Fwd: Success with Breast Cancer Blood Test NOT WITH Mammograms!

[Guest guest]

*§_@y

" Elaine "

Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:53:37 -0800

Success with Breast Cancer Blood Test NOT WITH

Mammograms!

 

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 co uld

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

 

§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§*§

 

§ - PULSE ON WORLD HEALTH CONSPIRACIES! §

 

Subscribe:......... -

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!