Mammograms enter the depths of deceit]

[Guest guest]

Mammograms enter the depths of deceit

 

I thought you may be interested in this information, Mammograms

are very controversial and have become useless since the studies were

flawed, take a look below what is replacing it, let me know if you need

more information, I have plenty on this subject. 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