Success with Breast Cancer Blood Test NOT WITH Mammograms!

[Guest guest]

> Cancer - Company Reports Initial Success with Breast Cancer Blood Test

>

> http://www.cancerpage.com/cancernews/cancernews1098.htm

>

> ********************************

> Mammography Enters the Depths of Deceit

> Barry Lynes

>

> 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 screeningBBC News

> HEALTH New concerns over breast screening.htm

>

> - http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1607000/1607113.stm -

>

>

>

> 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

>

> Richard Horton, Editor, The Lancet

> 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

>

> Peter Gøtzsche and Ole Olsen, report authors

> 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

>

>

>

>

>