A new report has highlighted the real problems with mammography and its role in preventing deaths from breast cancer.
Last week we heard the news that another ground-breaking study of almost 90,000 women has found that regular mammogram screenings do not reduce breast cancer death rates. This latest study, published in the British Medical Journal, analysed women aged 40 to 59 over a quarter century and found that while screening made diagnosis of illness more likely, death rates from breast cancer were the same in women who had mammograms and those who had not. The researchers also found that the screening had harms and that one out of five cancers found with mammography was over-diagnosed, meaning the lumps were not a threat to the woman’s health and did not need chemotherapy, surgery or radiation.
”This study is not out of left field,” said Alexandra Barratt, a professor in epidemiology at the University of Sydney. “The concern is the level of over-detection of benign tumours. About 20 per cent of women who are screened are over diagnosed,” she said. The study found that 1 in 424 women who had mammograms received unnecessary treatment. Tragic really!
When will the medical establishment admit that mammography is a failed diagnostic method and that breast self examination is a safer means of cancer detection?
Reading the report I was pleased to see that only around 1.7 million Australian women have at least one mammogram screening every two years. That figure suggests that there are many of us who have informed ourselves of the risk and don’t follow Breast Screen Australia or the Cancer Council’s directive to have a mammogram every two years.
Let’s face it mammograms are x-rays and according to the American Cancer Society, the only acknowledged cause of cancer is radiation and yet we are using mammography to supposedly detect cancer with the real chance that it may cause it. Rosalie Bertell, physicist and activist, and John Gofman, the renegade physician from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, warned that radiation from regular testing could itself carry a risk of producing cancer. Mammography has to be among one of medicine’s biggest mistakes- for most women find their own tumours that have been missed by this technology.
And if we are really to do something constructive about cancer we have to prevent it and we need to understand what cancer means. An interesting program on this topic can be listened to on The Science Show on the Radio National website. Physicist, Paul Davies is involved in cancer research and reminded listeners of the work of Otto Warburg, a nobel prize winner who devoted his life to the study of cancer .
Cancer has only one prime cause. It is the replacement of normal oxygen respiration of the body’s cells by an anaerobic [i.e., oxygen-deficient] cell respiration. -Dr. Otto Warburg
Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar. All normal body cells meet their energy needs by respiration of oxygen, whereas cancer cells meet their energy needs in great part by fermentation.
The early history of life on our planet indicates that life existed on earth before the earth’s atmosphere contained free oxygen gas. The living cells must therefore have been fermenting cells then, and, as fossils show, they were undifferentiated single cells. Only when free oxygen appeared in the atmosphere – some billion years ago – did the higher development of life set in, to produce the plant and animal kingdoms from the fermenting, undifferentiated single cells.
The reverse process, takes place today in cancer development which occurs even in the presence of free oxygen gas in the atmosphere, but this oxygen may not penetrate in sufficient quantity into the growing body cells. In any case, during the cancer development the oxygen-respiration always falls, fermentation appears, and the highly differentiated cells are transformed to fermenting anaerobes, which have lost all their body functions and retain only the now useless property of growth. Thus, when respiration disappears, life does not disappear, but the meaning of life disappears, and what remains are growing machines that destroy the body in which they grow.
So what we need to know is that normal cells need oxygen, and cancer cells despise oxygen. In fact, oxygen therapy is a favorite among many of alternative therapy cancer clinics.
I have drifted a long way from writing about mammography but I think that if we can understand cancer then we can try to prevent it and not merely content ourselves with the use of harmful diagnostic tools to detect the damage.
And best to stay away from sugar and carcinogens and push for hyperbaric oxygen treatment if you do get cancer.
Categories: health, history, Media and health, news
Tags: cancer, mammograms, oxygen, prevention, radiation, sugar, warburg
1 reply ›
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
helenlobato.com 
Overdiagnosis is even larger today because of better mammogram technology. But it is important to remember that this new study is part of a mountain of solid evidence against routine use of mammography (see “The Mammogram Myth” by Rolf Hefti).
The true but “inconvenient” facts, not the whitewashed version promulgated by the medical establishment, undoubtedly shows mammography is seriously harmful, instead of highly beneficial, for most women