Dr. Mercola's, "(the better way, to detection)"..Thermography page.
---------------
Although it sounds preposterous that mammograms wouldn't save more lives by early detection; there is far more to that entire picture, and to consider. You have to understand that doctors are all following the same guidelines the cancer industry sets forth. However, there is clearly alot of for profit bias in the whole outlay of what goes into the proposed guidelines.
-----------------
Dr. Mercola talks about mammograms. (Listen to the video).
Avoid Routine Mammograms if You are Under 50
Posted by: Dr. Mercola.
This doctor shows you the true mammogram history and has many articles you can link to.
Mammography Enters the Depths of Deceit.
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
Cancer Prevention Coalition.
http://preventcancer.com/patients/mammography/ijhs_mammography.htm
Mammography Article by Samuel Epstein, MD
A little about his credentials and works put forth, etc.
An expose on the profit politics of the cancer industry; and the reason they never find a true cure.
Breast Exams Are Just as Effective as Screening Mammography Says Cancer Prevention Coalition Chairman Samuel S. Epstein M.D.
Stop! Read This BEFORE You Get that Mammogram… (This link contains another good video, with alot of good information). Posted by: Dr. Mercola
June 27 2009 | 157,904 views
Dr. Mercola's Opinion on the Health Care Bill. (There's... a factual eye opener)!
Ask you doctor why they are not using Thermography? This test has been proven beyond doubt to detect benign small lumps, and cancer, earlier than a mammogram. It uses no potentially dangerous compression, (if a cancerous lump is compressed) and no radiation. A typical mammogram can give up to 1000 times more radiation than a chest xray; and they have covered this up! They will never tell you; ask why not? Repeated radiation can cause and additionally increase rates of breast cancer. Listen to that being explained in the video link. Some genetic breast cancers as well are much more sensitive to radiation; mammograms thus also then doing more harm than good. Read also the information in that next article.
Thermography for Breast Cancer.
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
October 29 2000
(Again the earlier linked to Mercola site)
----------------------------------------
Excellent Information Site:
Welcome to Healing Cancer Naturally’s Site Map, a satellite of www.ParadiseNow.net
www.healingcancernaturally.com
Healing Cancer Naturally: Nature Heals!
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/natural-hygiene-nature-heals.html
Detoxification to Support the Healing
and Prevention of Cancer and Other Illness
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/detoxification.html
History of Alternative Cancer Treatment
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/medical-history.html
Why Choose Alternative Cancer Treatment? (1)
by Healing Cancer Naturally.
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/alternative-cancer-treatment.html
Nutrition, Diet & the Healing of Cancer (1)
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/cancer-diet-and-nutrition.html
Causes of Cancer.
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/causes-of-cancer.html
Radiation
My recent study (Radiation from Medical Procedures, 699 pages) provides the first powerful evidence that the U.S. population's accumulated exposure to medical x-rays is a necessary co-actor in causing over half the deaths from cancer, and over half the deaths also from ischemic (coronary) heart disease. Since the study's publication in November 1999, no one has shown that it overestimates the impact of x-rays in causing cancer and coronary heart disease. Some people say "it must be an overestimate," but they have never shown how. Some of the critics have never even looked at the study.
John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D.
“The X-rays and Health Project. An educational project of the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility. www.x-raysandhealth.org”
(Above exerpt and more, found in the above link, and here below).
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/causes-of-cancer.html#Radiation
-----------------
Sugar and Cancer.
Excerpts: by The Alternative Medicine Research Foundation (non profit research group).
It puzzles me why the simple concept "sugar feeds cancer" can be so dramatically overlooked as part of a comprehensive cancer treatment plan.
The sound bite--sugar feeds cancer--is simple. The explanation is a little more complex. (Read more in the article).
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/sugar-and-cancer.html
-----------------
Home First Vitamin D:
Gerson Therapy (PDQ®)
Here the National Cancer Institute that largely debumks the Gerson protocol, and as not proven to work; lies on all fronts of organized medicine; go to the cancer page of my site; for more info. However, it is a detox protocol, but it is not the same as the raw food diet plan.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/gerson/patient
Royal Rife: Cancer Cure Genius Silenced by Medical Mafia
Saturday, September 26, 2009, by: Paul Fassa, citizen journalist.
(This is the same concept as chemo and radiation, only it doesn't harm the patient). This was being done decades ago already; all again suppressed, and ignored. If the FDA had not banned use of dark-field blood microcopy, they would realize that curing cancer by natural means essentially amounts to removing pathogens and toxins from the blood and body, as well as normalizing the ph. Turning sick blood into normal blood. Exactly as was done and shown with the Budwig diet below.
Essiac Tea is a Cancer Cure Big Pharma Does Not Want You to Know AboutFriday, August 28, 2009
Dr. Johanna Budwig’s Healing Diet & Protocol (1)
100 pages of authentic information on the Budwig diet & lifestyle including
diet details, exclusive book extracts, testimonials, Budwig FAQ,
research, complementary treatments & more.
Go also to the Cancer Truth page.
-------------------------------------------------------------
HERE is Webmd's version of the radiation, chemo, surgery... nightmare; they claim is the only way. Which one would YOU choose? Do you think the public should be aware of this..or should they just die for the profits and lies of organized medicine, and that states, "Only a drug can cure or prevent disease"! Total control. What did I say here... in this video, right here!!!
The Truth About Vaccines and Modern Medicine. My Video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxe0zFGl7IQ
Here below in the link, they say the cause of breat cancer is unknown. Well, if you can cure it naturally, and thru diet and detox; you FOUND the cause!
What I Learned from Breast Cancer. (Diffferant article entirely; lies, from the organized medcine side; same title).
Other information on imaging risks and harm:
More on the Dangers of Mammography, Posted by: Dr. Mercola, February 23 2002
Excerpt: Screening mammography poses significant and cumulative risks of breast cancer for premenopausal women. The routine practice of taking four films of each breast annually results in approximately 1 rad (radiation absorbed dose) exposure, about 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray.
Body Scans Offer False Reassurances, Posted by: Dr. Mercola
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/11/28/body-scans.aspx
--------------------------------------
Navigating the Statistics:
http://www.naturalnews.com/010886_cancer_brst_cancer_mammography.html
Speaking of Thermography.
http://naturalhealthcenter.mercola.com/services/Thermography.aspx
Miscellaneous excerpts:
Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.
The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms. Dr. Samuel Epstein also claims that pregnant women exposed to radiation could endanger their fetus. He advises against mammography during pregnancy because "the future risks of leukemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it."
So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent. In the 1960s and 70s, women, even those who received 10 screenings a year, were never told the risk they faced from exposure.
Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources.
Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman's breast during the procedure.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) puts the false negative rate even higher at 40 percent among women ages 40-49. National Institutes of Health spokespeople also admit that mammograms miss 10 percent of malignant tumors in women over 50. Researchers have found that breast tissue is denser among younger women, making it difficult to detect tumors. For this reason, false negatives are twice as likely to occur in premenopausal mammograms.
Radiation Risks
Many critics of mammography cite the hazardous health effects of radiation. In 1976, the controversy over radiation and mammography reached a saturation point. At that time mammographic technology delivered five to 10 rads (radiation-absorbed doses) per screening, as compared to 1 rad in current screening methods. In women between the ages of 35 and 50, each rad of exposure increased the risk of breast cancer by one percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI.
Cont.
A positive infrared scan may indicate the presence of many different breast abnormalities such as mastitis, benign tumors, fibrocystic breast disease, cancer, and others.
Breast thermography's ability to detect a pre-cancerous state of the breast, or signs of cancer at an extremely early stage, lies in its unique capability of monitoring the temperature variations and blood vessel alterations produced by the earliest changes in tissue physiology (function)(3,6,7,8,9).
Read the article:
http://www.iact-org.org/patients/breastthermography/what-is-breast-therm.html
Medical Infra Red Technology, Breast Cancer and Early Detection.
http://www.breastthermography.com/
http://www.breastthermography.org/forpatients.html
http://www.breastthermography.com/breast_thermography_mf.htm
Should You Get A Mammogram?
http://www.drhansen.com/?cat=47
Excerpts:
The mammography controversy picked up significantly in October 2001 when the World’s leading medical journal, The Lancet, published a paper that clashed with the conventional thinking. The Lancet paper concluded that mammography did not help save the lives of breast cancer sufferers and that previous mammography studies showing the benefits of mammography had been seriously flawed.
This study should have ended the debate, however, old practices die hard. The controversy is a simple one. Mammography is a $5 billion dollar industry.
Therefore, women who start getting annual mammograms at age 40 would have a 12% increased risk of developing breast cancer due to the screening procedure by the time they turn 50. That does not sound like preventive care to me.
Read the information about how younger women than before are now getting breast cancer; due to the since added, earlier mammograms.
----------
Mammograms Obsolete
But first the bad news: neither of these tests has been approved by our FDA.
http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/Newsletters/08_Aug.htm#Mammograms_
Excerpts:
For women who want to avoid having their breasts flattened, which, by the way, can tear open tissues, (if you do have a tumor, it can burst that too causing it to spread) we have two new tests on the horizon for breast cancer.
So, a new test that avoids the possible tearing of tissues is something you’d think would be received very well by both medicine and by women, and you’d be right. The mammogram industry, however, because our medicine is profit driven, is not going down without a fight.
The first test involves saliva. According to Dr Charles Streckfus at the University of Texas (Dental Branch at Houston), “Breast cancer triggers a change in the type and amount of proteins in the secretions from the salivary glands.”
-----------------
Mammograms are they Safe - Are they Effective:
http://www.outsmartyourcancer.com/pdf/MammogramArtcileForSite.pdf
Mammography Madness
http://www.westonaprice.org/women/mammography.html
What they dont tell you about mammograms; and what every women has a right to know!
http://mariecs.com/mc_mam.htm
Mammography Article by Samuel Epstein, MD
http://www.breastcanceralternatives.org/epstein.html
Dangers and Unreliability of Mammography: Breast Examination is a Safe, Effective, and Practical Alternative.
http://www.preventcancer.com/patients/mammography/ijhs_mammography.htm
Excerpt:
Contrary to conventional assurances that radiation exposure from mammography is trivial- and similar to that from a chest X-ray or spending one week in Denver, about 1/ 1,000 of a rad (radiation-absorbed dose)- the routine practice of taking four films for each breast results in some 1,000-fold greater exposure,
-------------------------------------------
Debunking the Myths of Mammography. (Read this and find out the truth and also how much misinformation you have been fed, and mis-lead to believe).
http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/cancer2/mamo.htm
Skip Your Next Mammogram – Thermography is Safer.
http://www.healinghq.com/health-articles/alternative-health-care/373-breast-thermography-mammogram-alternative.html
Excerpt:
According to Dr. Mercola, mammograms actually do more harm than good. Radiation causes the cells to mutate, and applying the pressure that they do to get a good film can actually spread any cells that are already malignant. According to a study in The Lancet (the British medical journal), "since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography." Still want to go get your annual mammogram?
------------------------------------------
Thermography:
In this data base well over 250,000 women have been included as study participants. The numbers of participants in many studies are very large ranging from 37,000 to 118,000 women. Some of these studies have followed patients up to 12 years. Breast thermography has an average sensitivity and specificity of 90%.
Studies show that:
An abnormal infrared image is also the single most important marker of high risk for developing breast cancer 8 times more significant than a first order family history of the disease(5).
A persistent abnormal thermogram caries with it a 22x higher risk of future breast cancer.
When added to a woman's regular breast health checkups, a 61% increased survival rate has been realized.
Finally, when used as part of a multimodal approach (clinical examination + mammography + thermography) 95% of early stage cancers will be detected.
----------------
International Academy of Clinical Thermography.
Excerpt.
The procedure is both comfortable and safe using no radiation or compression. By carefully examining changes in the temperature and blood vessels of the breasts, signs of possible cancer or pre-cancerous cell growth may be detected up to 10 years prior to being discovered using any other procedure. This provides for the earliest detection of cancer possible. Because of breast thermography's extreme sensitivity, these temperature variations and vascular changes may be among the earliest signs of breast cancer and/or a pre-cancerous state of the breast.(3,6,7,8,9).
Breast thermography has been researched for over 30 years, and over 800 peer-reviewed breast thermography studies exist in the index-medicus.
------------------------------------------
Cancer, Inc.
They make the chemicals, they run the treatment centers, and they're still looking for "the cure" — no wonder they won't tell
you about breast cancer prevention.
by Sharon Batt & Liza Gross
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/199909/cancer.asp
------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical Industry Deceives the General Public
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/The_Chemnitz_Programme/chemnitz13.htm
Excerpt:
The pharmaceutical industry continues to control our society. Pharmaceutical interests control medical research, and have entire health professions dependent. To maintain and secure their position of power, the pharmaceutical companies manipulate the legislation and the media. In large-scale advertising campaigns trough all media, the pharmaceutical PR and propaganda department creates a smoke screen concealing the true interests of the pharmaceutical industry.
----------------------------------------
What Do We Have to Do?
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/PHARMACEUTICAL_BUSINESS/The_Chemnitz_Programme/chemnitz14.htm
Excerpt:
These facts underscore the necessity for an entirely new structure of the health care system. Every day that we allow these unscrupulous practices to continue, thousands of people pay with their lives. What can we do?
------------------------------------------
Medical Errors - A Leading Cause of Death
The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000 article written by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, shows that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States. The researchers concluded that ADRs are now the fourth leading cause of death in the United States after heart disease, cancer, and stroke. Source: Jason, et al. (Lazarou et al), Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Vol. 279. April 15, 1998, pp. 1200-05. Also Bates, David W., Drugs and Adverse Drug Reactions: How Worried Should We Be? JAMA, Vol. 279. April 15, 1998, pp. 1216-17. One of the first JAMA article on medical errors appeared in JAMA 1994;272:1851-7. by Leape LL. Then in April 1998, JAMA 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200-5 See
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=9555760
Links:
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/harmful.htm
http://members.warpnet.net/spierce/PrescriptionDrugs.htm
http://www.healthyalterego.com/index.php/2009/01/prescription-drugs-4th-leading-cause-of-death/
http://www.steadyhealth.com/software/vitamin_test/articles/The_Dangers_Of_Prescription_Drugs_a807.htmlhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10904513?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1117251/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1117251/
http://www.vaclib.org/legal/drdeath.htm
Death by Prescription: The Shocking Truth Behind an Overmedicated Nation.
New Information- Up to current date.
Now again proven, and the 3rd leading cause of death in the U.S., prescription drugs, properly prescribed. (Read below link). Nice thought! And all they ever address, is insurance reform?! What about reforming oversight at the FDA? THAT will do more to help hold down costs and the needless deaths - than anything. Go back to the soil and the seed concept. Nothing else will work, ever! Respect for the creator! Not - happening. Profits come first.
AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH DR. BARBARA STARFIELD.
Source.