Every Woman Should Read This!

[Iris]

Mammography Enters The Deadly Depths Of Deceit
By Barry Lynes
5-2-5

The great deceit began in the early 1970s. It was concocted by insiders at the American Cancer Society (ACS) and their "friends" at the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

The number of women who were put "at risk" or who died as a result of this nefarious scheme is not known but estimated to be huge.

The Director of the NCI at the time of this massive abuse of the public trust later left government service and took a high paying position at ACS (sort of a payoff).

The American Cancer Society's self serving program (financial scheme) continues to the present day (1999) and probably into the 21st century until enough women realize the stakes and force an end to the lie and the terrible dangers.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) particularly wanted to push mammography because it could be tied in with the Society's own financial objectives (keep in mind the ACS slogan "a check and a checkup"). And the radiologists, of course, loved the ACS program. There were few, if any, powerful voices individual or institutional which cried out, "No!" or "God No! Don't do this. NO. NO. NO."

The collusive attack on healthy American women happened because "the fix was in."

Powerful politicians and the media were silent.

Silent as sleeping sentinels while a determined, aggressive, self serving gang of sophisticated operatives manipulated the nation's entire cancer program to suit its own interests. And to hell with the millions of American women who would pay the price for the next thirty years or more, well into the 21st century.

In 1978, Irwin J. D. Bross., Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research commented about the cancer screening program: "The women should have been given the information about the hazards of radiation at the same time they were given the sales talk for mammography... Doctors were gung ho to use it on a large scale. They went right ahead and X rayed not just a few women but a quarter of a million women... A jump to the exposure of a quarter of a million persons to something which could do more harm than good was criminal and it was supported by money from the federal government and the American Cancer Society." (P1)

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) was warned in 1974 by professor Malcolm C. Pike at the University of Southern California School of Medicine that a number of specialists had concluded that "giving a women under age 50 a mammogram on a routine basis is close to unethical." (P2)

Repeat... The experts in the government were told not to do this to healthy women in the YEAR 1974! The warning was ignored because Mary Lasker (whose husband was the dark advertising devil behind the Lucky Strike cigarette advertising campaigns) and her advertising / promotional / corporate power types at the American Cancer Society (ACS) wanted mammography. Everyone else could go to hell. What Mary and her powerful political allies wanted in the cancer world, they got. Everyone else, including the public, was ignored.

By the early 1980s, NCI and ACS were at it again. They jointly put forth new guidelines promoting (again!) ... annual breast X Rays for women under age 50. They just simply refused to give up their lucrative racket. (One official candidly admitted the publicity brought in more research money for both institutions.) They refused to do what was not in their personal, empire building interest no matter the cost in human lives.

".doctors and their patients assumed that there was good evidence supporting those recommendations. But at the time, only one study showed positive benefit and the results were not significant." (P3)

In 1985, the respected British medical journal The Lancet, one of the five leading medical journals in the world, published an article which ripped the NCI-ACS propaganda to shreds. It not only (again!) exposed the original onslaught by the high level ACS NCI conspirators in the early middle 1970s against a quarter million unsuspecting American women, but reviled the continuing 1980s ACS NCI propaganda.

"Over 280,000 women were recruited without being told that no benefit of mammography had been shown in a controlled trial for women below 50, and without being warned about the potential risk of induction of breast cancer by the test which was supposed to detect it ... ... in women below 50... mammography gives no benefit..." (P4)

But nothing happened. Mammography was known to cause cancer but the media and the "health officials" in the government stayed silent! The mammography policy pushed by the American Cancer Society to fill its bank account remained the U. S. government policy for ten more years until a massive Canadian study showed conclusively what was known 20 YEARS before but what was not in the interests of ACS and NCI to admit: X raying the breasts of women younger than age 50 provided no benefit and probably endangered their lives.

In February 1992 Samuel Epstein, professor at the University of Illinois Medical Center in Chicago, a tireless opponent of the "cancer establishment," along with 64 other distinguished cancer authorities opposing the status quo thinking, warned the public about the ACS NCI shenanigans. The ACS and NCI (like long married felons caught in a crime together) were outraged, terming Dr. Epstein's reference to the breast studies as "unethical and invalid."

The next month, the Washington Post broke the story into the mainstream media (finally!). It published an article by Dr. Epstein which exposed what the ACS and their insider "friends" at NCI had done to countless women twenty years earlier and continued for twenty years until 1992. Dr. Epstein wrote:

".The high sensitivity of the breast, especially in young women, to radiation induced cancer was known by 1970. Nevertheless, the establishment then screened some 300,000 women with Xray dosages so high as to increase breast cancer risk by up to 20 percent in women aged 40 to 50 who were mammogrammed annually.

Women were given no warning whatever; how many subsequently developed breast cancer remains uninvestigated.

".Additionally, the establishment ignores safe and effective alternatives to mammography, particularly trans illumination with infrared scanning.

".For most cancers, survival has not changed for decades. Contrary claims are based on rubber numbers." (P5)

The crimes described were crimes. They were not errors of judgment. They were not differences of scientific opinion. They were conscious, chosen, politically expedient acts by a small group of people for the sake of their own power, prestige and financial gain, resulting in suffering and death for millions of women. They fit the classification of "crimes against humanity."

In December of 1992, the New York Times published facts about the Mammography scam. The story included the following:

"Dr. I. Craig Henderson, director of the clinical cancer center at the University of California in San Francisco, said, 'We have to tell women the truth' ...

"Dr. Robert McLelland, a radiologist at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, said... 'In our zeal to promote mammography, we as radiologists and I'm one of them haven't looked at the evidence.' " (P6)

In July 1995, the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet blasted (again) the whole ACS NCI mammography scam into global awareness:

"The benefit is marginal, the harm caused is substantial, and the costs incurred are enormous..." (P7)

But the spreading knowledge of what was going on made no difference to the bureaucrats "protecting the public" at the NCI and the FDA who had their empires to protect. And of course the American Cancer Society (ACS) furiously fought every attempt by those with any honor in the federal agencies who sought to restrict the number of mammography examinations for individual women or to extend the age at which a woman had her first one. Mammography was the American Cancer Society's ".sacred cow" (cash cow) and they wanted legions of women to begin having annual exams as early as the ACS could brainwash them into doing ("a check and a checkup").

By 1999, even celebrity poet Maya Angelou was shamefully and ignorantly promoting Mammography in public service ads on television, parroting the American Cancer Society's propaganda spiel. Nothing had changed. Those "protecting the public" at NCI and FDA were doing the exact opposite. They were hiding, protecting their little empires, while American women were being needlessly exposed to dangerous, cancer causing X rays.

In September 1999, the full depth of the decades long deceit was explicitly described in an article in the journal Alternative Medicine. It would reach relatively few mainstream American women who were being brainwashed by the "interests" through the mainstream media and pliable state and federal legislators representatives of the people") but it did provide a torch glow in a dark night.

Here's the awful truth it stated baldly like a screaming American eagle to any American woman fortunate enough to read the hard facts:

".Mammograms increase the risk for developing breast cancer and raise the risk of spreading or metastasizing an existing growth,' says Dr. Charles B. Simone, a former clinical associate in immunology and pharmacology at the National Cancer Institute...

".the annual mammographic screening of 10,000 women aged 50-70 will extend the lives of, at best, 26 of them; and annual screening of 10,000 women in their 40s will extend the lives of only 12 women per year." (P8)

So there's the lie and the depth of the Mammography Deceit spelled out: mammography will extend at best 2 women's lives for 10,000 women put at risk in order to benefit radiologists, the American Cancer Society, assorted bureaucrats, and other "interested" parties who profit off the vast, well organized mammography deceit when safe alternatives exist but are ignored!

And that brings us back to the essential issues and fundamental principles which once guided the American nation into greatness. Which of course forces us to look again at the cancer empire's tyranny and threat to everything once held sacred in America.

The fine political thinker Hannah Arendt who studied the Nazi and Soviet tyrannies, and wrote brilliant works on the evil at the core of fascism and communism, scolds those of us who today surrender to the bureaucrats, conscious, unaccountable deceits and tyrannies. Hannah Arendt's words:

". Bureaucracy... the rule by Nobody. Indeed, if we identify tyranny as the government that is not held to give account of itself, rule by Nobody is clearly the most tyrannical of all, since there is no one left who could even be asked to answer for what is being done.

". Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act. It enables him to get together with his peers, to act in concert, and to reach for goals and enterprises which would never enter his mind, let alone the desires of his heart, had he not been given this gift to embark upon something new."

It is time for women to try something new, such as the Thermal Image Processor (TIP) and to toss dangerous mammography, toss the American Cancer Society, and toss the ACS's lackeys at NCI into the dustbin of history. (P10) BBC News HEALTH New concerns over breast screeningSubject: BBC News HEALTH New concerns over breast screening. htm

New Concerns Over Breast Screening
Spotting cancers: But do mammograms save lives? A fresh row has broken out over controversial claims that screening for breast cancer may not actually be saving lives. The research was first published last year, but has been re-examined following a series of protests from cancer organisations over the findings. Now one of the world's leading medical journals, The Lancet, agrees that there is not enough evidence from large-scale trials to support breast screening. However, cancer charities and the UK cancer screening programme disagree strongly with their verdict. At present, there is no reliable evidence from large randomised trials to support screening mammography programmes

By Richard Horton,
Editor,
The Lancet

[Iris]

All UK women aged between 50 and 64 are currently offered screening once every three years. It is hoped that tumours may be spotted earlier, making treatment more likely to provide a cure. Currently, it is reckoned that as many as 300 lives are saved a year by breast screening - and more recent estimates suggest this annual figure is climbing rapidly. However, two Danish researchers from the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen have re-examined the seven large-scale studies looking into the effectiveness of breast screening. They say that the studies which support breast screening are either flawed or weak, with the only two high quality studies showing no benefit at all. In addition, they suggest that screening may result in women receiving more aggressive treatments for cancer, increasing the number of mastectomies by approximately 20%. They write, in The Lancet: "We hope that women, clinicians and policy-makers will consider these findings carefully when they decide whether or not to attend, or support screening programmes." Flood of criticism The Danish pair, Peter Gøtzsche and Ole Olsen, first voiced these criticisms last year, and provoked a flood of protest as a result. In the light of this, they say, they have thoroughly reviewed their work - and reached the same conclusion. "We found the results confirmed and strengthened our original conclusion," they wrote. However, cancer organisations in the UK have repeated their attacks on the conclusions. We found the results confirmed and strengthened our original conclusion

By Peter Gøtzsche and Ole Olsen

Many are worried that any adverse publicity about breast screening will dissuade women from coming forward.

Stephen Duffy, an expert in breast screening from the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, said that the five studies which supported the use of mammograms should not have been excluded.

He said: "Studies in the UK and Sweden by ICRF and others have shown breast cancer screening substantially reduces women's risk of dying of breast cancer.

"Research published only in May demonstrated that women who attend regular breast screenings may reduce their risk of dying by more than 50%." Disagreements

A spokesman for the UK Breast Screening Programme agreed: "The way Gøtzsche and Olsen classified studies was based on criteria that would not be agreed by many experts in the field. Studies in the UK and Sweden by ICRF and others have shown breast cancer screening substantially reduces women's risk of dying of breast cancer

Stephen Duffy, Imperial Cancer Research Fund "Indeed many researchers would classify all seven studies as of similar quality, and when the results from all seven studies are combined, there is clear evidence of the benefit from mammography."

If existing studies are too weak to support the use of breast screening, then the chances of organising large-scale replacements are slim, as these would have to involve a sizeable "control" sample who would not be screened for the purposes of comparison.

As most clinicians already feel that breast screening offers a significant benefit, it would probably be felt ethically unsound to leave so many women without it.

However, the fact that The Lancet now backs the Danish team is a significant move in supporting those who question the benefits of breast screening. Editor Richard Horton wrote: "Women should expect doctors to secure the best evidence about the value of screening mammography.

"At present, there is no reliable evidence from large randomised trials to support screening mammography programmes."

Professor Michael Baum, from the Portland Hospital in London, says that it is now right that women should be presented with all the evidence about screening before they give their consent.

He said: "Even with the most optimistic estimates on saving lives, you would still have to screen 1,000 women for 10 years to save one life.

"If you have one significant adverse event which costs a life in this group over this period, all that benefit is cancelled out.

"The Lancet is a highly influential journal and if they are backing this review, it's highly significant." WATCH/LISTEN

ON THIS STORY

The BBC's Karen Allen "The scientists are being backed by one of the most respected medical journals" Cancer surgeon Professor Michael Baum "The statistics have to be taken very seriously" On the BBC's Today programme: Ole Olsa, one of the authors of the report, and Julietta Patnick of the NHS screening programme

http://rense.com/general64/mam.htm

[mudwoman]

IMO most of the procedures and medications used to treat women's health problems in this country are bogus. From the puberty on, women are treated for all sorts of "problems", that are not serious problems, in ways that are necessary and useless at best, and deleterious to their health at worst.

When I was growing up hysterectomies (for any number of reasons) were common, and pregnancy and menopause were treated as illness (which they most are certainly not). Bottle feeding was the norm, and the joyous natural experience of childbirth was turned into medical torture with forceps deliveries, episiotomies, and pain medications. Then hormone replacement became popular, and mammograms. All of these interventions into the normal functions of women's bodies have been pushed by the drug companies, the medical technology companies, and the AMA.

My friends, most of this is not good for you, and not good for our babies. Unless you are in the tiny minority of women who have a real medical problem, you don't need intrusive medical interference into the natural functions of your body.


Personally, I never bought into any of it. My child births were at home, and totally natural, no bottles for my babies either. I have never taken hormone replacement therapy now that I am post menopausal, nor have I ever had a mammogram.


As for the serious increase in cancer rates, it is a world wide problem. We need to seriously look at the causes, and make some big changes. (BTW Iris: Did you know that the DU we are dumping on Iraq is not staying in Iraq, but is affecting babies and children on a worldwide scale?).

[mudwoman]

typo correction - my statement:

From the puberty on, women are treated for all sorts of "problems", that are not serious problems, in ways that are necessary and useless at best, and deleterious to their health at worst.

Should read:

From the puberty on, women are treated for all sorts of "problems", that are not serious problems, in ways that are unnecessary and useless at best, and deleterious to their health at worst.

Sorry.

[lrs]

Because I have a "family history" (and cancer "epidemiologists" need to get their butts in gear, because I don't buy that crap either) and a spot on a mammogram, I hd a biopsy last year. It cost me $700.00 out of pocket and $3000.00 to the health-care system. Turned out to be a chip of calcium.

Multiply that by the annual mammograms I will have between now and the day I die (I'm 41), plus the annual mammograms of millions of women like me, plus all the biposies they'll have to do when they "find something". And you will quickly see why the health-care system in this country is imploding.

There are better ways. Let's find 'em.

Thank you for this thread.

[Guest]

I have never had a mammogram and have no intention of having one at this time.

When the statistic came out that one in nine women would have breast cancer in their lifetime, my gynecologist, a woman, told me then that the statistics were misleading, that the report in the medical journals read quite a bit differently than what was being reported in the mainstream press under the guise of current medical research.

She said that the statistic is only be true of the women who live to be at least late 80-early 90s and then the one in nine stat would apply to those alive that long. In other words one out of 9 women who were still alive at that advanced age would have had in the past or would be facing breast cancer. There, of course, would be many women who died younger than late 80s, so you are looking at a much smaller group of women than the broader range of women alive from age 1 through 9. She said it had nothing to do with younger women and the rate they get breast cancer.

Here is something interesting. My family, both mother's and father's sides have never had a reported or suspected case of cancer, ever in the history of our family. This lends itself to the theory that there is a gene for this type of disease. We don't carry the gene if this is the case. I find myself leaning towards this theory. Nothing else makes much sense, again statistically somebody should have had or died of cancer in direct lineage (not through marriage).

[lrs]

Here is something interesting. My family, both mother's and father's sides have never had a reported or suspected case of cancer, ever in the history of our family. This lends itself to the theory that there is a gene for this type of disease. We don't carry the gene if this is the case. I find myself leaning towards this theory. Nothing else makes much sense, again statistically somebody should have had or died of cancer in direct lineage (not through marriage).

Disagree, my friend. It could also mean that NOONE has yet to figure out what causes this disease. (this DOES NOT apply to you but...) 80% of cancers are the index case in their family. No history. What's going on.

You guys obviously have kick-ass immune systems . Any more insights would be appreciated.

[Iris]

Eat raw organic fruits and veggies every day?

I dunno. I've heard there's a suspected tie to underarm anti-perspirant (aluminum), too, but don't know if there's truth to that.

Still, x-rays aren't good for anyone, IMHO. I well remember as a kid going to Buster Brown shoe stores and fighting with my sisters for the privelege of standing with my tiny tootsies in the x-ray machine. They took those out when the shoe salesmen started getting a high incidence of cancer and dropping like flies.

Then there was radium paint... and that's another story.

[Devastated]

I likely run a higher risk of breast cancer due to radiation treatments after removal of underarm lymph nodes on right side. They get you coming and going.
Damn dinero!

[Joolz]

Originally posted by mudwoman
Personally, I never bought into any of it. My child births were at home, and totally natural, no bottles for my babies either. I have never taken hormone replacement therapy now that I am post menopausal, nor have I ever had a mammogram.

Same here. All of the above. And glad of it.