Breast thermography is a simple way to help lower your cancer risk. Unfortunately, most conventionally-trained physicians have no idea about its benefits. Although a surprising fact to most people, medical thermography has been around since the 1970’s and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1982 for breast cancer detection and risk assessment – as an adjunct to mammography.
Unfortunately, the medical establishment; the American Cancer Society (ACS) and most women’s organizations only push for mammography – which, due to radiation exposure, only increases your risk for breast cancer with every test. Find out how to prevent breast cancer – years before conventional testing procedures – by understanding the value of breast thermography and natural healthcare solutions. (more…)
“If cancer specialists were to admit publicly that chemotherapy is of limited usefulness and is often dangerous, the public might demand a radical change in direction—possibly toward unorthodox and nontoxic methods, and toward cancer prevention. …The use of chemotherapy is even advocated by those members of the establishment who realize how ineffective and dangerous it can be.” – Ralph W. Moss, author, The Cancer Industry
Imagine that you own a house that is absolutely perfect and beautiful with all the necessities, except that it has some rodents inside. When you call the exterminators, they tell you that they won’t be able to target just the rodents, as these rodents are of an especially stealthy breed. They tell you they’re just going to set off a series of explosions in your house that may kill the rodents. They warn you, “Oh yeah, it may destroy some of your house in the process, but, hey, you want those rodents out of your house, right?” There’s probably no way you would allow that; instead, you would do some research and find other, more specific and less generally destructive ways of getting rid of the rodents. (more…)
The American Cancer Society: Running WITH the Money and AWAY From the Cure – Part 1
by Tony Isaacs
The American Cancer Society (ACS) made news waves when they disputed the findings of the President’s Cancer Panel on the role of toxins in causing cancer. Though the new report echoes what other experts have maintained for years, the ACS went out of its way to attack the report and downplay the role of toxins. Many critics have questioned the ACS’s motives apparent conflicts of interest due to numerous ACS ties to chemical industries influence and donations.
Critics note that the ACS condemnation of the toxins report is far from the first time the Society has taken a stance that benefits those it has ties to while disputing expert reports and studies. Indeed, the ACS dispute of the report is merely the latest in a long line of controversial stances that appear to be self-serving and against the public interest.
Another example is the ACS’s continued support of mammograms. Concerns over the safety and efficacy of mammograms have been widely reported dating all the way back to 1977, including several notable supporting studies supporting such concerns. In spite of those studies and concerns, the ACS has remained a staunch supporter of mammograms. Notably, the ACS has strong ties to the mammography industry. (more…)
Sayer Ji, Green Med Info
Mammograms are in the news again, and it doesn’t look good for those who continue to advocate using them to “detect cancer early” in asymptomatic populations. The science increasingly runs directly counter to the screening guidelines produced by both governmental and nongovernmental health organizations claiming to be advocates for women’s health.
Remember that only last November, the New England Journal of Medicine published a shocking analysis of the past 30 years of breast screening in the US, finding that 1.3 million women were overdiagnosed and overtreated for breast cancer – euphemisms for misdiagnosed and mistreated.1 (more…)
Medicare spends more than a billion dollars every year on a variety of breast cancer screenings, especially mammography. There must be a good medical reason for these tests, right? Not according to researchers at Yale School of Medicine. In a study just published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, the scientists say there is no evidence spending this huge amount of money on breast screening benefits older women at all. (more…)
The annual ritual of radioactive breast poisoning known as mammography has taken a huge hit in the scientific community, as a new study out of Seattle, Washington, recently found that simple ultrasounds, which emit harmless sound waves rather than ionizing radiation, work far better than mammograms at detecting malignant breast tumors.
An analysis conducted by the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA) reveals that, overall, ultrasounds have a 95.7 percent sensitivity rate in detecting malignant tumor cells while mammograms are only 60.9 percent sensitive, by comparison. Among 1,208 cases evaluated, ultrasounds also successfully detected about 57 percent more harmful breast cancers compared to mammograms. (more…)
© Christopher Thomond for the Guardian
Dozens of patients are expected to give evidence in the case.
Medical staff accused of giving hundreds of patients radiation overdoses and then destroying evidence in cover up
Two hospital doctors and a radiologist accused of giving hundreds of cancer patients potentially deadly radiation overdoses and then destroying evidence to cover up the mistake, have gone on trial for manslaughter.
At least seven people died out of a group of 24 patients who received doses of radiation up to 20% more than they should have been given at the Jean Monnet hospital in Epinal, in the Vosges in north-east France between 2001 and 2006.
Another 424 patients received doses of between 8-10% higher than a safe level, due to a “calibration error”. Most of the victims, who suffered severe internal burns from the radiation, were being treated for prostate cancer.
Doctors Jean-François Sztermer, 64, and Michel Aubertel, 62, as well as radiologist Joshua Anah, 54, are accused of involuntary homicide, not helping a person in danger and destroying evidence. Three other health officials from the hospital, the social security and the local health authority, are also in the dock accused of not assisting someone in danger.
Dozens of patients are expected to give evidence in the case, which began on Monday and is due to last until the end of October. Those too sick to attend the court hearing will give evidence by video link.
The errors were blamed on the radiation machines being upgraded with new ones and doses of radiation being miscalculated.
At the correctional court in Paris the victims, most of whom have already received financial compensation, hope their suffering will be finally recognised.
Gérard Welzer, lawyer for some of the patients, told Le Parisien: “It’s a sign that you cannot destroy people’s lives without explanation, and so that it doesn’t happen again.” He said the case had a certain “yobbish” aspect to it: “There wasn’t just the error, there was the desire to hide it.”
Defending one of the accused, lawyer Jean Reinhart said his client wanted to “help the court understand what happened”.