And if the overdiagnosis is the real danger?
Every year millions of women undergo mammography X-ray without the knowledge of the real health risks, trusting the doctors. Well,
now we must diffidarci by doctors, executioners, those who hope only to
get rich on the backs of others, those who are servants of the
pharmaceutical genocide! brrrrrrrr makes me goosebumps just thinking about it, how many accomplices. But honest people exist in the world?
In 2006, an article
published in the British Journal of Radiobiology, entitled "Increased
biological effectiveness of low-energy X-rays and the implications for
the mammography screening program in the UK," revealed that the type of
radiation used in radiation to the breast based on X-rays it is much
more carcinogenic than previously believed:
"Recent radiobiological
studies have provided convincing evidence that low-energy X-rays such as
those used in mammography are about four times - but perhaps up to six
times - more effective in causing damage mutational compared to X-rays
at higher energy. Estimates of current radiation risk are based on the
effects of high-energy radiation of gamma rays, this means that the risk
of breast cancer induced by radiation of X-ray mammography are
understated by the same factor.
In other words, the
radiation risk model used to determine whether the benefit of radiation
to the breast in the asymptomatic women outweigh the damage,
underestimates the risk of mammography to induce breast cancer and other
cancers related of 4-600%.
"Risk estimates for
radiation-induced cancer - mainly derived from the study of the
survivors of the atomic bomb (ABS) - are based on the effects of
high-energy gamma rays and thus, the implication is that the risk of
radiation-induced breast cancer resulting from mammography may be higher
than expected on the basis of estimates of risk standards. "
This is not the only study that shows that the X-ray mammography is the most carcinogenic radiation of the atomic bomb. There is also a vast amount of data on the 'downside of mammography X-ray
Unfortunately, even if you
use the outdated model of risk of radiation (which underestimates the
damage done), * the weight of scientific evidence (as determined by the
work of The Cochrane Collaboration) shows that in reality breast
radiation can probably not do you any good in those who suffered.
The Cochrane Database
Systematic Review 2009 ** also known as the Cochrane Review Gøtzsche and
Nielsen, titled "Screening for breast cancer with mammography," the
authors reveal why statistics muted for screening breast mass:
"The screening has led to
30% of overdiagnosis and treatment, or an absolute risk increase of
0.5%. This means that for every 2,000 women invited to screening at all
10 years old, one will have his life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who
would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be
treated unnecessarily. In addition, more than 200 women will experience
an important psychological distress for many months because of false
positive results. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good
than harm.
In
this revision, the basis for the estimation of unnecessary treatment
was the 35% increase in the risk of surgery among women screened. Many
of the surgical procedures, in fact, are the result of women whose
diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a "cancer" that does not
exist as an entity clinically relevant if it were not for the fact that
is detectable by X-ray mammography DCIS, in most cases, has no palpable
lesion or symptoms, and some experts believe that it should be
completely reclassified as a non-cancerous condition.
Another recent study
published in the British Medical Journal in 2011 entitled "Possible
damages net of screening for breast cancer: updated modeling of the
relationship Forrest", not only confirmed the findings and Götzsche
Cochrane Review of Nielsen, but has found a situation of worst risk
This analysis supports the
assertion that the introduction of screening for breast cancer may have
caused net harm up to 10 years after the start of screening.
So if we assume that these
reviews are correct, in the best case, the screening indicate that they
are not doing any good, and in the worst cases, cause more harm than
good. The salient issue, though, is how much more harm than good? When
you consider that, according to data of the Journal of the National
Cancer Institute (2011), a mammogram uses 4 mSv to 0.02 mSv of radiation
than chest X-ray media (which is radiation higher than 200 times), and
then, we also consider the greater genotoxicity / carcinogenicity
(4-600%) associated to specific wavelengths of "low energy" used for
mammography, it is highly possible that over the epidemic of
over-diagnosis and over-treatment, mammograms exposing them to radiation
that cause cancer in breast million women.
With the advent of
diagnostic technologies that do not emit ionizing radiation, such as
infrared thermography, it has become vitally important that patients
educate themselves about alternatives to mammography X-ray that already
exist. Until then, we must use our common sense - and
research such as this - to inform the decisions to be taken, and with
regard to the adverse effects of unwanted radiation that cause,
protecting themselves as much as possible.
Keep in mind that the
Cochrane Database is on top of the "food chain" of the truth, in the
highly stressed "evidence-based model" of conventional medicine. Reviews
Cochrane Database is produced by the Cochrane Collaboration, which is
internationally recognized as the benchmark for high-quality,
evidence-based information about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of
the common health care interventions. The organization,
made up of over 28,000 people working from more than 100 countries,
prides itself on being a source "independent" of information, and
historically has not been afraid to emphasize the corrupting influence
of the industry, which increasingly co-opt biomedical research and
publications.
The wavelengths at low energy cause double strand breaks in the DNA of cells sensitive, that the cell can not repair. Over time, these mutations result in a "malignant transformation"; radiation have the ability to induce a cancerous phenotype in healthy cells that have stem cell properties tumor alveolar (CSC).
http://www.vegetariani-roma.it/scienza-marcia-2/chemioterapia-2/738-come-mammografia-a-raggi-x-sta-accelerando-l-epidemia-di-cancro.html
MIKE ADAMS
This week there's a lot to say about mammograms and cancer screening. A
task force of the US government amended recommendations stating that
women under age 50 should not get mammograms because the risk of damage
far outweighs any promise of saving lives. This led to a
reaction by the very sound of the promoters of the cancer industry and
some famous person profoundly uninformed, such as Sheryl Crow who
blindly believes in mammograms. (Sheryl Crow has a poor understanding of the effects of ionizing radiation.)
Instead of offering new answers, discussions this week on mammography actually raised all sorts of new questions. I present here twenty-one questions that came to my mind when I started to think more carefully about the issue.
Twenty-one questions about mammograms
1) It is supposed that mammography is based on "science", yet all the recent science says that they bring more harm than good; if
so, the White House and oncologists in conscience how they can overlook
the precautionary conclusions that women under age 50 should not get
mammograms?
2) Why do male surgeons
recommend the "preventive mastectomies" in order to prevent breast
cancer but do not ever recommend the "preventive castration" to prevent
testicular cancer?
3) If the radiation causes cancer because the cancer industry uses machines that emit radiation to perform the screening?
4) If women would stop to
undergo annual mammograms, what is the exact amount of profit that the
cancer industry would lose every year?
5) Vitamin D prevents 77% of all cancers. Why the cancer industry, at the end of the screening, does not distribute to women vitamin D? If, as you claim, the ultimate goal is "to help people ...", the aid should not cover the most obvious nutritional advice?
6) If you buy products Pink helps raise money for cancer research, how much stuff we have to buy before the cancer is cured?
7) Question related: because
many of the products with the pink ribbon sold to raise money to be
allocated to the "cancer research" are actually made with carcinogenic
materials?
8) Where are all the promises cures for cancer researchers decades ago? One suggestion: we are still working. All that he needs is a little more 'of our money ...
9) Issue of fifth grade: if
walking for 10 miles you collect $ 50 for the Susan G. Komen foundation
and if all that money is financing the events of "recruitment" for the
screening that cost $ 1.25 per irradiated patient, how many miles we
must go to irradiate the breast to 100 thousand women? Demand for reserves: how many new patients will have produced in ten years this campaign irradiation?
10) If "early detection saves lives," then why today women who die of cancer are more numerous than in the past?
11) If mammograms are so
well to women, because whoever invented the car for mammograms there
puts the skull once a year to mo 'of screening for brain tumor?
12) Have you ever noticed
that the mammography equipment that crush women's breasts and they flood
of radiation were invented by men? But have you ever
wondered why there are machines that crush the testicles (and the rest
dell'armamentario) flooding the entire pack of radiation, with a
procedure that goes under the name of "early diagnosis"?
13) Given that oncologists
do not record the outcomes of patients who decide to do nothing after a
cancer diagnosis, as can speak with authority of the relationship
between risks and benefits of violent chemical treatments like
chemotherapy?
14) In the screening for cancer, how many false positives are used to make a cancer legitimate?
15) If the chemotherapy
works so well, because in the polls anonymous oncologists almost
universally admit that not subjecting themselves never to chemotherapy? Because family members of oncologists often seek alternative therapies when they are diagnosed with cancer?
16) If it takes ten years (or more) for a tumor to grow enough to be identified, as do oncologists call "early diagnosis"? What did exactly early?
17) If the "preventive
double mastectomy" is an idea so brilliant to prevent cancer, because
oncologists do not remove each other's brain to prevent brain tumor? (Though sometimes I think they've already done ...)
18) How many cancer industry
workers would find themselves instantly unemployed if cancer was
suddenly cured with vitamin D and phytonutrients? (Answer: at least a million people ... cancer gives job security to the cancer industry workers ...)
19) If the cancer industry
claims that the cure for cancer does not exist, how can the same people
argue that they are still trying?
20) If the cancer industry
would consider "care" that claims to seek, honestly think that someone
would give away for free, just for the good of humanity? (Actually, any cure would be destroyed as quickly as possible.)
And the most important of all questions ...
21) Why is it so easy to
cheat consumers of health services throughout the world and make believe
this cancer industry corrupt and criminal and all of its fraudulent
non-profit?
Original title: "Twenty-one questions about mammograms, cancer screenings and early detection"
No comments:
Post a Comment