuous cancers can be attributed to the tremendous increase in diagnoses over the years.

Screenings are wholly unable to differentiate between innocuous and deadly cancers. Harmless cancers are often identified and aggressively treated. Malignant cancers are often missed or discovered too late, proving the point that screenings are largely useless.

Cancer industry generally refuses to admit a problem exists

What astounds concerned doctors and researchers is the fact that analysis into how to properly differentiate between malignant and benign cancers when screening has never been performed and does not seem to be a priority for the cancer industry. Screenings are pushed despite their inability to properly diagnose with no effort being made to develop useful screening methods.

Objection to "overdiagnosis" using flawed screening methods is considered a major faux pas in mainstream cancer circles. Regardless of documented evidence citing flawed methodology, many in the industry refuse to accept that the existing screening procedure is both flawed and dangerous.

Mammography can actually cause cancer

Aside from unneeded treatments that may result from improper diagnoses, women screened for breast cancer using mammography undergo tremendous exposure to ionizing radiation every time they are screened. Exposure to this radiation is often implicated in causing the very malignant cancers that are meant to be detected. Continual exposure to excessive levels of radiation due to receiving annual mammograms greatly increases a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.

Mammograms have about a 70 percent failure rate, routinely detecting non-existent tumors. Consequently, many women undergo invasive biopsies needlessly.

Thermography preferable to mammography

Women with a continued interest in breast cancer screening would do well to choose thermography rather than mammography. Thermography utilizes digital infrared imaging, a safe detection method that analyzes body heat levels in and around the breasts. By analyzing blood vessel circulation and metabolic changes that typically accompany the onset of tumorous growths, thermography is arguably the most effective, accurate, and safest breast cancer detection method.

A healthy, cancer-preventative diet is the best way to prevent the onset of malignant cancers. Keeping the body in an alkaline state by feeding it a diet rich in natural foods will safeguard the body from becoming an environment in which cancer can thrive and replicate.

Vitamin D, curcumin, chaparral, garlic, and aloe vera are a few of the many beneficial nutrients that will serve the body well in preventing cancer. Raw brazil nuts, rich in selenium, and saw palmetto are two superb nutrients for maintaining a healthy prostate.

Sources for this story include

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/h...

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/CancerPrev...

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Prosta...

http://www.naturalnews.com/010886_c...

http://www.breastthermography.com/

http://www.naturalnews.com/027525_mammograms_cancer_screenings.html

One in Three Cancers Diagnosed with Free Mammogram Screening Is an "Overdiagnosis"

(NaturalNews) In countries with public breast cancer screening programs, one in every three diagnosed with invasive breast cancers would never have produced symptoms in a patient before she died of other causes, a new study has revealed.

"Screening for cancer may lead to earlier detection of lethal cancers but also detects harmless ones that will not cause death or symptoms," wrote the researchers, from the Nordic Cochrane Center in Denmark, in the British Medical Journal.

"The detection of such cancers, which would not have been identified clinically in someone's remaining lifetime, is called overdiagnosis and can only be harmful to those who experience it."

Researchers analyzed breast cancer diagnosis rates among both screened unscreened women in Australia, Canada, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom for at least seven years before and after the public breast cancer screening programs in those countries began. As expected, they found that breast cancer diagnosis rates in every country increased in conjunction with the introduction of screening programs. Breast cancer rates among older women did not undergo a corresponding decrease, however – suggesting that rather than detecting cancers earlier, screening was merely detecting cancers that would otherwise never have produced a detectable effect on a woman's life.

When all forms of breast cancer were taken into account, the rate of overdiagnosis after public screening programs were introduced ranged from a low of 46 percent (in Sweden) to a high of 59 percent (in Canada), with an average overdiagnosis rate of 52 percent. When only invasive breast cancers were taken into account – cancers that have spread beyond the mammary tissue and are more likely to be lethal, and thus more likely to be treated aggressively – the average rate of overdiagnosis was still 35 percent, or more than one in three.

This was the second time that this research team had found evidence that overdiagnosis is a serious consequence of public screening programs.

"[The study] means that screening for cancer, in this case breast cancer, is a much closer call than has been previously advertised," wrote Gilbert Welch of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy in an accompanying editorial. "It has the opportunity to help some women but it also has the consequence of leading others to be treated needlessly for cancer and that's not a trivial thing."

Because no tests exist that can predict how aggressive or dangerous a cancer will be, all women diagnosed with breast cancer are referred to similar treatment programs, many of which – such as chemotherapy, radiation and breast surgery – carry serious and even dangerous side effects.

Screening advocates insisted that the benefits of screening still outweigh the risks of overdiagnosis.

"Without screening, women would face the prospect of having to wait for a visible symptom of cancer, such as a lump, to become apparent before treatment could start," said Emma Pennery of Breast Cancer Care.

Sarah Cant of Breakthrough Breast Cancer agreed, but said that women should be given clear information about screening in order to make informed decisions.

Welch also believes that better information is essential, saying that doctors should show women a simple statistical table quantifying the relative risks and benefits of screening for them, based on their own risk profile.

"Mammography undoubtedly helps some women but hurts others," he said. "No right answer exists, instead it is a personal choice."

Researchers do not know how many lives are saved for every case of overdiagnosis, with estimates ranging between one in two and one in 10.

Welch noted, however, that "the amount of overdiagnosis is a function of the mammographer's threshold to recommend biopsy."

"The time has come for a randomized controlled trial to test higher thresholds, such as only recommending biopsy for breast masses larger than a certain size," he wrote.

Sources for this story include: news.bbc.co.uk; www.cancerpage.com ; www.tehrantimes.com; www.oncologyupdate.com.

http://www.naturalnews.com/027524_mammogram_overdiagnosis.html

The cancer industry needs mammograms to generate repeat business

(NaturalNews) Any time you threaten to take away repeat customer from the businesses that make up the cancer industry, you're in for a political fight. After the United States Preventive Services Task Force released new recommendations advising against mammograms for women under 50 (and recommending only bi-annual screenings after that), the cancer industry went berserk.

Mammograms, you see, are the bread and butter of the for-profit cancer industry. They serve two very important purposes:

Purpose #1: RECRUIT patients. Mammograms are a clever tool for recruiting patients into a highly-profitable regimen of chemotherapy drugs, radiation and surgery that, nine times out of ten, isn't even medically justified. How's that? Because the detection technology behind mammograms is now so advanced it can detect tiny tumors present in virtually everyone, whether they're dangerous or not. This has lead to a huge increase in "false positives" and dangerous over-treatment of cancers that would be better off just left alone (or treated with anti-cancer nutrients and superfoods).

But mammograms are a great way to scare women into unnecessary cancer treatments. So they're pure genius when it comes to recruiting new patients using the fear tactics the cancer industry has come to rely on.

Purpose #2: CAUSE more cancer. The second purpose of mammograms is to cause cancer by exposing women's breasts (and heart tissues) to ionizing radiation. When subjected to repeated exposure of such radiation, the human body will undergo DNA mutations and inevitably be afflicted with cancer. This is how the cancer industry can make predictions like "one out of every three women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime..." -- they know this to be true because they are the ones causing the cancer in the first place!

If you took your car to a mechanic to have the oil changed, and that mechanic poured corrosive bits of metal into your car's engine that caused long-term engine damage, would you continue to take your car to that same mechanic year after year? And if so, would you PAY that mechanic to repair the damage he actually caused?

That's what women are essentially doing when they receive mammograms. Each year, as they dutifully get their mammograms, they are exposing themselves to the very kind of radiation that causes cancer, practically guaranteeing they will eventually be diagnosed with cancer. (At which point the oncologist will say something like, "See? Good thing we do these mammograms every year, or we wouldn't have caught this tumor!")

The false cancer slogan that "early detection saves lives" would be more accurately modified to read: Repeated exposure to radiation causes cancer.


More destructive than X-raying your feet!

Did you know that in the 1940's, shoe stores used to have their own X-ray machines? Customers would try on a shoe, stick their foot in the X-ray fluoroscope machine, and see on the viewing screen how their bones fit in the shoes.

It seemed like a really neat idea, and it sold a lot of shoes. But at the same time, it also dosed customers' feet with an astonishing 20 - 100+ rems per minute of radiation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-f...). As you might suspect, a lot of these shoe store customers developed very serious health problems with their feet, including DNA mutations and cancerous lesions.

Even long after the radiation risk of such shoe-fitting machines was known to be extremely harmful, doctors stayed silent about it. The machines were never banned, either... they were quietly phased out in the 1950's after raising the cancer risks of literally millions of people.

Mammograms are the modern-day version of the X-ray shoe-fitting machine. They're represent a harmful, cancer-causing technology that people mistakenly think offers some benefit for them. But every time you use the machine, your risk of cancer goes up another notch. Meanwhile, just like in the 1940's, most conventional doctors stay silent about the cancer risks resulting from such radiation! (But more and more informed doctors are finally speaking out against mammography...)

If you were an evil genius who wanted to design and manufacture a cancer-causing machine, it would be difficult to beat the present-day mammography machine. It exposes human tissue to high-powered radiation that, if repeated often enough, practically guarantees cancer will eventually develop. In one sense, it's sort of a "slow suicide machine" that takes years (or decades) to complete its work on your body. But before you die, you get to spend your life savings on "treatments" that will leave you bankrupt just before they leave you dead.

That's the whole point of the cancer industry, after all: To maximize profits from cancer. Mammography is a key piece of the puzzle in accomplishing precisely that.

Repeat business

The truth us, mammography offers no net saving in lives at all. In fact, the procedure harms far more women than it helps. (http://www.naturalnews.com/010886_c...)

But at the same time, it's a "perfect weapon" for generating lucrative repeat business. If you're an oncologist, the best way to ensure you'll have a cancer patient to treat at age 55 is to start exposing them to radiation at age 40 (or earlier). It's sort of like a diabetes clinic offering free candy to children: At some point, after they eat enough processed sugar, they'll come back as repeat customers suffering from diabetes.

That's why the cancer industry freaked out when a U.S. govt. task force issued its new cancer screening guidelines. All of a sudden, the cancer industry realized it would lose a lot of repeat business if the screenings stopped. So they lobbied hard for some sort of reversal.

And they nearly got it. Today Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius went on the air to announce that the task force announcing the new mammography recommendations, "does not set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government." She went on to explain, "My message to women is simple. Mammograms have always been an important lifesaving tool in the fight against breast cancer and they still are today." (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...)

In other words, keep getting your breasts irradiated. It's important for the U.S. economy! The disease industry is counting on your future cancer, didn't you know?

Confused?

The Associated Press says the new mammography recommendations from the government panel have "left women across the country confused about which advice to take."

Confused? Really?

Let's see, there's a machine that smashes your breasts, that hurts like the devil, and that blasts your breasts, heart and lungs with cancer-causing radiation.

All the evidence now points to the fact that the risk of harm caused by the machine is far greater than the risk of have your life saved by early cancer detection -- especially for women under 50.

So what is there to be confused about? The only confusion that exists is caused by the cancer industry itself which has always operated on the principle of keeping women uninformed and confused, knowing full well that people who are confused can be more easily manipulated with fear into surrendering to high-profit treatments like chemotherapy.

That's the whole point of the industry, after all: To make money treating cancer, whether the patient needs it or not.

Big, big money to be made by giving women cancer

The cancer industry likes to hide behind the false idea that it's "helping people" or "saving lives," but in reality, it's a for-profit industry that's out to maximizing profits just like every other business. And as we all know, medical corporations have absolutely no ethics: They will engage in outright criminal fraud, bribery of doctors, falsifying clinical trial data, price-fixing their products and overcharging Medicaid programs, and other similar crimes, all of which have been documented here on NaturalNews.com. (Use the search box, top right, to find articles on any of these topics if you wish.)

For these same corporations to intentionally cause cancer in women as a strategy for future profits is just standard operating procedure. They don't even think about acting with integrity or compassion: It's all about the money. So what if a few million women have to die along the way, right? We've got shareholders to think about!

Cancer is a $200 billion a year business, Suzanne Somers told me yesterday in an exclusive interview with NaturalNews (http://www.naturalnews.com/027526_S...). That gives the industry 200 billion reasons to keep on exposing women to radiation and creating more repeat business. That's why the cancer profiteers will fight these new recommendations tooth and nail -- their livelihoods depend on making sure more women get cancer!

Mammography is, by any honest assessment, pure quackery. It's no more accurate at detecting tumors needing acute treatment than just waving your hand over someone and guessing whether they have a tumor that needs treatment. In fact, waving your hand over someone is a lot less harmful, so it's actually better.

A far better alternative is thermography. It can detect breast cancer tumors using the infrared heat emitted by a tumor's blood supply. It's non-invasive, safe, affordable and doesn't involve deadly radiation.

And remember, even if you're diagnosed with breast cancer, chemotherapy does not work on breast cancer! You'll need a different, more natural approach. Read Suzanne Somers' book "Knockout" to find some answers, or read about Vitamin D here on NaturalNews:

http://www.naturalnews.com/027537_mammograms_cancer_industry.html