Women with Breast Implants Encouraged To Go Beyond Regular Mammogram Screening

[Guest guest]

http://news./s/prweb/20081028/bs_prweb/prweb1534324_2

[Guest guest]

Mammograms are controversial, as we have discussed on this group

before. I am 49 years old, and I have never had a mammogram, and

don't plan on having one at any time in the foreseeable future. There

are other choices....if anything I will do thermography. I think all

women should have ALL available information to be able to make their

own choices in this matter. Too often we get duped into believing

everything we are told by those in the medical profession who make

wide generalizations about what we should all be doing. I don't buy

it. There are other sides to the story.

This statement can be found in Suzanne Somer's book " Breakthrough " on

page 207:

" Studies show this: Mammograms increase the incidence of breast

cancer from 1 percent to 3 percent, and one radiation oncologist said

it's actually higher than that--it may be as high as 10 percent a year. "

This is part of the discussion. RB is Dr. Blaylock, a brain

surgeon by training, and who saw firsthand the horrible effects of

chemicals on the brain in his practice. He was profoundly shocked to

realize it was happening to younger and younger people. After 26

years of practicing neurosurgery, he has recently chosen to devote his

full attention to nutritional studies and research. He is devoted to

helping patients understand the devastating effects of chemicals on

the human body.

SS: What about radiation?

RB: In some cases it's beneficial, but it's used too much. For

instance, a mammogram is the craziest thing I've heard of in my life.

Radiation is the only known carcinogen for the human breast. Yet,

we're telling women to go every year and have their breasts

irradiated, and if you have a family history of breast cancer, do it

every six months. The reason one has a family history is because one

has defective DNA-repair enzymes. We have special enzymes that will

fix damage to DNA. Radiation damages DNA, and if they already have a

defective ability to fix the DNA and then you're irradiating them

every six months, you are going to increase the incidence of breast

cancer.

SS: Wow. I'm sure alot of women will feel as I do right now. I

believed them and I faithfully had mammograms for 10 years before I

was diagnosed with cancer. This is wrong. This is the information

that has to get out, but business is in the way. Radiation and chemo

and mammograms are big business, and not many women can afford MRI's.

RB: And that is a tragedy. But what rational woman would say, " I have

normal breasts, but I'm going to go out of my way to increase my risk

of developing breast cancer by 30 percent over the next ten years by

having my breasts irradiated " ? That doesn't make rational sense. At

least, if you're going to do it, take curcumin because curcumin has

been shown to prevent radiation-induced breast cancer.

The discussion continues, and if you have the chance to read the book,

I recommend it.

Patty

>

> http://news./s/prweb/20081028/bs_prweb/prweb1534324_2

>