How come there are so many women with breast cancer?
And if the overdiagnosis is the real danger?
Mammography X-ray is carcinogenic!

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Unfortunately, even if you use the outdated model of risk of radiation (which underestimates the damage done), * the weight of scientific evidence (as determined by the work of The Cochrane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). 


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"

Source: http: //www.naturalnews